Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited t/a Qantas

Case

[2017] FWC 1526

4 APRIL 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited t/a Qantas [2017] FWC 1526 [2017] FWC 1526 4 APRIL 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) sought a scope order from the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) in relation to expired enterprise agreements with Qantas Airways Limited (the Respondent). The expired agreements covered two different maintenance functions within the aircraft maintenance industry: line maintenance and base (heavy) maintenance. These maintenance functions were performed in different geographic locations and involved different types of employees. The Applicant argued that the two expired agreements should be replaced by a single agreement to avoid inconvenience and duplication, and to promote fair and efficient conduct of bargaining.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether good faith bargaining requirements had been met, whether the application was premature, and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to make the scope order. The Commission noted that there was a long history of separate negotiations for the two agreements, and that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the good faith bargaining requirements had been met. The Commission further found that a scope order would not promote fair or efficient bargaining and that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to make the scope order.

In dismissing the application, the Commission considered the relevant principles and found that the Applicant had not satisfied section 238(4) of the Act. The Commission concluded that the application was premature and that the good faith bargaining requirements had not been met. The Commission did not consider it reasonable in all the circumstances to make the scope order, and the application was dismissed.

No orders were made by the Commission as the application was dismissed. The Commission did not consider it appropriate to make any orders in relation to the scope of bargaining, given the circumstances of the case. The parties were directed to continue bargaining in good faith in relation to the two separate agreements.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment & Labour Law

Legal Concepts

  • Good Faith Bargaining

  • Enterprise Agreements

  • Scope Order

  • Procedural Fairness