DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.602 - Application to correct obvious error(s) etc. in relation to FWC's decision

Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd T/A Qantaslink
(ADM2015/9)

Airline operations
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE	SYDNEY, 7 DECEMBER 2015

Application by Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd T/A Qantaslink.

[1] On 30 September 2015, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a Decision [2015] FWCA 6719 (the approval Decision), approving of the Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Limited Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2015(the Agreement). The application for approval of the Agreement was made by Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Limited (the Employer). The Agreement covered the Employer, its employees, the Australian and International Pilots Association (the AIPA), and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (the AFAP).

[2] On 24 November 2015, the Employer made an application (the correction application), seeking that the Commission exercise powers under s. 602 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), to correct an obvious error, defect or irregularity arising from the approval Decision. The correction application sets out the grounds for the order or relief sought and it included, inter alia, a statutory declaration of Simon Jeffrey Brown declared on 17 November 2015 (the Brown declaration). Mr Brown was a person authorised to make the statutory declaration on behalf of the Employer and he was a bargaining representative in relation to the Agreement.

[3] Relevantly, the Brown declaration stated that the agreement document that had been provided with the application for approval was a document that was an earlier version of the proposed enterprise agreement and not a copy of the proposed enterprise agreement that was approved by employees. Consequently, the document which was the subject of the approval Decision was not the correct document that represented the enterprise agreement that had been made in accordance with s.182 of the Act.

[4] The correction application has sought that the Commission amend the approval Decision so that it refer to the enterprise agreement made in accordance with s. 182 of the Act rather than the earlier version of the agreement document which had been erroneously included with the approval application. A copy of the enterprise agreement that had been made in accordance with s. 182 of the Act was attached to the Brown declaration and marked as “SB-1”.

[5] The correction application also included a statutory declaration of Catherine Alexandra Larkins made on behalf of the AFAP, and which agreed with the contents of the Brown declaration and supported the correction application. Further, the correction application also included a statutory declaration of Jason Lipson made on behalf of the AIPA, and which agreed with the contents of the Brown declaration and supported the correction application.

[6] The Commission has considered the correction application and the supporting materials that were provided including the Brown declaration and the declarations made on behalf of both the AFAP and the AIPA. The Commission determines that an obvious error has occurred in respect to the document that is referenced in the approval Decision. Therefore pursuant to s. 602 of the Act a correction order shall be made to the approval Decision. The correction Order shall remove the existing agreement document that is referenced in the approval Decision and it shall be replaced with the document “SB-1” attached to the Brown declaration.

[7] The appropriate correction Order shall be issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd T/A Qantaslink applied to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for an exemption from certain regulations concerning the carriage of dangerous goods. The application was denied, leading to this appeal to the Civil Aviation Tribunal. The central issue before the tribunal was whether the proposed exemption would maintain a high standard of safety in air transport. The tribunal considered whether the exemption would still meet the safety standards set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and whether the proposed measures could sufficiently mitigate any risks associated with carrying dangerous goods.

The tribunal examined the evidence provided by Qantaslink regarding their safety protocols and risk assessments. It assessed whether these measures were sufficient to ensure the safe carriage of dangerous goods without compromising the overall safety of the flight. The tribunal also considered the potential impact of granting the exemption on the broader aviation safety framework. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that Qantaslink had not demonstrated that their proposed measures would maintain the required safety standards. The tribunal found that the risks associated with carrying dangerous goods could not be adequately mitigated by the proposed exemption.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The tribunal emphasised the importance of maintaining high safety standards in air transport and the need to ensure that any exemptions do not compromise these standards. The tribunal noted that the onus was on Qantaslink to prove that the proposed exemption would not result in any significant safety risks. As Qantaslink had not met this burden of proof, the tribunal found that the exemption should not be granted. The tribunal's decision highlighted the rigorous safety requirements that must be met before any exemptions are considered in the aviation industry.

Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd T/A Qantaslink

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established