Flight Attendants' Association of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited
Case
•
[2020] FWC 6392
•4 DECEMBER 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Flight Attendants' Association of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited [2020] FWC 6392
[2020] FWC 6392
4 DECEMBER 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia brought an application against Qantas Airways Limited before the Fair Work Commission, seeking to have a dispute resolved by arbitration. The dispute centred around matters arising under three enterprise agreements, specifically the calculation of redundancy payments for flight attendants, and the inclusion of prior service with associated entities and casual service in these calculations. The pandemic’s impact on Qantas was also considered in the context of these disputes. The core legal issues before the Commission were the interpretation of the terms "service" and "continuous service" as they pertain to redundancy payments under the agreements, and whether periods of service with associated entities or casual service should be factored into these calculations.
The Commission carefully examined the language of the agreements, focusing on the definitions of "service" and "continuous service" in relation to various entitlements and benefits. It noted that while the agreements contained definitions for these terms in relation to specific benefits, there were no references to redundancy pay being calculated by reference to past service. The Commission held that the agreements did not require the inclusion of prior service with associated entities or casual service when calculating redundancy pay, and that these terms were not ambiguous. The principles of statutory interpretation did not permit consideration of surrounding circumstances, and thus the agreements did not mandate the inclusion of such periods in redundancy calculations. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application, finding that the respondents were not required to include past service in redundancy pay calculations.
As the Commission dismissed the application, no orders were made. The decision stands as a clear interpretation of the enterprise agreements in question, affirming that certain periods of service are not to be considered in calculating redundancy payments for flight attendants.
The Commission carefully examined the language of the agreements, focusing on the definitions of "service" and "continuous service" in relation to various entitlements and benefits. It noted that while the agreements contained definitions for these terms in relation to specific benefits, there were no references to redundancy pay being calculated by reference to past service. The Commission held that the agreements did not require the inclusion of prior service with associated entities or casual service when calculating redundancy pay, and that these terms were not ambiguous. The principles of statutory interpretation did not permit consideration of surrounding circumstances, and thus the agreements did not mandate the inclusion of such periods in redundancy calculations. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application, finding that the respondents were not required to include past service in redundancy pay calculations.
As the Commission dismissed the application, no orders were made. The decision stands as a clear interpretation of the enterprise agreements in question, affirming that certain periods of service are not to be considered in calculating redundancy payments for flight attendants.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Collective Bargaining
-
Redundancy Payments
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Enterprise Agreements
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd T/A Downer Group [2020] FWC 4619
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
AMWU v Berri Pty Ltd
[2017] FWCFB 3005
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd
[1896] UKHL 1
AMIEU v Golden Cockerel Pty Ltd
[2014] FWCFB 7447