Harris, Geoffrey Gordon v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd

[1978] FCA 118

- axd -

REASONS FOR DECISION

1978 RZELY ,

T h i s i s an app l i ca t ion unde r S e c t l o n 119 of the

Conc i l i a t ion and Arbi t ra t ion Act 190& (the Act) f o r a pena l t

t o be j-mposed upon Anset t Transport Industr ies (Operat ions)

Pty. Ltd. ( the respondent) f o r an al leged breach of t h e

Anset t Transpol:t Indu.s t r ies (Opera t ions) P t y . L t d , S e n i o r i t y

Award 1977 ( the award) made by consent; by the Flight Crew O f f i c e r s Industrial T r i b u n a l and which came i n t o force on

1st January 1978.

The a l l e g a t i o n made in t h e Surmons as anended a t the

hear ing wi thout ob jec t ion , was that t h e respondent a t Adela . ide

on or aSout the 1 si; day o f A p r i l 1978 cc;mmi.ttccl a ' b r each of

-.

- 2 -

t h e award i n that it "dld a p p o h t Fiigl-it CffLcer R.11.

A i r l i n e s of South Austra , l ia as advised i n the Not ice t o

a l l A.T.I. (Operat ions) Pty. L%.mited p i l o t s d a t e d 10 th

January 1978 f o r Adelaide". S. 4 of th.e Act provides that:

" 'Breach ' i n relation t o a term of an order o r

award, includes a non-observance of t h a t term".

Mr Anderson of counC:el appeared for the claimant and

M r Hayne of counsel appeared f o r the respondent. Each

a g r e e d t o t h e o t h e r c a l l i n g . o r a 1 e v i d e n c e .

Mr Hayne a l so ag reed :

(I) t h a t t h e A u s t r a l i a n F e d e r a t i o n o f A i r P i l o t s ( t h e

Federa t ion) i s a dec lared body f o r the purpose of

t h a t p a r t	of	the	Act	which dea ls wi th f l igh t	crew
o f f i c e r s ;

( 2 ) t h a t the respondent i s a company proper ly incorpora ted ;

(3) t h a t t h e f o u r a i r l i n e s known r e s p e c t i v e l y as Ansett

A i r l i nes o f Aus t r a l i a , Anse t t A i r l i nes of South

Australia, Anse t t A i r l i nes of New South Wales and

MacRobertson Mil ler Air l ine Services are i n f a c t

o p e r a t i n g d i v i s i o n s of the respondent and a rc n o t

- 3 -

dec la red body were an orgC2nisalj.on". The award i s 'binding

upon the Federa t ion and upon the respondent j-n r e s p e c t of

p i l o t s errtployed i n ec?.ch o f t h e d i v i s i o n s of the respondent

whether they be members of the Federat ion o r n o t .

On the f i r s t day o f the hea r ing Mr Hayne objec ted t o

producing cer ta in compmy records on the ground that these

proceedings are cr iminal proceedings. I heard argument on

t h a t a s p e c t a n d on the following morning accounced the

fo l lowing dec is ion:

"Yesterday M r Anderson on behalf of the a p p l i c a n t

c a l l e d f o r the product ion of the respondent ' s

r e c o r d s r e l a t i n g t o t h e t r a n s f e r of Mr P a l l i a e r

t o Melbourne i n 1 9 7 2 . Mr Hayne on behalf of the

respondent cbjected to producing the documents

based on the ground that these proceedings under

s e c t i o n 1.19 of the Act a re- c r imina l proceedings .

In support of that p ropos i t i on Mr I-layne r e l i e d

upon a d e c i s i o n of the Australian I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t

given on 5 September 1 9 7 7 i n Vehicle Baj.lders

Employees Federat3.on of A13strat.i.a v. Gmeral Pfotors- r__l_l__l_.---c-yI-_i. .

Holdcns P t l I .. Ltd. ...-- That d e c i s i o n has n o t y e t been

r epor t ed bu t i s c i t e d i n the supplement to Mills &L

S o r r e l l ' s I n d u s t r i a l Law Serv ice a t pa.ges 363-365.

A dec i s ion o f the A u s t r a l i a n I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t i s n c t

bind:ing upon this Court and tha t i s so even when

of t h ree judges and th i s Cour t i s constLtuted by

-6L-

only one judge as at p r e s e n t . 0 f . c o u r s e a d e c i s l c n

of a I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t Court c . o n s i s t i ~ g of th ree judges of the Aus t ra l ian

i s o f g rea t persuas ive a -u thor i ty .

I-Iowever, the d i f f i c u l - t y i n the present ca .se i s t h a t t h e

Cour t i n t h e V.B.E,.r'. _I decis ion express ly dec l ined t o

f o l l o w t h r e e e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s of t h e I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t .

Those dec is ions a re Park inson ' s . Case _,- (1958) 1 F.L.R. 90;

Telegraph Newspaper v. A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l i s t s '

Associat ion (1962) 3 F.L.R. 39 and Australasian Neat

Industry Employees' Un.ion v . Thomas Play fa i r P ty L td

(1962) 3 F.L.R. 234. The C o u r t i n t h e V.B.E.F. Case

a l s o re fused t o fo l low a dec i s ion o f t h e F u l l Supreme

Court of Queensland i n ' t h e Newstead Warves Case ( 1 9 5 4 )

Q.S.R. 331. The judgment a l s o runs counter t o an

ob i t e r d i c tum of --.. Cussm, J. in Jones v. Lorne Sawnills

(1923) V.L.R. 58.

In these c i rcumstances there appeared t o me t o b e much

t o be sa id fo r t ak ing the cour se of r e fe r r ing th - i s

case t o a Ful l Court of t he Fede ra l Cour t i n o rde r t o

enable th i s impor tan t ques t ion of l a w t o b e a u t h o r i t a t i v e 1

determined. A t my r e q u e s t t h i s p o s s i b l e c o u r s e of a c t i o n

was considered by both par t ies dur ing the luncheon

adjournment yesterday. O n resumption Mr Anderson said,

' M y i n s t ruc t ions a re tha t t he who le ma t t e r which i s

be fo re you i s urgent , and tha t any de lay would be t o t h e

detr iment o f t he app l i can t ' . Accord ing ly he a sked t ha t

the mat te r be dec ided by me w i t h o u t r e f e r r i n g i t t o a

Ful l Cour t . Mr Hayne on behalf of the respondent also

submitted that the ques t ion shou1.d be decided without

r e f e r r i n g t h e m a t t e r a Full Cou.r t . In these

circumstances, a l though I have power t o r e f e r t h e m a t t e r

t o a F u l l Court of my own motion, I s h a l l a c c e d e t o t he

wishes of b o t h p a r t i e s and dec ide the mat te r .

counsel and also t h e LmLkiorities r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e

V.R.E.F. Case I_ a n d , w i t h g r e a t r e s p e c t t o t h e members

of t h e I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t i n the V.R.E.F. - Case, I have

come t o the conclus ion tha t th i s proceeding under

s e c t i o n 119 - is an action foi a penalty and th . a t i t i s

n o t a. cr iminal proceeding.

As t h e m a t t e r i s urgent t ime does not permit me t o

f o r m u l a t e r e a s o n s f o r t h a t c o n c l u s i o n i n a n y d e t a i l

bu t I s h a l l i n d i c a t e t h e way i n which I have approached

the ques t ion .

F i r s t , p u t t i n g all t he cases dea l ing with that s e c t i o n

t o one s ide , I have formed the opinion that , as a mat te r

o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of sec t ion 119 in the con tex t o f t he

A c t , t h e sect!-on does n o t c r e a t e an o f f e n c e , t h a t

proceedings under i t are n o t crlalinal proceedings and

t h a t upon a breach being proved in any such proceeding

i t i s not intended by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t h a t the C o u r t

should convict a respoadent. AccordFngly, i t follows

t h a t t h e onus of proof appropr la te to c r imina l

proceedings does not apply.

Secondly, the reasoning upon which the ear l ier

dec i s ions of t h e Industrial C o u r t are based appears t o

me, w i t h r e s p e c t , t o be co r rec t , suppor t ed as they are

by the dec i s ion of the Queensland Full Court and the

ob i t e r d i c tum by --- Cussc-n, J . i n t h e Lornc Sa .wni I l s Case.

Thirdly, with t h e g r e a t e s t r e s p e c t to the Court in

V.R.E,F. v . G . M . H . , my examination overnight of the

High Court cases cited by the Cour t i n r each ing i t s

conclusion does n o t l ead me t o the same conclusion.

The ques t ion present ly under cens idera t ion does not

-

appear to have been argued before the Hi.& Cour t in

cases .

L a s t l y , I may add the observa t ion t h a t t.he t h r e e d e c i s i o n s

of t h e I n d u s t r i a l Cour t were gi.ven i n the per iod 1.958-1962

t h a t i s from 16-20 years ago. The Conci l ia t ion and

A r b i t r a t i o n Act has been frequent ly amended by t h e

par l iament s ince those c a s e s ; on an average the Act has

been amended more frequent ly than once per year .

For example, the notes in Mi1l.s and S o r r e l 1 show t h a t

s e c t i o n 119 i t s e l f was amended i n 1965, 1970 and 1973.

I a m no t of c o u r s e i m p u t i n g t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a

knowledge of all dec i s ions of a l l C o u r t s a f f e c t i n g t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e Act. However, the ques t ion under

cons ide ra t ion a t present i s not merely an important one;

i t i s qui te fundamenta l to the enforcement of orders and

awards made under the Act.

Given the number of t imes on whi.ch t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s

given i t s a t t e n t i o n t o t he Ac t , i nc lud ing spec i f i c

amendments t o s e c t i o n 119 , i t might be thought surpr i s ing

i f t h e l e g i s ] - a t u r e , o r t hose r e spons ib l e fo r d ra - f t i ng

the va r ious Acts amending the Conc i l i a t ion and Arb i t r a t ion

Act s i n c e 1962, d id no t know of any one of the three

dec i s ions o f the Indus t r j -a1 C o u r t . The a l t e r n a t i v e

p o s i t i o n wou,ld b e t h a t , knowing of them, and pre-sumably

cons ider ing them (on tl.le a rgwnent pu t ) , t o havy been

wrongly decided on such an important matter, they- took

no s t e p s t o c o r r e c t t h e matter by amending t h e

l e g i s l a t i o n .

I do ,no t a t tach . much importance t o t h i s a s p e c t , namely

the absence of any s t eps o f t he l eg i s l a tu re t o amend

t h e s e c t i o n i n o r d e r t o overcome t h e e f f e c t s of the

- 7 -

e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s of t h ~ I n d ~ ~ ~ ; t r < . a l Cou.uL. I f I had

f orned the oyizli.on t h a t t h e e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n s were

wrongly decicied, I w o ~ l d of c , o t ~ ~ s e be required t o g-ive

e f f ec t - t o t ha t op in ion and to so decidc I However, on

t h e c o n t r a r y 1 havL reached t h e conclus i .on tha t the

ea r l i . e r ca ses ~?7ere, if 1 may say s o w i t h r e s p e c t ,

cor rec t ly dec ided . Accord ingly , I r e j e c t M r Hayne's

argument t l m t these proceedings are cr tmj-nal

proceedings.

I t was fu r the r a rgued by Mr Hayne t h a t i f t h e p r e s e n t

proceeding i s no t a c r imina l proceeding , then i t i s a

c iv i l a c t i o n for a pena l ty , and t h a t i n s1x.h a mat te r

the respondent i s not ob l iged t o g ive d i scovery . Ke

relied upon the Assoc ia ted Nor thern Col l ie r ies -- Case

(1910) 11 C.L .R . 738. I accept Mr Hayne's ubmission

on t h i s a s p e c t , and a l s o h i s f u r t . h e r svbrni-ssion t h a t i n

those circumstances the ca l l by Mr Anderson f o r t h e '

product ion of the company records i s a ca l l t h a t i s of

l 1

no e f f e c t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g .

On 20th June 1978 on Lhe o r a l a p p l i c a t i o n of M r Anderson

on behalf of the claimant I made an order under S. 1 0 9 ( l ) ( d )

of t h e Act enjoining the respondent from committing o r

cont inuing a cont ravent ion of t h e Act by w i l f u l l y making

de fau l t i n compl i ance wi th the award u n t i l t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f t h e p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o r l i n matter numbered S.A. No. 2 of

1978 o r furt .her o r d e r and n i par t i cu1a . r r e s t r a in ing the

respondent from appointing Kobert H. P a l l i a e r as a captain

in Anse t t Ai r l ines o f Sou th A u s t r a l i a and from taking any

fur ther s tep towards the compl.et icn of the procedures necessary

-

f o r the g r a n t i n g to Mr Pal.1iaer of a f i r s t c l a s s a i r l . i . n e

t r a n s p o r t p iLot S I.icencc.

T h e hea1:ing of thc i n s t t k r cont:in~~.cci j-n A d e l a i d e u n t i l

t h e afternoon of 2 I s t J-une 1.373 when I adjourned the further

hear ing of the matter until 23rd June 1978 i n Melboxrne.

Because the c la imant ' s counse l s t ressed the urgency of t h e

matter and the respondent 's counsel a l s o a sked tha t t he

matter be decided as soon as p o s s i b l e , I announced t h a t on

23rd June 1378 I would g ive a w r i t t e n d e c i s i o n on the ques t ion

of whether the claimant had established a breach of t h e award

by the respondent . I a l so s t a t e d t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s s h o u l d

a t t e n d on t h a t ? a t e p r e p a r e d t o proceed with the hear ing of

any evidence o r submi.ssions as t o pena l ty , i n t he even t o f

my dec id ing that a breach of the award had been establ ished,

and a i s o wi th the hea r ing of any evidence o r submissions as

t o t he en jo in ing o rde r	made	on	20th June	1978 t o which	I	have
j u s t r e f e r r e d .

By reason of t he sho r t pe r iod of t ime ava i l ab le , I shall

on ly r e fe r ve ry b r i e f ] -y to the . f ac t s e s t ab l i shed be fo re the

Court . These reasons f o r dec i s ion may b e l a t e r e l a b o r a t e d i f

e i t h e r p a r t y so r eques t s , bu t t he p repa ra t ion of any such

e l a b o r a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o be delayed for some t ime by reason

of o t h e r commi.tments.

Th.e c la imant coiriinenced empl.oyment with the respondent

i n t h e A n s e t t A i r l i n e s of South Aus t ra l ian d iv is ion i n 1 9 7 3

and a t all m a t e r i a l times has been so employed as a P i l o t

F i r s t Off icer , becoming -i.n February 1978 the sen io r p i l o t

-

f i . r s t o f f i ce r r e s i . den t ; in South Aus t ra l ia s o employed.

- 9 -

its South Australian. di.visior~ i.n 1964. In 1972, by reason

officers in the South Australian division were declared

redundant by agreement betwecl; two committees. At that

point of time, unless voluntecrs for transfer from South

Australia were to come forward in sufficient numbers, the

result would necessarily be the compulsory t ansfer (czlled

I 1 assignment") of one or more of the six most junior pilots.

At that time by reason of his seniority on the then existing

seniority list, Mr Palliaer would not have been transferred

to Melbourne a.gainst his will if he had not volunteered.

He volunteered for a transfer from the South Australian

division to work in Melbourne with Ansett Airlines of

Australia. The notice to all pilots dated 10th January 1978 'referred

to.in the Summons, was over the signature of Mr Crabb, the

operations manager of the Soxlth Australian division, who

give evidence in this matter.	The notice imcluded the
following (inter a1i.a) :

l? In accordance wi.th the recent Tribunal decision and

the consequential A.T.I. (9) Seniority Award (effective

1./1/78) eligible pilots are invj-ted to submit bids for

F27 Fil-st Officer vacancies whFch currently exist in

A.T.I. (0) Pty. Ltd. in Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane

a.nd Cairns and consequential vacancies which m a y a r i s e .

Bids s h o u l d stipulate 0~1e or more bid preferences in crder

of priolrity. B i d only for those domi.ciles to which you

are prepared t-o move. -

Awards wi..ll be made Tn accordance with Section 39.C. 4.F. P 1

of the Airline 1'ilot.s hgeemcn t 1.977.

- 19 -

ass ignment" re fer red t o i n !:he S.umrncjL?s which I have se t ou t

i n f u l l e a r l i e r . I t i s t1lz.t appointment which the appljcztnt

contends i s i n b r e a c h of t h e provLsions of the award.

The award incl-udes the fol lowing clauses:

I 1 2 . A S e n i o r i t y L i s t which appears as the Schedule here to

and forms part o€ t h i s award ( r e f e r r e d t o h e r e i n as the

A . T . I . Senior i ty Lis t ) has been compiled from the number

and names of p i l o t s u.pon the fol l .owing basis : . . .

3. P i l o t s w i t h l e s s e r s e n i o r i t y r i g h t s t h a n F/@F. Scholma

on t h e A . T . I . S e n i o r i t y L i s t and any subsequent current

A . T . P . S e n i o r i t y Lis t slza11. b e e n t i t l e d t c : c ros s b id

r i g h t s i n a n y d i v i s i o n ' o f A . T . I . f o r system vacancies

a d v e r t i s e d a f t e r 30 June 1 9 7 8 , us ing the bid rul-es of

t h e A i r l i n e P i l o t s ' Agreement 1.977 as amended from time

t o t ime except for F27/F28 F i r s t Off icers ' systems

vacancies which shall be open f o r b id fo r thwi th .

4 . P i l o t s with h i g h e r s e n i o r i t y r i g h t s t h a n L.H. Yeates

on the A . T . I . S e n i o r i t y L i s t and any subsequent current

A.T. I . S e n i o r i t y L i s t sha l l have cross b i d r i g h t s t o s y s t e ~

v a c a n c i e s a d v e r t i s e d i n a n o t h e r d i v i s i o n a f t e r 30 June, 19

by bidding down t o a r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o r o n e t o another

immediately above the most senior pi lot recrui ted s ince

and including 20 November, 1972 i n t h a t d i v i s i o n . ' Sh.ou1d

such p i lo t s subsequent ly bj-d f o r a vacancy in the i r pa ren t

d iv i s ion , t he i r b id sha l l be cons ide red in acco rdance

w i t h t h e i r s e n i o r i t y p o s i t i o n on the then cu r ren t A.T. I .

S e n i o r i t y !.ist. P i l o t s who have been retrenched f r o m any

d i v i s i o n shall have irmleciiate r i g h t s t o bid any such

sys tem vacancies wi th in the i r p rev ious d iv is ion .

...

8 . A t r u e copy of t h i s award and t h e A.T. I . Se-nior i ty L i s

shall be provided t o each A . T . I . P i l o t .

9 . In t h i s award :

I Divisli-on' means any A.T.I. s u b s i d i a r y , i . e . A . O . A . ,

A.N.S.W.,	A . S . A .	and M.M.A.
l

Parent Dj-vision' means the Div i s ion in w h i c h a p i l o t i s

employed on 1. Janu .ary 1978.

I 1

... -

- 17. -

tZle responcdent had committed a breach of the award. Before

doing s o , h e a l s o s u t z i t t e d that. the s tandard of proof in

these proce.edings i s t h a t of proof beyond rea.sonable doubt but

d id no t s eek to addres s the Cour t fu r the r on t h a t a s p e c t , h a v i n

r e g a r d t o t h e r u l i n g g i v e n on 20th June l 9 7 8 which I have se t

out e a r l i e r . I n t h a t r u l i n g I expressed the view that the onus

of p roof appropr ia te to c r imina l proceedings does not apply i f

the proceeding i s (as I have held) an a c t i o n f o r a penal ty .

Speaking o f a c t i o n s for a p e n a l t y , t h e A u s t r a l i a n I n d u s t r i a l

Cour t	i n	V.E.E.F.	v. General. Motors Holdens Pty Ltd	- ( supra)
s a i d :

II It fo l lows t h e r e f o r e t h a t s u b j e c t t o the views

expressed by Dixon J. i n Br j . g inshw -I- v. Bripinshaw "UL,

t h e c i v i l o n u s a p p l i e s t o such proceedings".

M r Hayne's f i r s t submission was t h a t a l l of t h e s5.x

p i . l o t s who t r ans fe r r ed f rom the Sou th Aus t r a l i an d iv i s ion in

1 9 7 2 , inc luding rJlr Pal l iaer , f e l l w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e

( 1 1 1

words P i l o t s who have been retrenched from any di.vision . . .

a p p e a r i n g i n t h e	las t	sentence	of	c. lause 4	of	the award,	w12ic;h
SI

I have s e t o u t above. He s a i d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t f a i 1 . s i n

showtng t h a t t h e l a s t sentence o f c l a u s e 4 of h i s Honour' S

award d i d n o t a u t h o r i z e the appointment". He argued tha.t a

? I

p i l o t h a s been retrencl-led fromt' a d i v i s i o n i f he ceased

- I. 2 --

witll in thpLt; d j -vis ian t o ~E!L'.[C)X> t h ~ a ~ a i L I' \mrk. . I-IE:

1 1

al-gued that- a p i l o t has been "retrerlched from a division

if t h e r e :cas a c a u s a l l i n k b&\i~ee1:~ 1li.s ceasing t o s e r v e i n

a d iv i s ion and an event (e .g . an cversuppl>; of p i l o t s ) which

was not brozght abiriut by t h e employee concerned.

Mr I-Iayne furtl-,er s u b r l i t t e d t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t th.e

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h o s e p i l o t s who a r e t o cease se rv ice i s an

i d e n t i f i c a t t o n a t th .e choice of the pi lots concerned i s

i r r e l e v a n t . Mr Hayne's argument went t o the exten t tha t where

t h e f a c t o f t he re be ing su rb lus p i lo t s i s even one of the

causes in a p i l o t c e a s i n g t o se rve wi th in . a d iv i s ion and

t r a n s f e r r i n g t o a n o t h e r d i v i s i o n of the respondent ' s employment

1)

t h e n t h a t p i l o t i s re t renched froxIt t h e d i v i s i o n e v e n i f t h e

p i l o t had f o r many years s t rong ly des i r ed t o make such a

t r a n s f e r and merely took advantage of the oppor tuni ty t o

achieve a t r a n s f e r t o a n o t h e r d i v i s i o n . A s M r Hayne put i t

t h e f a c t t h a t a p i l o t saw t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e as b e i n g a t t r a c t i v e

d id n o t a l t e r the conclusion t h . a t a cause of h i s leav ing was

t h a t t h e r e were surplus p i l o t s , and tha t was an event beyond

t h e c o n t r o l of t h e p i l o t conce:rned.

1 1

The d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e word r e t r ench" i n t he Shor t e r

Oxford English Dictionary i.ncl-v-de the following:

- 13 -

i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s	i s wide	enough	to suppor t	the a rgxncnt
I1

t h a t Mr Pal . l iaer was retrenched f rom any divisioil" on the

f a c t s or' this case. There were surplus p i . l o t s b u t t h e s i x

p i lo t s p roposed t o be retrenched would not have inclu.dcd

Mr	P a l l i a c r i f t h e	p i l o t s were	retrenched	on the p r i n c i p l e of
1)

last o n , f i r s t o f f " o r as i t i s sometimes expressed "f i rs t

i n , last out". In any event , the f a c t i s t h a t Nr Pa . l l i ae r

volunteered to ta .ke a t r a n s f e r from South Australia t o Melbourn8

A f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n w h i c h a r i s e s i n c o n s i d e r i n g c l a u s e 4

l 1

i s whether the words p i lo t s who have been retrench.ed" means

p i l o t s who have been retrenched a t any t ime including

retrenchments occurr ing before the operat ive date of the

* t

award. I.lr Hayne submi t t ed t ha t the words have been retrenched

re fer t o p i l c l t s who were retrenched before t h e o p e r a t i v e d a t e

o f . t h e award and t h a t t h e meaning of t he sen tence may be l imi t e

i n such a way t h a t i t ope ra t e s t o confe r r igh t s on ly upon those

p i l o t s who were retrenched before t he coming i . n t o opera t ion of

t h e award and not upon those who have been s ince tha t da t e o r

may be i n t h e f u t u r e .

A s Elr Anderson did not put a contrary argument on t h i s

a s p e c t , I s h a l l n o t express any concluded view on i t , b u t i n

- 14 -

t h e a f t e r t h e d a t e 3f conli.r:Z in!:.o opc?va.ti.on of the award.

II

1.n t.he contex t I do not regard ttre 11se of t h e words who

have been" as necessa r i ly i r i d i ca t ing an)' i n t en t ion to confe l -

r i g h t s i n l 9 7 8 upon persons .c\if?o were retrenched in 1 9 7 2 o r

a t a n e a r l i e r d a t e .

Mr Hayne p l aced r e l i ance upon the use of the p a s t t e n s e

l?

i n t h e words have been", however, i n d e a l i n g with. a p o s s i b l e

event a t some time a f t e r t h e coming i n t o o p e r a t i o n of t h e award

( i . e . when such a retrenchment of p i lo t s has t aken p l ace ) t he

1 1

award may i n t e n d t h a t t h o s e , p i l o t s who have been retrenched"

s h a l l have c e r t a i n r i g h t s . Some s u p p o r t f o r th .a t view may be

?I

gained from the use of the word immediate" i n t h e words

1 1 sha l l have immedia t e r i gh t s t o b id" . So worded, the

sentence may be more appropr i a t e t o c o n f e r r i g h t s a t a time

a f t e r t h e coming i n t o o p e r a t i o n of the award and upon the

happening o f an event , namely, the ret renchment o f p i l o t s ,

I t

upon which event th .e p i lo t s who have been retrenched" are

I 1 l1

given immedi.ate r-ights to b id" . The word imn~ediate' ' may

l ?

be thought t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r i g h t s " c o n f e r r e d by t h a t

sentence of the a~::.j:d a r e r i g h t s which a r e t o come i n t o f o r c e

I 1

immediately the p i l - o t s have been retrenched".

I f t h e i n t en t ion were , as Mr Hapc contends, to con-fer

th .ose r ights immediately the awa.rd cane i .nto operation upon all

p i l o t s a l r e a d y i n the s e r v i c e of the respondent who had been

1 1

a t any time in the past rc t - rencl- : :d f rom any divis ion" then it

-

would 1Llave been muc-h e a s i e r - and c l e a r e r - t o have said " a l l

Ln my view i t i s also open t o argument that t h e word

f I r e t r enched" in c l ause 4 of t h e award means r e t r enched in the

sense of t h e r e l e v a n t c o n t r a c t of employment having been

terminated by the ernplcyer - as d i s t i n c t from a compulsory

t r a n s f e r from oae d i v i s i o n t o a n o t h e r . On t h i s a s p e c t ( i n t e r

a l i a ) Mr Hayne a t tached impor tance to the use of t h e words

I t frolr, ar,y d iv is ion" and argued tha t the s t r ic t l e g a l p o s i t i o n

should be put t o one side and the consent award should be

t r e a t e d as proceeding upon t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e d i v i s i o n s i n t h e

respolldent 's	employment	a r e t o b e t r e a t e d	as	separate employers
) l

I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n of t h e words from any d iv i s ion"

may have been in tended by the par t ies who draf ted the consent

award t o have extended the concept of retrenchment i n t h e

sense of t e rmina t ion of cmploym.ent t o a concept of retrenchment

i n a d i f f e ren t s ense , name ly , a cessa t ion of employment i n

the pa r t i cu la r d iv i s ion conce rned b rough t abou t by a compulsory

t r a n s f e r - o r assignment - t o a n o t h e r d i v i s i o n o f the

respondent ' s employment. I-Iowever , Mr Anderson, when asked

as t o t h i s m a t t e r , s a i d :

I 1 I t h i n k I would have, i f required, conceded th .a t i t

could ha.ve covered a s i t u a t i o n of a p i l o t 1~7€1'3se

serv ices were invo?untar i l .y t ransfer red . 1 t h ink I

I t

would I n those circumstances have conceded that .

I shal l -agaiz express no c o n c l ~ ~ d e d vi.ew

- 3. G -

nevc r the l e s s t he award d;d n o t :impose any obllgation upon the

respozldent	t o r e f r a i n	f rm a p p o h t i n g M r	Pa l l i ae - r t o the
vacancy.

I accept the following submissions by Mr Hayne:

t h a t t h e r e i s no expres s p roh ib i t i on i.n t h e award a g a i n s t

the appointment o f Mr Pa1.liae-r t o the vacancy;

tha t the Cour t should not h o l d t h a t there i s any such

o b l i g a t i o n on t h e ernployer by impl ica t ion from t h e award

u n l e s s the ma t t e r i s p l a i n beyond doubt;

t ? ..

t h a t t h e C o u r t 1x1 construing the award, which i s

e s s e n t i a l l y t h e t a s k that i s raLsed by t h i s l i m b of

the argument . . . may c e r t ~ i n l - y t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e

f a c t t h a t t h e A i r l i n e P i l o t s ' Agreenent 1 9 7 7 e x i s t e d

a t t h e tiille of t h e making o f the award; that Lhat

document; had n o t been c e r t i f i e d as an award and, of

I t

course , was n o t i t s e l f a n award" and ought t o t a k e i n t o

account the f a c t th.ai; t h e parties had, before the making

of the award, r e g u l a t e d t h e i r a f f a i r s by refere-rlce to

the l a w of c o n t r a c t and n o t by r e f e r e n c e t o award

obl iga t ion" .

t

I do not accept Mr I-Iayne S submission that the app l i can t

- 17 -

event I do no:- c o n s i d e r t h a t t7 '1 mere f a c t t h a t t h e award

refers t.o t he Ai r l . i ne P i lo t s ' Agreement 1 9 7 7 necessZ. r i .1~

preve-nts the a.ward from being a complete and en t i r e code .

P4r Hayne a l so subn iL ted tha t the purpose of the a.wa.rd

was a clcar1.y	l imited purpose	a-nd	tha t - t ha t pu rpose	1t7as
1 )

t o c r e a t e a l i s t of s e n i o r i t y , t o be used immediately;

t o c r e a t e t h e mechanism for de te rminlng the s e n i o r i t y l i s t on

the happening of cer ta in fu . tu . re events and t o p r e s c r i b e sorne

l i m i t e d a d d i t i o n a l r i g h t s s u c h as t h e r i g h t c r e a t e d by t h e

las t sentence of c l a u s e 4":

Another \h7297 of expres s ing th i s a spec t of M r Hayne's

submission i s t h a t he c o n t e n d s t h e p a r t i e s , i n a g r e e i n g upon

the te rms of their proposed consent award, intended that tlze

award should be l imi ted to the s t ruc ture and conten t of an

i n t e g r a t e d s e n i o r i t y l i s t a n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s e l e c t e d t o

leave t o t he ope ra t ion of c o n t r a c t law the ques t ion of; whether

appointments should be made in acco rdance wi th tha t l i s t . He

d i d n o t s u g g e s t t h a t i t would have been open t o the respondent

as a mat ter of c o n t r a c t 1 . a ~ to appoint ; a p i l o t i n a way t h a t is

n o t i n accordance with the l i s t bu t 'he submit ted that such an

appoin tment ( i . e . no t in accordance wi th the l i s t ) was not a

breach of the award e v m i f i t amounted t o a. breach of c o n t r a c t

(as t o whi.ch of course he made. no concession) .

I t was a l s o the submissio-tl for t he r e sponden t t ha t ,

a l though t h e r e was a c o r r e l a t i v e dUty on the employer i n

-

The award of course is n o t i n i t s terms l imited sircp1.y t o

de t e rmin ing t he s t ruc tu re or content of the l i s t . For example

in c lau-ses 3 and 4 it co.nfers s p e c i f i c r i g h t s on c e r t s i n

classes of p i l o t s , i n c l u d i n g p i l o t s w h o have I x c m retrenched.

In my v iew, the r igh ts confer red by , for example , the f i r s , t

sentence of clause 4 of the award cannot be read as being

I t

merely a r i g h t t o b i d " w i t h o u t a n y c o r r e l a t i v e d u t y on t h e

employer t o accept that b id xhere i t i s in accordance wi th

t h e s e n i o r i t y l i s t and i s n o t con t r a ry t o any express

p rov i s ion of the award.

I n my view, the int .ent ion of the award was t o require

the respondent employer t o r e f r a i n from appoin t ing t o a

vacancy a p i l c t except i n accordance with t h e i n t e g r a t e d

s e n i o r i t y l i s t es tabl- ished by t h e a1t7ard. After careful-

c.onsi,deration of the extremely able advocacy by I . f r I-layne

of h i s c a r e f u l l y preparcr-l and s t o u t l y m;?.i.ntained argunen t

on behalf of the respondent , I am unable t o accep t t he

the respondent, being obl iged by the award to re fuse to receL

such a b i d from Mr P a l l - i a e r , was a l s o required by t h e award

w11icl1 the award dLd not entitle him to b id . . Accordingly, i n

my ~ 7 i . e ~ t h e respondent did commit a breach o f the award i n

- a p p o i n t i n g Mr P a l l i a e r to fi1-1. the v a c a n t equipment asL;ip:nen

- -- ..

l