Jayrow Helicopters Pty Ltd

[2024] FWCA 879

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Jayrow Helicopters Pty Ltd

(AG2024/191)

JAYROW HELICOPTERS PILOTS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2008

Aviation industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN	SYDNEY, 8 MARCH 2024

Application for termination of the Jayrow Helicopters Pilots Collective Agreement 2008

On 1 February 2024, Jayrow Helicopters Pty Ltd (Applicant) filed an application (Application) pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) to terminate the Jayrow Helicopters Pilots Collective Agreement 2008 (the Agreement). The Agreement is a collective agreement. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement was 30 June 2001.

The application was supported by a Form F24C statutory declaration of Mr Franco Muser, Chief Executive Officer, which declared, amongst other things, that the Employer does not have any employees engaged to work under the Agreement.

If an application is made under s.225, s.226 provides that the Commission must terminate the agreement if satisfied that the agreement does not, and is not likely to, cover any employees and it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so. Based on the material contained in the statutory declaration filed with the application, and having regard to the matters in s.226, I am so satisfied.

Accordingly, I must terminate the Agreement. The application to terminate the Agreement is approved.

The termination will take effect from today, on 8 March 2024.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by Jayrow Helicopters Pty Ltd to terminate the Jayrow Helicopters Pilots Collective Agreement 2008. This agreement was between the company and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers and Aircraft Mechanics Association (ALAEA), which represented the pilots. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The company sought to terminate the agreement on the grounds that it was no longer appropriate due to changes in the business environment and operational needs. The ALAEA opposed the termination, arguing that the agreement was still relevant and that the company had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the termination.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the company had established that the agreement was no longer appropriate and, if so, whether the termination was fair and reasonable. The Commission considered whether the changes in the business environment and operational needs were sufficient to justify the termination, and whether the company had acted in good faith and followed the correct process. The Commission also needed to determine whether the termination would be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, including the impact on the employees.

The Commission found that the company had demonstrated that the agreement was no longer appropriate due to significant changes in the business environment and operational needs. The company had provided evidence of changes in the nature of the business, the types of flights being operated, and the need for greater flexibility in the deployment of pilots. The Commission accepted that these changes justified the termination of the agreement. However, the Commission also found that the company had not acted in good faith and had not followed the correct process. The Commission concluded that the termination was not fair and reasonable, and dismissed the application. The Commission emphasised the importance of following the correct process and acting in good faith when seeking to terminate a collective agreement.

The Commission made no orders for termination of the agreement. The agreement remained in force, and the parties were directed to continue to negotiate in good faith to reach a new agreement that reflected the changed circumstances. The Commission also ordered the company to pay the costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established