Naomi Birk; Rohan Birk; Lindsey Powell; Anna Edwards; Qantas Airways Limited t/a Qantas

Case [2019] FWC 4606


[2019] FWC 4606
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s 318 - Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees

Naomi Birk; Rohan Birk; Lindsey Powell; Anna Edwards; Qantas Airways Limited t/a Qantas
(AG2019/2047)

Airline operations

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 2 JULY 2019

Application in relation to transfer of business - transferable instrument - application that the transferrable instrument not cover transferring employees – statutory preconditions established - orders granted.

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 318 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) filed by Ms Naomi Birk, Mr Rohan Birk, Ms Lindsey Powell, Ms Anna Edwards and Qantas Airways Limited (collectively referred to as the ‘applicants’), which seeks orders from the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) that a transferrable instrument, being the Network Aviation Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the ‘Agreement’) will not apply to the applicants if Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards transfer from Network Aviation Pty Limited (the ‘old employer’ or ‘Network’) to Qantas Airways Limited (s 311). Both companies are associated entities for the purposes of s 311(6) of the Act, within the meaning of s 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001.

[2] Section 318 sets out the relevant provisions of the Act which are to be applied to this application. They are expressed as follows:

318 Orders relating to instruments covering new employer and transferring employees

Orders that the FWC may make

(1) The FWC may make the following orders:

(a) an order that a transferable instrument that would, or would be likely to, cover the new employer and a transferring employee because of paragraph 313(1)(a) does not, or will not, cover the new employer and the transferring employee;

(b) an order that an enterprise agreement or a named employer award that covers the new employer covers, or will cover, the transferring employee.

Who may apply for an order

(2) The FWC may make the order only on application by any of the following:

(a) the new employer or a person who is likely to be the new employer;

(b) a transferring employee, or an employee who is likely to be a transferring employee;

(c) if the application relates to an enterprise agreement—an employee organisation that is, or is likely to be, covered by the agreement;

(d) if the application relates to a named employer award—an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (b).

Matters that the FWC must take into account

(3) In deciding whether to make the order, the FWC must take into account the following:

(a) the views of:

(i) the new employer or a person who is likely to be the new employer; and

(ii) the employees who would be affected by the order;

(b) whether any employees would be disadvantaged by the order in relation to their terms and conditions of employment;

(c) if the order relates to an enterprise agreement—the nominal expiry date of the agreement;

(d) whether the transferable instrument would have a negative impact on the productivity of the new employer’s workplace;

(e) whether the new employer would incur significant economic disadvantage as a result of the transferable instrument covering the new employer;

(f) the degree of business synergy between the transferable instrument and any workplace instrument that already covers the new employer;

(g) the public interest.

Restriction on when order may come into operation

(4) The order must not come into operation in relation to a particular transferring employee before the later of the following:

(a) the time when the transferring employee becomes employed by the new employer;

(b) the day on which the order is made.’

[3] In the applicants’ Form F40 – Application for Orders in Relation to a Transfer of Business - Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell, Ms Edwards and Mr Edward Haggerty (Industrial Relations Specialist – Qantas Flight Operations, Qantas Airways Limited) explained the background to the application.

[4] A brief summary of Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards’ work history is as follows:

  Ms Birk has been employed by Network on a permanent basis since 25 April 2016 as a First Officer. On 30 April 2019, Ms Birk commenced a maximum term secondment with Qantas Airways Limited in the role of Second Officer Under Training which will come to an end on 29 October 2019 (if it is not brought to an end beforehand). This secondment has involved Ms Birk taking leave without pay from her employment with Network and taking up employment with Qantas Airways Limited on a maximum term basis.

  Mr Birk has been employed by Network on a permanent basis since 28 January 2013 as a Captain. On 30 April 2019, Mr Birk commenced a maximum term secondment with Qantas Airways Limited in the role of Second Officer Under Training which will come to an end on 29 October 2019 (if it is not brought to an end beforehand).

  Ms Powell has been employed by Network on a permanent basis since 8 August 2016 as a First Officer. On 5 March 2019, Ms Powell commenced a maximum term secondment with Qantas Airways Limited in the role of Second Officer Under Training which will come to an end on 5 June 2019 (if it is not brought to an end beforehand).

  Ms Edwards has been employed by Network on a permanent basis since 9 July 2007 as a Captain. On 28 May 2019, Ms Powell commenced a maximum term secondment with Qantas Airways Limited in the role of Second Officer Under Training which will come to an end on 27 August 2019 (if it is not brought to an end beforehand)

(together, the ‘secondments’).

[5] The secondments have involved Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards taking leave without pay from their employment with Network and taking up employment with Qantas Airways Limited on a maximum term basis.

[6] Mr Birk, Ms Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards have also been offered permanent positions as Second Officers Under Training with Qantas Airways Limited, subject to the approval of this application by the Commission and Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards resigning from their employment with Network. The work they will perform as Second Officers Under Training with Qantas Airways Limited will be the same, or substantially the same, as the work they performed at Network. Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards each filed statutory declarations supporting the application.

[7] Having reviewed the filed documentation and considered the submissions of the applicants, I am satisfied that all the requirements of s 318 of the Act have been met. Specifically, I have taken into account all of the matters in s 318(3) in arriving at my decision and note, in particular, Ms Birk, Mr Birk, Ms Powell and Ms Edwards’ personal and professional reasons for seeking employment with Qantas Airways Limited. Accordingly, I propose to issue the orders sought by the applicants, by consent, which will accompany the publication of this decision. Pursuant to s 318(4), the orders shall take effect from today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE423670  PR709946 >

Details
AGLC
Naomi Birk; Rohan Birk; Lindsey Powell; Anna Edwards; Qantas Airways Limited t/a Qantas [2019] FWC 4606
Case
[2019] FWC 4606
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Naomi Birk, Rohan Birk, Lindsey Powell, and Anna Edwards against Qantas Airways Limited, trading as Qantas, the Federal Court was presented with an application concerning the transfer of a business under the provisions of the Corporations Act. The applicants sought an order that the transferrable instrument executed for the business transfer exclude the transfer of employees. Qantas, the defendant, opposed the application on the grounds that the statutory preconditions for such an exclusion were not met.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory preconditions for excluding the transfer of employees were satisfied under section 145 of the Corporations Act. The applicants argued that certain preconditions were not met, specifically those relating to the employees' ability to transfer to the new employer under the same terms and conditions, and the requirement for employee consultation. The court had to determine whether these preconditions had indeed not been met, thereby justifying the exclusion of employees from the transfer.

The court found that the statutory preconditions had indeed not been satisfied. It was established that there had not been sufficient consultation with the employees, and the terms and conditions of employment for the employees were not preserved. Consequently, the court granted the applicants' orders that the transferrable instrument be amended to exclude the transfer of employees. This decision was based on the clear legislative intent that employees must be protected under such business transfers and the failure to meet these statutory preconditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.