Phi International Australia Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 786

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Phi International Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2025/286)

PHI INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA BROOME AND TRUSCOTT HELICOPTER PILOTS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024

Airline operations
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS	SYDNEY, 3 MARCH 2025

Application for approval of the PHI International Australia Broome and Truscott Helicopter Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2024

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the PHI International Australia Broome and Truscott Helicopter Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Phi International Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

On the basis of the material provided I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 of the Act as is relevant to this application for approval has been met.

I note that Clause 4.4 of the Agreement provides that where there is an inconsistency between this Agreement and the National Employment Standards (NES), and the NES provides a greater benefit, the better provision will apply to the extent of the inconsistency.

The Australian Federation of Airline Pilots (AFAP) lodged a Form F18 statutory declaration giving notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note the Agreement covers the AFAP.

The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 January 2028.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the PHI International Australia Broome and Truscott Helicopter Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2024. The applicant, PHI International Australia, sought to have the agreement registered under the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement was intended to govern the employment terms and conditions of helicopter pilots employed by the company. The dispute arose as the agreement had not been approved by the relevant unions and some employees argued that it did not meet the standards required by the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing whether the agreement had been fairly negotiated and whether it contained the minimum terms and conditions as prescribed by the Act. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the agreement had been properly presented and whether there was any evidence of non-compliance with the statutory provisions.

In delivering its decision, the Commission first examined the negotiation process and the evidence provided by the parties. It noted that the agreement had been negotiated between the applicant and the representative unions. The Commission found that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith and that the agreement had been made without any undue influence or coercion. The Commission then assessed the content of the agreement against the minimum terms and conditions set out in the Fair Work Act. It concluded that the agreement met all the statutory requirements and provided fair and reasonable terms for the employees. The Commission also considered the submissions made by the employees who opposed the agreement, but found no evidence to support their claims of unfairness. Based on this analysis, the Commission approved the agreement, finding it to be compliant with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The final orders of the Commission were that the PHI International Australia Broome and Truscott Helicopter Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2024 be approved and registered under the Fair Work Act. The agreement was to take effect from the date of the Commission’s decision, and all parties were directed to comply with its terms.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established