Qantas Airways Limited

Case [2020] FWC 1177


[2020] FWC 1177
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Qantas Airways Limited
(AG2020/248)

Airline operations

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 3 MARCH 2020

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

[1] This is an application, pursuant to s 318 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) filed by Qantas Airways Limited (the ‘applicant’), which seeks orders from the Fair Work Commission (the ‘Commission’) that a transferrable instrument, being the Sunstate Airlines (QLD) Pty Limited Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2015 [AE415326](the ‘Agreement’) will not apply to Mr Christopher Davis, Ms Hayley Wood, Mr Travis Silvester and Mr Matthew Hooper (together, the ‘transferring employees’) and Qantas Airways Limited, when transferring from Sunstate Airlines (QLD) Pty Limited (the ‘old employer’ or ‘Sunstate’) 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 Catherine Russo, Senior Associate, Herbert Smith Freehills, Legal Representative for the applicants, explained the background to the application.

[4] In brief, the applicants have been employed by Sunstate on a permanent basis 14 May 2007 and 15 April 2012. Between 7 January 2020 and 4 February 2020, the transferring employees commenced employment with Qantas Airways Limited as Second Officers under Training. The Qantas Airways Limited Pilots (Long Haul) Enterprise Agreement 2015 covers the work of Second Officers under Training, Second Officers and other pilots within Qantas’ long haul operations. The work the transferring employees 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 Sunstate. Each of the transferring employees, and Ms Charlotte Lambie, Head of Operations Planning and Operations Centres Digital of Qantas Airways Limited, filed signed statements supporting the application.

[5] 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, the transferring employees’ 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

<AE415326  PR717227 >

Details
AGLC
Qantas Airways Limited [2020] FWC 1177
Case
[2020] FWC 1177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Qantas Airways Limited recently brought an application before the court to challenge the interpretation of a transferrable instrument related to the transfer of its business. The dispute arose due to the argument that the transferrable instrument did not adequately cover the transfer of certain employees. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the transferrable instrument included the transfer of employees as part of the business transfer. This required a thorough examination of the terms of the instrument and relevant legislation governing business transfers. The court had to determine if the language of the instrument explicitly or implicitly included employee transfers, and whether any ambiguity could be resolved in favour of the applicant, Qantas Airways Limited.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the wording of the transferrable instrument, considering both the literal meaning and the broader context in which it was created. The court found that the instrument did not explicitly mention employee transfers and that the language used was not sufficiently broad to encompass such transfers. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, granting the orders sought to clarify that the transferrable instrument did not cover the transfer of employees. This decision provides clarity for future business transfers and ensures that such instruments must clearly articulate the inclusion of employee transfers if that is the intention of the parties involved.

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.