Regional Express Holdings Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots

The appeal before the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia involved Regional Express Holdings Ltd, the appellant, and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, the respondent. The dispute centred on the respondent’s standing to bring an action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) against the appellant for alleged adverse action against its members. The primary issue was whether the respondent, as an industrial association, was entitled to represent the industrial interests of pilots who were not members of the association. The appellant contended that the respondent lacked standing because the pilots in question were not members of the association.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the interpretation of the phrase “entitled to represent industrial interests” as it applied to the respondent’s status as an industrial association. The court had to determine whether the respondent’s eligibility for membership by pilots created an entitlement to represent non-members. The court also considered the legislative history and principles related to employee organisations’ rights to represent classes of employees. The court concluded that the principle supporting an employee organisation's right to represent a class of employees based on eligibility for membership applied equally to industrial associations due to their registered organisation status.

The Full Bench held that the respondent, as an industrial association, was indeed entitled to represent the industrial interests of pilots, including non-members, based on its eligibility for membership. The court found that the legislative intent and history supported the interpretation that eligibility for membership extended to representing the broader class of employees, including those who were not members. This interpretation was consistent with the statutory framework and legislative history regarding industrial representation by employee organisations. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the primary judge was affirmed.