The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Limited

[2023] FWC 1119

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
v

Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Limited

(B2023/399)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Limited (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Noel Speers of the Applicant declared on 3 May 2023, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An Order has been separately issued in PR761823.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (Applicant) sought a protected action ballot order against Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Limited (Respondent) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant alleged that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent regarding certain employees, but had been unable to do so. The Respondent neither consented nor objected to the application, which was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues for the Court to decide were whether the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and whether the statutory notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The Court had to consider the material before it, including the statutory declaration of Noel Speers of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent.

The Court found that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Therefore, the Court decided to grant the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. An Order was separately issued in PR761823.

This decision highlights the importance of genuine bargaining efforts in industrial relations disputes. The Court's decision to grant the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order demonstrates the importance of following the proper procedures and meeting the statutory requirements in such cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established