The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 1680

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
v

Jetstar Airways Pty Limited

(B2022/620)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Jetstar Airways Pty Limited

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 Jetstar Airways Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 30 June 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Stephen Purvinas of the Applicant declared on 28 June 2022, 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 PR743226.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning employees of Jetstar Airways Pty Limited. The Respondent did not oppose the application, resulting in the matter being determined on the papers without a hearing. The application was made due to the Association's assertion that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with Jetstar Airways regarding a proposed agreement. The Vice President, Catanzariti, was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled.

The legal issue before the Vice President was whether the Association had fulfilled the conditions required for a protected action ballot, particularly whether the notification time had been met and if the statutory requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The Vice President examined the statutory declaration submitted by Stephen Purvinas, which detailed the steps taken by the Association in bargaining with Jetstar Airways and confirmed the Association's efforts to reach an agreement. The Vice President had to assess if these efforts met the legislative criteria for proceeding with the ballot.

The Vice President concluded that the statutory declaration provided sufficient evidence that the Association had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Jetstar Airways and that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The Vice President found that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. Consequently, the Vice President issued an order allowing the protected action ballot to proceed. This decision was based on the material presented and the Association's demonstration of good faith in the bargaining process.

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established