Transport Workers' Union of Australia v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Australia-Airline Services; Australian Federation of Air Pilots v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation..

[2012] FWA 9460

[2012] FWA 9460

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR DECISIONS

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Applications for a protected action ballot orders

Transport Workers' Union of Australia
v
National Jet Systems Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Australia-Airline Services
(B2012/1741)

and

Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
National Jet Systems Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Australia-Airline Services
(B2012/1036)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 5 NOVEMBER 2012

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of National Jet Systems T/A Cobham Aviation Services Australia.

[1] On 29 October 2012, the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (“TWU”) and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (“AFAP”) (collectively “the Applicants”) made applications to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for protected action ballot orders pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The employees to be balloted are employees employed by National Jet Systems Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Australia-Airline Services (“the Employer”) and are represented by the Applicants in bargaining for a replacement enterprise agreement to the National Jet Systems Pty Ltd, Pilots Collective Agreement 2007-2012 (“the Agreement”).

[3] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2012.

[4] The applications were heard on 31 October 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made a determination that the Applicants had satisfied the provisions of the FW Act and Orders should issue (PR530969 and PR530970). These are the written reasons for issuing the Orders.

[5] At the hearing, the TWU was represented by Mr A Dzieciol, Senior Legal/Industrial Officer. Evidence was given for the TWU by Mr A Godfrey, Pilot and TWU delegate. The AFAP was represented by Mr D Stephens, Senior Industrial Officer.

[6] The Tribunal received from Mr G Bowels, Manager Human Resources for the Employer an email on 31 October 2012 advising that the Employer did not object to the applications.

[7] Mr Godfrey gave evidence of his role in bargaining negotiations with the Employer.

[8] Mr Godfrey’s written evidence was of 20 bargaining meetings over a period of approximately 14 months. While progress has been achieved from the TWU’s perspective, a number of important and outstanding issues remain on which the parties are not in agreement. The main areas of differences relate to: First Officer progression to 65% of the Captain’s rate of pay; overtime threshold; Captain’s rate of pay and various rostering practices.

[9] The parties have provided feedback to each other.

[10] Mr Godfrey gave evidence that the AFAP had attended each bargaining meeting. For reasons of the location of the hearing, the AFAP sought to have Mr Godfrey’s evidence adopted as part of its application; the request was granted.

[11] No further bargaining meetings are scheduled.

[12] The AFAP made submissions to the Tribunal which indicated that there had been 22 formal bargaining meetings since 20 July 2012. The most recent meeting being 23 October 2012. The AFAP has, notwithstanding it is based in Melbourne, attended all 22 meetings.

[13] On 25 October 2012, the AFAP sought a further meeting and proposed 14 possible dates throughout November and further dates in December 2012.

[14] On 26 October 2012, the AFAP became aware that the Employer is seeking a vote of pilots to be covered by the proposed agreement pursuant to s.181 of the FW Act. Notwithstanding the proposed vote being enacted by the Employer, the AFAP remains able and willing to meet with the Employer.

[15] For reasons which I have previously set out, I strongly encourage the parties to remain in communication and continue their bargaining meetings 1.

CONCLUSION

[16] I am satisfied that the procedural requirements in sections 437, 438 and 448 of the FW Act have been met.

[17] Having considered the relevant provisions of the FW Act, submissions of the TWU and AFAP, evidence and the Employer’s position in not objecting to the applications, I determined that the Applicants have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Employer; on these grounds, I issued Orders PR530969 and PR530970 on 31 October 2012.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

A Dzieciol for the Transport Workers’ Union

D Stephens for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

No appearance by the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2012:

Perth,

31 October.

 1   [2012] FWA 1081

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR531071>