United Airlines, Inc.

Case [2015] FWCA 1642


[2015] FWCA 1642
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

United Airlines, Inc.
(AG2015/2003)

UNITED AIRLINES, INC. AUSTRALIAN EMPLOYMENT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017

Airline operations

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 11 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the United Airlines, Inc. Australian Employment Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the United Airlines, Inc. Australian Employment Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by United Airlines, Inc. (the Employer). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] The application was lodged at Sydney on 25 February 2015. The application included a Statutory Declaration of Alena-Rae Stewart made on behalf of the Employer and dated 16 February 2015, (the Declaration). The Declaration contained certain typing errors which were rectified by way of further communication from the Employer dated 6 March 2015. The Declaration stated that the Agreement was made on 13 February 2015. Therefore the application was lodged within the 14 day time limit established by subsection 185 (3) of the Act.

[3] Part 2-4 of the Act includes various procedural requirements that must be satisfied before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) can approve of an enterprise agreement. I have reviewed the contents of the Declaration, as rectified for mistake, and I am satisfied that the procedural requirements of Part 2-4 of the Act have been met.

[4] The application for approval was listed for Hearing in Chambers before the Commission on 11 March 2015. I note that the file has included a Statutory Declaration of David Smith made on behalf of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the ASU), as an employee organisation in relation to the application.

[5] I note that the Agreement contains a flexibility term at clause 9 and a consultation term at clause 29.

[6] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[7] The ASU, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by subsection 201 (2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the ASU.

[8] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with subsection 54 (1) of the Act it will operate from 18 March 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement as specified in clause 5 of the Agreement, is 12 March 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code J, AE412962  PR561827>

Details
AGLC
United Airlines, Inc. [2015] FWCA 1642
Case
[2015] FWCA 1642
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application was made by United Airlines, Inc., seeking approval of the United Airlines, Inc. Australian Employment Enterprise Agreement 2014 - 2017. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement should be approved and registered. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the Act and whether it contained the essential attributes required for approval. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess if the agreement had been made freely and fairly, whether it provided for genuine simplification of the workplace relations system, and if it contained the prescribed minimum terms and conditions of employment.

The Commission found that the agreement had been made in accordance with the procedural requirements and contained the necessary attributes for approval. It was determined that the agreement was made freely and fairly, and it provided for genuine simplification by addressing a range of issues in the workplace. The Commission also found that the agreement included all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions.

Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement and ordered that it be registered. The registration of the agreement would then allow it to have effect as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act, providing the terms and conditions for the employees covered by the agreement.

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.