Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd
Tuesday 10 December 2013 @ 1.35 p.m. | Industrial Law
The Federal Circuit Court’s finding in Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited [2013] FCCA 592 is significant in the area of the law of adverse action.
The decision shows that for the purposes of the adverse action sections, an employee’s position may be prejudicially altered if the employee is in a group of persons who may be affected by the employer’s actions in a real and substantial way. This is true even if the facts establish that the employee in question was unlikely to be, and was not in fact, so affected.
The case also points to the intricacies for an employer in discharging the onus of proof in adverse action hearings, and the importance of selecting and presenting suitable evidence to sustain the employer’s claims.
Breach of Obligation
In this case, the court found Qantas breached its consultation and information-sharing responsibilities when it introduced a new airline maintenance system. The Court held that while Qantas was permitted to introduce the new maintenance system, it was also required to consult with the appropriate union about how such action would affect Qantas employees.
The 2012 Workplace Determination
In 2012, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) effected a workplace determination setting employment conditions for aircraft engineers employed by Qantas. The Licenced Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways) Limited Workplace Determination 2012 (the workplace determination) obliges Qantas to consult with employees on significant changes to the company that are likely to affect employees and to present related information about the changes to the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA).
In February 2012, Qantas elected to implement a new aircraft maintenance system which entailed redundancies of about 30 employees. ALAEA applied to the FWC claiming that Qantas had breached the consultation and information-sharing requirements in the workplace determination due to their failure to properly consult with the union prior to introducing the new maintenance system. ALAEA acknowledged that Qantas had conversed with them in a limited way about the changes in early 2012, but alleged that it did not have the chance to confer with Qantas regarding whether the redundancies were imperative.
Qantas claimed that their communications with ALAEA demonstrated their intention to consult with the union regarding the effects of the new maintenance system. Qantas understood these communications indicated their willingness to discussions with ALAEA about the need for redundancies.
The Decision
Justice Raphael disagreed with Qantas, finding that the redundancies were inevitable notwithstanding the consultation process and that no appropriate consultation about the redundancies had taken place. His Honour held that Qantas undertook the consultations merely to ascertain which employees would be willing to take voluntary redundancy packages. Judge Raphael also found that Qantas did not provide ALAEA with appropriate information regarding the maintenance system.
Judge Raphael held that the penalty for contravening the workplace determination ought to be in the “higher range” due to the “a deliberate action by a large corporation failing to honour its obligations under a WD [workplace determination]”. The airline was fined a total of $41,250 for the two breaches of the workplace determination.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
