AG2001/839, Transcript of Proceedings [2001] AIRCTrans 184 (9 March 2001)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 2, 16 St George's Tce, PERTH WA 6000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER LAING

AG2001/839

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF AGREEMENT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 170LJ OF THE ACT BY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT - AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF AIR PILOTS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2000

EXTRACT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

PERTH

MONDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2001

EXTRACT OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDING [11.41am]

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: The Commission has before it an application by the Department of Conservation and Land Management and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots for the certification of an agreement to be known as the Department of Conservation and Land Management - Australian Federation of Air Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2000. The application is made pursuant to Part VIB, Division 2 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

PN2

The Commission has had the advantage of perusing the statutory declarations and the agreement which has been provided to the Commission prior to the proceedings and this morning I have had the advantage further of hearing from both the Association and the employer. The Commission is content that the application now before the Commission is a application proper to be brought by the parties concerned and that the AFAP represents at least one pilot within the organisation and that the employer is a constitutional corporation within the meaning of the Act.

PN3

If the Commission is satisfied that the parties have meet the statutory tests, the Commission is obliged to certify the agreement and I consider that that is in two parts. Firstly, the procedural requirements under the legislation and secondly the issue of substance, the no disadvantage test. If I go first to the procedural requirements, I note that the parties have meet the time frame set down under the legislation relevant to be meet for the making of the agreement and that the parties have indeed provided the relevant documentation within those time frames.

PN4

Secondly, I note that the parties have provided the employees with the opportunity to be informed about, involved in and ultimately to have decided upon the certification of the agreement and that a valid majority of those employees, in a ballot, have indeed done so. I should note that the employees include a number of those that are relevant in terms of special category employees, but given the qualification and competency of those people I am content that there would be no difficulty in relation to the understanding the matters that was disclosed and discussed between the parties.

PN5

Similarly, I note that the agreement has got a disputes procedure as required under the Act and that it has a term consistent with the obligations of the Act. I am satisfied that the procedural requirements have been met for the making of the agreement and the certification thereof. The Commission notes too the benefits provided by the agreement are indeed significant in context of the relevant award and that there are no disadvantages as of a nature that would constitute disadvantage in the meaning of the Act for the purposes of the not disadvantage test as determined by the Commission under the public interest test.

PN6

That being the case the Commission is also satisfied that the parties have meet the statutory test set down in relation to the substantial issues and the Commission is obliged therefore to certify the agreement as sought. The Commission will do so and certification will be effected as of today's date and documentation provided to the parties in due course.

END OF EXTRACT