AG2002/1534, Transcript of Proceedings [2002] AIRCTrans 1444 (1 May 2002)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 60-70 Elizabeth St SYDNEY NSW 2000
DX1344 Sydney Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI

AG2002/1534

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under 170LJ of the Act by
Ansett Worldwide (Operations) Pty Limited
and The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers
Association for certification of the Ansett
Worldwide (Operations) Pty Limited Aircraft
Engineers Certified Agreement 2002

SYDNEY

11.42 AM, TUESDAY, 16 APRIL 2002

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: May I have the appearances, please?

PN2

MR C. McARDLE: Commissioner, with leave of the Commission I appear for Ansett Worldwide (Operations) Pty Limited.

PN3

MR C. RYAN: Commissioner, I appear for the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, if the Commission pleases.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: I should have dealt with this earlier, but no matter. There is no objection to Mr McArdle being granted leave?

PN5

MR RYAN: I have no objection.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted, Mr McArdle. Yes, what do you wish to say?

PN7

MR McARDLE: Commissioner, this is an application under section 170LJ. The history of this matter is that in order to obtain regulation by the Commission, as with the other two groups of employees that we have already mentioned this morning, we entered into negotiations directly with the engineers. There was an agreement drafted and submitted to the engineers in the normal way and voted on. Arising from that, though, some of the engineers felt that they wanted the union to be involved and to re-visit the agreement and arising from that we held meetings with Mr Ryan.

PN8

We agreed to changes to the agreement that was originally voted on and for that reason I hope there is attached, if not I can hand it up, to the statutory declaration of Mr Knot the covering letter to the proposed certified agreement. It says:

PN9

I refer to the vote of engineers to approve the agreement on 4 March. Since that vote we have held discussions with the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association and have agreed to a number of alterations. For that reason it will be necessary to have another vote no sooner than 14 days from today. Please contact Mr Brian Farnham of the Association on -

PN10

phone number given:

PN11

Mr Farnham will be representing you in this matter or in this matter or in his absence Mr Chris Ryan at the same phone number. I enclose for your perusal the two copies of the agreement. The first is a marked up copy to show the changes which have been agreed with the Association. The second is the finalised version on which you will be required to vote. After the engineers employed by Ansett Worldwide have approved this new version of the agreement, both the company and the union will jointly lodge it in the Industrial Relations Commission. Although the union will now be legally representing you in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me with any discussion or enquiries prior to the vote.

PN12

Just for information only, Commissioner, I will hand up that document.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I don't think I have that. Thank you. I will mark that exhibit AWW 1.

EXHIBIT #AWW 1 LETTER FROM MR KNOT

PN14

MR McARDLE: That is for the information of the Commission. The actual agreement that was voted on is attached to the statutory declarations of Mr Knot and Mr Ryan in this matter. We are more than happy to advocate to you, Commissioner, that it satisfies the no disadvantage test. In that context we have prepared a comparison document.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark that exhibit AWW 2.

EXHIBIT #AWW 2 COMPARISON DOCUMENT

PN16

MR McARDLE: We note, Commissioner, just running through it quickly, in paragraph 1, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, known as LAME in the trade, they receive $85,000. If you look at the package of benefits and accoutrements in the General Aviation Award, it doesn't come anywhere near $85,000, there not being a particular rate for this class of work. Having said that, we are able to assure the Commission that the extras, the allowances, the exigencies, etcetera, provided for in the General Award when added up and having regard to the normal flat rates in this industry do not come to anything like $85,000. The same rationale can be attributed to casual considerations in 2, and Aircraft Maintenance Engineers, people who do not have an independent government licence, we don't employ any of those but we do have provision in the agreement where we may, the same with full-time employees and casuals for those also.

PN17

In view of the face that this has been extensively directly with the employees once, we are very happy to be able to assure the Commission that the no disadvantage test is met and we commend the agreement to you.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr McArdle. Mr Ryan.

PN19

MR RYAN: Commissioner, the ALAEA once again supports the submissions made by Mr McArdle. Just for the sake of accuracy, we should point out that the rates on the sheet exhibit AWW 2 that Mr McArdle tendered to the Commission the rates are actually the rates prior to the adjustment which took place in march last year. I will provide Mr McArdle with a copy of that variation and I can provide that to the Commission, too. I have just picked that up, Commissioner, because before this morning I hadn't seen AWW 2.

PN20

The rates have been adjusted by the national wage case decision of 2000, so the relevant rates for a LAME are in fact $586.80 and for an AME would be $477.20. It is a small point but just for the sake of accuracy, it makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the rates of pay contained within the certified agreement are well in excess of the designated safety net award, which is the Aircraft Engineers (General Aviation) Award. Just those few comments, Commissioner, the ALAEA fully supports the submission made by Mr McArdle in this matter.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Ryan, does your association cover AMEs as opposed to LAMEs?

PN22

MR RYAN: It's an interesting question, Commissioner, we have quite a few AMEs who work for a range of employers who are members of the association. That excludes the major employers, Qantas, and indeed Ansett before Ansett collapsed last year, although Ansett continues to operate in the heavy maintenance area in Melbourne and as a matter of industrial arrangement we do not seek to cover aircraft maintenance engineers in those areas.

PN23

With regard to regional airlines and general aviation operations, we do as a matter of convenience represent the interests of those employees. Usually we are there representing the interests of Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers and it is convenient and industrially acceptable to the employer and the employees for us to also represent the interests of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers who are unlicensed, and indeed, in many cases those Aircraft Maintenance Engineers are well on the way to achieving a licence and some will become Licensed Aircraft Engineers within a very short period.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Don't worry about industrial practice, but if you looked at your association's constitution, is there a potential to involve AMEs?

PN25

MR RYAN: There is. We have had active debate in terms of the rules and the arrangements. The Commission may be aware of the arrangement at Forstaff in Victoria where the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association is the sole body representing the total workforce at Avalon by virtue of a 118A decision in favour of Qantas. That determined that the ALAEA would represent the interests of all employees on that particular site. That is a specific site-based industrial decision but as a matter of history the association has represented without challenge AMEs in a variety of employment arrangements, regional airlines, as I say, helicopter operations and general aviation operations. While this particular operation is in terms of larger mainline RPT aircraft, that is regular public transport aircraft, the fact that it is not conducted by one of the major airlines puts it well within what we consider to be the general aviation area in terms of the industrial nature of the business.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Ryan. Just on that point, Mr McArdle, originally when the March agreement was put to people the company would have said, if you are a member of any union, let us know.

PN27

MR McARDLE: Yes, correct.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I was just a bit concerned if that notice was only about the LAMEs association, but that's not the case, is it, it was only later that members of the LAMEs showed an interest that you then changed the process but presumably if somebody was an AMWU member they could have popped up but they didn't and there is nothing wrong with the LAMEs having a deal with one union if no one else has anything to say.

PN29

MR McARDLE: I don't have a copy to show you, Commissioner, but our covering letter basically lifted the words out of 170LK(4).

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think that's right, that's the usual - yes, thank you, Mr McArdle, I probably worried unnecessarily. This is an application to have certified an agreement that is to be known as the Ansett Worldwide (Operations) Pty Limited Aircraft Engineers Certified Agreement 2002. The parties to the agreement are Ansett Worldwide (Operations) Pty Limited and the ALAEA for short.

PN31

On the basis of the submissions and the documentation I am satisfied that the relevant requirements of the Act have been made. In particular the Commission is satisfied that the no disadvantage test has been complied with. It also notes that this is an agreement that has been processed as the Act envisaged and that is that employees are informed of an agreement, perhaps are part of negotiations, they are told that they can be represented by a union, one or some of those members does something about that notice, that union then gets involved, the company negotiates with that union and herein we have the agreement.

PN32

The Commission notes all of that and given all of that the Commission proposes to certify the agreement. The agreement will come into force from 16 April 2002 and will remain in force until 16 April 2004. On that basis these proceedings are now adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.56am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #AWW 1 LETTER FROM MR KNOT PN14
EXHIBIT #AWW 2 COMPARISON DOCUMENT PN16