C2007/2178, Transcript of Proceedings [2008] AIRCTrans 49 (6 February 2008)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 18040-1

COMMISSIONER LAWSON

C2008/2178

s.496(1) - Appl’n for order against industrial action (federal system).
Qantas Airways Limited
and
Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, The
(C2008/2178)

4.39PM, SYDNEY

WEDNESDAY, 23 JANUARY 2008

PN1

MR H J DIXON: May it please the Commission, I appear for the applicant, Qantas Airways Ltd and I appear with MR D PERRY.

PN2

MR S PURVINAS: Thank you, Commissioner, I appear for the ALAEA with MR G NORRIS.

PN3

MR DIXON: I’m sorry, Commissioner, I meant to ask for leave to appear but I understand that leave may not be objected to.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you oppose leave at all, Mr Purvinas?

PN5

MR PURVINAS: No, we decision oppose leave at all but what we will ask, if the Commissioner pleases, if we can move into conference to see if we can’t resolve the matters in that time limit.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: We’ll get something on the record before we go there, Mr Purvinas, and leave is granted, Mr Dixon.

PN7

Can I start by saying that on 22 January 2008 - I might steal your thunder a little bit, Mr Dixon, but this is what I want to place on the public record. On 22 January 2008 Qantas filed an application pursuant to section 496 of the Workplace Relations Act seeking orders against industrial action by: (1) The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association; and (2) employees of Qantas - members of the union employed in providing aircraft customer services in Brisbane.

PN8

It was said that the industrial action was threatened, impending or probable and it was being organised. The applicant sought a hearing in Sydney and foreshadow that the industrial action may cause immediate disruption to Qantas operations.

PN9

Further, on 22 January 2008, the applicant’s solicitors, Freehills, provided copies of the ALAEA’s notices to its members in relation to the one-man push backs. The documents then provided referred to paragraph 6 of the application. The applicant sought an order for substituted service which was issued on 22 January together with a notice of listing for a hearing set for 24 January 2008.

PN10

By way of faxed correspondence Watson VP’s chambers, sent after normal business hours on 22 January, the applicant’s solicitors sought a reallocation of the matter in light of the timing of the listed hearing and its later instructions from Qantas. That request was followed up today by the Commission as presently constituted. The Commission acceded to the earlier listing of the matter to give the parties an opportunity to put at least preliminary submissions at first instance to the Commission. At 12.45 today the matter was listed for 4.30 this afternoon.

PN11

Before the matter proceeds, Mr Dixon or Mr Purvinas, are you in a position to inform me whether you intend to call any witness evidence and if you do in those circumstances, I would ask those witnesses to leave the room at this time. Mr Dixon?

PN12

MR DIXON: Commissioner, we do intend, if necessary, to call one witness. That is a Mr Gavin Harris. He is present and I’ll ask him to wait outside.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Dixon. Mr Purvinas, any witness evidence from you today?

PN14

MR PURVINAS: No, Commissioner. There’ll be no witnesses for the ALAEA today.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Mr Dixon.

PN16

MR DIXON: Thanks, Commissioner. We are indebted to the Commission for reallocating the matter, particularly as - - -

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: I think “re-listing” the matter might be the right verb.

PN18

MR DIXON: Re-listing. I beg your pardon. Reallocating the time. Re-listing the matter at a time that is inconvenient and we appreciate the Commission’s indulgence in that regard.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just say that tomorrow’s listing is still in place as well. This has simply brought effectively the start of the proceedings forward so as to give the parties an opportunity to deal with the urgency issues and any other issues that might arise in a preliminary sense.

PN20

MR DIXON: That was a matter that we wished to clarify and we are indebted to you with the ..... . Can I just deal with a couple of other matters and that is I am instructed that the service has occurred in accordance with the order for substituted service and I don’t understand any issue to arise in relation to that.

PN21

The present matter is one in which we make application under section 496 in respect of the Brisbane Airport only this afternoon. We will be directing our evidence in that regard, if necessary. I’m not sure whether the Commission would wish us to elaborate even further in respect of the application. I’m happy to do so, to outline all the matters but we also do not oppose the matter going into conference. Perhaps I can just very briefly indicate to the Commission what the key issue is in respect of the - well, before we do so.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go ahead, please.

PN23

MR DIXON: The custom and practice for the process or procedure adopted by licensed engineers at the Brisbane port deals with - concerning the push-out of aircraft has been in place for a number of years on the basis that it is a one person transit receipt and despatch procedure. In other words, the standard practice is that one person is in charge of the overall transit procedure and despatch procedure but the present proceedings are concerned with one aspect of that overall procedure; that is, after the plane aircraft has been checked and are ready for departure, there is a push-out process which is under the control of an engineer.

PN24

The practice has been that in particular circumstances where particular issues are concerned, such as clearance for a particular craft to be pushed out so that it can depart the airport, the engineers are entitled to ask for a second person to assist in that manoeuvre. The issue that has arisen in these proceedings - sorry, giving rise to these proceedings, is that the union on 21 January 2008, ignoring the practice and in a way that is contrary to the custom and practice and which imposes a limitation, has issued a directive to all ALAEA members to the effect that all aircraft push-backs are to be carried out by at least two engineers until further notice.

PN25

The implementation of that directive, in our respectful submission, for reasons that we will elaborate later, Commissioner, would constitute industrial action as defined in section 421, that is not protected action - and again, I will deal with the matter more seriously.

PN26

That’s all I think I need to put on the record at this stage. Given the hour, and the time constraints we would not oppose going into conference and see if there is a way of resolving the issue in a manner acceptable to both parties.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Dixon, do you see that conference as a Commission chaired conference or do the parties wish to meet face to face?

PN28

MR DIXON: A Commission chaired conference is what we have in mind.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine. All right. Perhaps I might hear an opening position from you, Mr Purvinas.

PN30

MR PURVINAS: Yes. Just briefly, we didn’t want to go into the merits of the case here and now. Our goal here is hopefully to move into conference as soon as possible. We believe that there may be some solution that arises out of that process and we would be happy with a Commission chaired conference.

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you for that, Mr Purvinas. In the circumstances, with both parties consenting to a Commission chaired conference, I’ll adjourn these proceedings now into private conference and in so doing I must ask anyone in the hearing room that does have a direct connection with these proceedings, to now leave the room, if you would.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [4.50PM]
<RESUMED [6.09PM]

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Gentlemen, I understand an outcome has been reached during your private discussions. Mr Dixon?

PN33

MR DIXON: We are indebted to the Commission for the opportunity of going into conference and then allowing the parties to see if they could resolve the matter. A position has been reached whereby the ALAEA will take certain steps to withdraw their direction on terms that have been agreed between the parties. The application that has been filed and which the Commission has sighted at the hearing today, will be withdrawn from notice to the Commission immediately upon the ALAEA providing a copy of the steps that it has taken in relation to the notice which will occur tomorrow morning, on our understanding.

PN34

The basis upon which that position has been reached, on my instructions, are that the parties will ask the Commission to issue - as a statement of the position reached between the parties as recorded on this handwritten two-page document which I seek leave to hand to the Commission. It may mean that the handwriting may need to be deciphered. I hope it’s not mine. But I won’t identify the author.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: So long as the guilty party remains so that I decipher it.

PN36

MR DIXON: Either you or your associate will get all the assistance were can give, Commissioner.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: This is intended as a statement of the Commission or is it a joint statement by the parties?

PN38

MR DIXON: As statement by the Commission of a joint decision reached by the parties. That is my understanding and I’m getting nods both on my right-hand side and left, of approval of that statement that I had some difficulty.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Dixon. Mr Purvinas, do you have anything to say about this?

PN40

MR PURVINAS: Yes, Commissioner. During the period where we were allowed to discuss the matter between ourselves I believe we have reached an agreed position where the joint statement which has been handed up has been agreed by the parties would come out as a joint - as an agreed position by the parties issued by the Industrial Relation Commission. We have had a look at those words and are satisfied that they are okay with the Association for our members to read and tomorrow morning we will endeavour to withdraw our notice of, I believe, 21 January and follow the steps as defined in the joint statement.

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Purvinas. I guess it remains for me to commend the parties for having spent the time together usefully and having achieved what is an acceptable outcome. Subject to my examining this statement - and I’m happy if the principal draftsman would remain just after the proceedings so we can get some clarification of some words if necessary - subject my clarifying the content of the draft in any way I can indicate to the parties that I will release a Commission statement which will reflect this joint position of the parties as soon as possible; that includes this evening, and I look forward to being informed of the next steps being successfully completed which, as I understand from Mr Dixon’s submission will lead to the ALAEA taking steps to withdraw its notification of 21 January and in turn the application before me for section 496 orders to be withdrawn on notice of withdrawal of the ALAEA notice.

PN42

In those circumstances, these proceedings will now conclude and I will take steps to cancel tomorrow’s listing of this matter. I stand available to assist the parties should the Commission be called upon in any way in respect of this application or any associated application.

PN43

I’ll conclude the proceedings now and adjourn.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [6.14PM]