Dec
1397
/96 M Print N5868
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Industrial Relations Act 1988
s.99 notification of industrial dispute
The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
and
Qantas Airways Limited
(C No. 39640 of 1995)
Aircraft engineers Airline operations
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON MELBOURNE, 23 OCTOBER 1996
Claim for allowance
DECISION
1. Nature of the Matter
This matter concerns an application by The Australian Licenced
Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA), supported by the
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
(ASU) and the Transport Workers' Union of Australia (TWU), to
vary the Technical Salaried Staff (Qantas Airways Limited) Award
1986 [Print G2784 [T0167]] to include the following clause:
"C.A.S.A. Authority Allowance
(i)Employees who are required by the company to hold and
exercise a C.A.S.A. authority/s as delegated, shall in
addition to their normal salary prescribed under sub-
clause (c) hereof be paid an additional $3,380 per annum
for each authority held."
The C.A.S.A is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
The ALAEA relies on provision 3.2.4 Work Value Changes of the
Statement of Principles attached to the Third Safety Net
Adjustment and Section 150A Review October 1995 decision (the
October 1995 decision) [Print M5600] in support of its
application.
Qantas opposes the application submitting the application is
outside the Statement of Principles attached to the October 1995
decision.
2. Background
Pursuant to Regulation 6 of the Civil Aviation Regulations
(CARs) under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, C.A.S.A. may, in
writing:
"(a)appoint a person to be an authorised person for the p
urposes of a provision of these Regulations in which the
expression "authorised person" occurs; or
(b)appoint persons included in a class of persons to be
authorised persons for the purposes of a provision of
these Regulations in which the expression "authorised
person" occurs."
C.A.S.A. does, in fact, appoint named persons employed by
Qantas as authorised persons for the purposes of a variety of
CARs to do with matters such as certificates of airworthiness of
aircraft and maintenance of aircraft.
For example, CAR 42R provides:
"42R. (1) If:
(a)the Authority or an authorised person receives a
request for approval of a change to an approved system of
maintenance; and
(b)the Authority or authorised person is satisfied that
the system, as proposed to be changed, would:
(i)include the matters set out in regulation 42L;
and
(ii)adequately provide for the continued airworthi
ness of the aircraft;
the Authority or authorised person must approve the
change.
(2) If, because of a direction of a kind referred to in
regulation 42Q, the holder of the certificate of registration
for an aircraft submits a proposed change to an approved
system of maintenance to the Authority, the following
provisions have effect:
(a)If the Authority is satisfied:
(i)if the direction was for a specified change to
be made - the change has been made; and
(ii)if the direction was for a change to correct a
specified deficiency in the system - the
deficiency would be corrected by the change; and
(iii)that the system, as proposed to be amended,
would:
(A)include the matters set out in regulation 42L;
and
(B)adequately provide for the continued airwort-
hiness of the aircraft;
the Authority must approve the change;
(b)if the Authority is not satisfied as mentioned in
paragraph (a), the Authority may:
(i) modify the change so that the Authority is so
satisfied and approve the modified change; or
(ii) refuse to approve the change.
(3) In deciding whether a system of maintenance as
proposed to be changed would adequately provide for the
continued airworthiness of an aircraft, the Authority or
authorised person must have regard to:
(a)if the system of maintenance relates to a class
A aircraft - the manufacturer's maintenance schedule
and any inspection programs or documents issued by
the manufacturer; and
(b)if the system of maintenance relates to a class
B aircraft - the manufacturer's maintenance schedule
and the CAA maintenance schedule.
(4) The Authority or authorised person must, in writing,
notify the holder of the certificate of registration for the
aircraft concerned of the Authority's or authorised person's
decision in relation to the change submitted.
(5) If the Authority or authorised person decides:
(a) not to approve the change; or
(b) to modify the change;
the Authority or authorised person must include in the notice
required by subregulation (4) a statement of the reasons for
that decision."
Under CAR 6, C.A.S.A. has appointed named persons while
employed by Qantas to be authorised persons for the purposes of
the approval, pursuant to CAR 42R, of changes in the system(s) of
maintenance of aircraft controlled by Qantas.
The ALAEA maintains that prior to 1992/93 the instruments of
appointment by C.A.S.A. were to positions within Qantas rather
than named persons.
The ALAEA contends that the additional skills and increased
responsibility associated with the instruments of appointment
have not been taken into account in any previous work value
adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise involving the
employees the subject of the application in this matter. It is
also their contention that the change in the nature of the work
constitutes a significant net addition to work requirements.
As the work is performed only by some persons, they submit
such work value change should be compensated by an allowance as
claimed.
Qantas submits there is no significant net addition to work
requirements for the employees the subject of the application in
this matter arising from the instruments of appointment. They
maintain any changes in work value arising from the instruments
of appointment were taken into account in the application of the
structural efficiency principle associated with previous national
wage cases to the award relevant to this matter and in subsequent
enterprise agreements applying in Qantas.
Witnesses were called in support of the parties' respective
positions in the matter.
3. Conclusion
I am not satisfied I should grant the application in this
matter, except insofar as it concerns CAR 36A. I will deal with
the application insofar as it concerns CAR 36A later in this
decision.
Provision 3.2.4 Work Value Changes of the Statement of
Principles attached to the October 1995 decision is as follows:
"3.2.4 Work Value Changes
(a)Changes in work value may arise from changes in the
nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or
the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in
work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage
rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates
is that the change in the nature of the work should
constitute such a significant net addition to work
requirements as to warrant the creation of a new
classification or upgrading to a higher classification.
In addition to meeting this test a party making a work
value application will need to justify any change to wage
relativities that might result not only within the
relevant internal award classification structure but also
against external classifications to which that structure
is related. There must be no likelihood of wage
"leapfrogging" arising out of changes in relative
position.
These are the only circumstances in which rates may be
altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates
may be applied only to employees whose work has changed
in accordance with this provision.
(b)Where new or changed work justifying a higher rate is
performed only from time to time by persons covered by a
particular classification or where it is performed only
by some of the persons covered by the classification,
such new or changed work should be compensated by a
special allowance which is payable only when the new or
changed work is performed by a particular employee and
not by increasing the rate for the classification as a
whole.
(c)The time from which work value changes in an award
should be measured is the date of operation of the second
structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the 7
August 1989 National Wage Case decision.
(d)Care should be exercised to ensure that changes which
were or should have been taken into account in any
previous work value adjustments or in a structural
efficiency exercise are not included in any work
evaluation under this provision.
(e)Where the tests specified in (a) are met, an
assessment will have to be made as to how that
alteration should be measured in money terms. Such