AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Australian Industrial Relations Commission

You are here: 
AustLII >> Databases >> Australian Industrial Relations Commission >> 1996 >> [1996] AIRC 1907

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Context] [No Context] [Help]

 1397 /96 Print N5868 [1996] AIRC 1907; (23 October 1996)

 1397 /96 Print N5868



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
       assessment  should normally be based on the previous  work
       requirements, the wage previously fixed for the  work  and
       the nature and extent of the change in work.

       (f)The expression "the conditions under which the work  is
       performed"  relates to the environment in which  the  work
       is done.

       (g)The   Commission   should   guard   against   contrived
       classifications and overclassification of jobs.

       (h)Any  changes  in  the nature of  the  work,  skill  and
       responsibility required or the conditions under which  the
       work  is  performed, taken into account  in  assessing  an
       increase  under any other provision of this  Statement  of
       Principles, shall not be taken into account in  any  claim
       under this provision."

    It is clear from that provision that 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 National Wage Case August 1989 decision  (the
August 1989 decision)  [Print H9100].

    It  is  also  clear that care should be exercised  to  ensure
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  the
provision.

    Under  the August 1989 decision a first structural efficiency
adjustment  was  accessible from 7 August 1989, with  the  actual
date  of operation of the adjustment being the date on which  the
award  was  varied, and a second structural efficiency adjustment
was   accessible  no  less  than  six  months  after  the   first
adjustment.

    The  principles  attached to the August  1989  decision  also
provided:

   "STRUCTURAL EFFICIENCY

       Structural  efficiency  adjustments  allowable  under  the
   National  Wage  Case  decision  of  7  August  1989  will   be
   justified  in accordance with this principle if the Commission
   is  satisfied  that the parties to an award  have  co-operated
   positively  in  a  fundamental review of that  award  and  are
   implementing  measures to improve the efficiency  of  industry
   and  provide  workers with access to more  varied,  fulfilling
   and better paid jobs. ...

       Structural  efficiency  exercises should  incorporate  all
   past work value considerations." [pp. 21-22]

    The  structural  efficiency  adjustments  and  exercise  were
applied to the award relevant to this matter during 1989 to 1991.

    A  table prepared by Qantas and attached to a letter  to  the
Commission dated 6 August 1996, on which the ALAEA was given  the
opportunity  to put submissions, shows that C.A.S.A.  authorities
were  being held and exercised by positions in Qantas,  including
by positions now held by employees the subject of the application
in  this  matter,  prior  to 1989 and  prior  to  the  structural
efficiency adjustments and exercise to the award relevant to this
matter.

    The parties in this matter dispute whether or not the holding
and exercising of C.A.S.A. authorities was taken into account  in
the  structural efficiency exercise to this award. Given C.A.S.A.
authorities were being held and exercised by positions  now  held
by  employees the subject of the application in this matter prior
to 1989 and the structural efficiency adjustments and exercise to
the award relevant to this matter, I consider that if the holding
and exercising of such authorities was not taken into account  in
the  structural efficiency exercise to the award it  should  have
been.

    The  1992/93  change resulting in named persons  rather  than
positions now holding and exercising C.A.S.A. authorities and the
increase  in  the number and variety of C.A.S.A. authorities  now
held  and  exercised compared to prior to 1989, in my view,  have
not led to a significant net addition to the work requirements of
the  employees the subject of the application in this  matter  in
accordance  with  provision  3.2.4  Work  Value  Changes  of  the
Statement of Principles attached to the October 1995 decision.

   In that regard, I have accepted the evidence of Mr J. Vincent,
General  Manager Fleet Planning at Qantas to the effect that  the
level  of skill and responsibility utilised by persons exercising
C.A.S.A. authorities has not practically altered with the  change
from  C.A.S.A.  authorities being given to named  persons  rather
than  positions.  His  evidence  was  more  persuasive  than  the
submissions and evidence of the ALAEA on this point.

    Further,  a  witness called by the ALAEA, Mr G. Brown,  their
only  witness  holding  and exercising  more  than  one  C.A.S.A.
authority,  did  not support payment for each C.A.S.A.  authority
held  and  exercised by an employee rather he supported  the  one
payment  of  $65  per week regardless of the number  of  C.A.S.A.
authorities  held  and  exercised by the  employee.  He  did  not
support mutliple payments as in the application in this matter.

    Moreover,  apart from the suggestion by the ALAEA  about  the
effects in a work value sense of the 1992/93 change, nothing else
was  suggested by the parties as causing a difference in  a  work
value  sense between the C.A.S.A. authorities in existence  prior
to 1989 and those since then and there was no other suggestion of
there  being a difference in a work value sense between the  pre-
1989 C.A.S.A. authorities and those subsequently.

    Accordingly, I do not believe the application in this  matter
is  consistent  with provision 3.2.4 Work Value  Changes  of  the
Statement  of  Principles attached to the October 1995  decision,
particularly paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of that provision.

    The application in this matter, except insofar as it concerns
CAR 36A, is therefore dismissed.

    With respect to the application in this matter insofar as  it
concerns  CAR 36A, the evidence of Qantas in the matter  suggests
that  they  consider  there is a difference  between  a  C.A.S.A.
authority concerning CAR 36A and other C.A.S.A. authorities.

    At present, it appears the only employee of Qantas covered by
the  award  relevant  to this matter who holds  and  exercises  a
C.A.S.A. authority concerning CAR 36A is Mr Brown but it seems Mr
Brown  does  not receive any additional remuneration for  holding
and exercising such an authority.

    In light of this, I propose to relist this matter insofar  as
it concerns CAR 36A for further consideration.

BY THE COMMISSION:

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Allowance  -  CASA  Authority Allowance  -  aircraft  engineers,
airline  operations  -  union claimed allowance  on  work  value
principles  -  claimed persons exercising  authority  under  CAR
regulation  constituted  addition  responsibilities  -  employer
claimed  exercising of authorities considered as part of earlier
structural   efficiency  adjustments  -  held  application   not
consistent  with  principles - application dismissed  -  matters
relating to other authority to be further considered.

** end of text **

*** End of Text ***


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AIRC/1996/1907.html