TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009 29517-1
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON
AM2010/227
s.158 - Application to vary or revoke a modern award
Application by Australian Federation of Air Pilots
(AM2010/227)
Air Pilots Award 2010
(ODN AM2008/25)
[MA000046 Print PR988690]]
Sydney
2.03 PM, MONDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2010
THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED VIA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN SYDNEY
PN1
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Can I have the appearances please.
PN2
MR D. STEPHENS: I appear for the AFAP.
PN3
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Stephens, you're on your own I think. There's no one in Sydney and you look to be alone in Melbourne. You may remain seated if that's more convenient.
PN4
MR STEPHENS: Thank you, your Honour, that is more convenient. Your Honour, we seem to be doing these things on our own all the time, but this is an application pursuant to 158 of the Act to vary the Air Pilots Award. Your Honour, we would submit that the application has been made in accordance with the Act and the variations that we seek to make go to two of the matters addressing typographical errors and the second variation is to introduce an aircraft weight for the purposes of determining a salary with respect to certain aircraft at or above that weight. Your Honour, we submit that the variations are consistent with what the Act contemplates as terms that may be included in an award.
PN5
I refer specifically to section 139 of the Act and I would submit, to assist the proceedings, that the application or the grounds for the application are self-explanatory and it might assist - well, if your Honour had questions I would be happy to field those. I can also say, your Honour, that in the preparation of this application we held discussions with the other parties who were involved in the making of the modern award and I guess I can characterise the response as a mixture of consent and no opposition and I guess that may be, to some extent, reflected by the fact that we are alone.
PN6
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN7
MR STEPHENS: Your Honour, as I say unless there are any particular questions they are our submissions and we commend the variation.
PN8
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Variation number one and three are the two typographical errors.
PN9
MR STEPHENS: That's correct, yes.
PN10
THE VICE PRESIDENT: They seem to be very much confined in their effect. The first one, the current clause doesn't make a lot of sense of period of duty of four hours or less, a minimum payment of two hours. So you are changing it to two hours or less with a minimum payment of two hours.
PN11
MR STEPHENS: That's correct, yes.
PN12
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's just a wording change to schedule D 9.6 which again seems to be of a very narrow significance.
PN13
MR STEPHENS: Yes, I can't explain how that typo got there, it seems extraordinary.
PN14
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm wondering whether that's the right numbering. The copy of the award that I've got has, "Minimum of additions to minimum salary commissions D9.5."
PN15
MR STEPHENS: Yes, in addition to the minimums ascribed in D9.6.
PN16
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm just looking at what change is involved there. So the current clause - the current award that I'm looking at does say - it's clause D9.5, it's heading is, "Minimum additions to minimum salary - commission." The preamble says, "In addition to the minimum salary proscribed in clauses D9.1 and D9.2 a pilot will be paid the following minimum rate of commission," colon, and then there's the three dot points for those three mentioned items.
PN17
MR STEPHENS: Sir, do you have a schedule D9.6, your Honour, following that in the award?
PN18
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, and it says, "Training and/or checking D9.6."
PN19
MR STEPHENS: I'm somewhat confused then by that.
PN20
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, this is the print out of the award which is up to 10 May. So it could well be there is an error on the website that is not actually an error in the copy that I've got. So that's what's confused me. The version on the website says, D9.1 and zero does it?
PN21
MR STEPHENS: Yes, and that's the variation that we are seeking to correct.
PN22
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, and should read D9.1 and D9.2.
PN23
MR STEPHENS: That's correct.
PN24
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. It may be that the error was involved in loading it onto the website or something that's caused that. What I will do with that matter I think is to check whether it is actually an error in the award or an error in the way it's been loaded onto the website because a variation may not be necessary if the award reads as you want it to read already.
PN25
MR STEPHENS: I think that's correct, your Honour, and that explains my confusion as to how such an error could be made in the first instance.
PN26
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, that explains it all. The second variation is more in the nature of a new classification to be inserted.
PN27
MR STEPHENS: Or a new weight range, your Honour. Aircraft in this schedule of the award had their wages struck according to a particular weight or weight range, I should say, and with certain aircraft have been come into operation which don't fit the weight ranges that are in the award as it presently stands and this variation seeks to address that. An example, your Honour, would be a Fokker 50 and the salary that is proposed for it is consistent with that of the dash 8400, which you will probably see in the schedule, because of the comparable type aircraft. I might also add, your Honour, that the Tribunal as presently constituted made a similar variation upon application in AM2010/62 where your Honour inserted a variation to pick up an additional aircraft type as opposed to an aircraft weight, an additional aircraft type, and that was for the similar reasons that aircraft come into operation and use from time to time which at the time when the award was made wasn't contemplated.
PN28
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a further aircraft weight at the end of the multi-engine listing and before the dash eight commences?
PN29
MR STEPHENS: That's right, your Honour.
PN30
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The actual salary proposed is the same as the dash 8400?
PN31
MR STEPHENS: Yes.
PN32
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, I was going to ask why it's a higher rating between two other lower rates, but that's the explanation. It keeps the grouping of the multi-engine listings together, this will be the heaviest of those and it compares with the heaviest of the dash eight.
PN33
MR STEPHENS: That's correct, your Honour, and you can see there the same rationale is applied to the multi-engine 1500 kilogram and the dash 8100, they carry the same salary points because the same principle is applied with respect to the dash 8400.
PN34
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, and the basis for the earlier variation you mentioned and this one is that it's necessary to achieve the modern award objectives that there be appropriate classifications for all types of aircraft.
PN35
MR STEPHENS: Yes, your Honour, that's correct.
PN36
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you for that Mr Stephens, I can indicate that I will issue an order in terms of the application, subject only to checking the third of those variations to see whether it's an error in the award or an error in the loading on the website. If there is an error in the award that error will be corrected by the order I will make.
PN37
MR STEPHENS: Thank you, your Honour.
PN38
THE VICE PRESIDENT: These proceedings are now adjourned.
PN39
<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.14PM]