Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Leach Aero Services Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 439
Federal Court of Australia
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
JUDGMENT No. 4347.8.
CATCHWORDS
Industrial law - award - breach - right of entry ~ factors in
mitigation of penalty - recipient of penalty.
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s.119, s.88Z,
s.88V(1)(e)
Pilots (General Aviation) Award 1984 cl. 9, 21, 22
Helicopter Pilots (General Aviation) Award 1984 cl. 21, 26.
AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF AIR PILOTS v. LEACH AERO SERVICES
pry. LTD.
No. V8 of 1988
GRAY J. °
MELBOURNE
24TH JUNE 1988
oe we ee ree
rp,
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. V8 of 1988
ee ee ee
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN :
AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF AIR PILOTS Applicant
-and-
LEACH AERO SERVICES PTY. LTD. Respondent
JUDGE: Gray Jd.
PLACE: Melbourne
DATE: 24th June 1988
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application pursuant to s.119 of the
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the Act") wherein the
applicant claims penalties for breaches of awards. The
applicant is, and has been since Il1st October 1986, an
organization registered pursuant to the Act. Prior to that
time, it was a declared body under s.88% of the Act.
The two awards concerned are awards of the Flight
Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal, made pursuant to Part IIIA
of the Act. They are the Pilots (General Aviation) Award
1984 and the Helicopter Pilots' (General Aviation) Award
1984. By virtue of s.88V(1)(e) of the Act, those awards are
to be treated as awards for the purposes of other provisions
of the Act, including s.119.
pve owe nmee
. os
noes
The relevant provisions of the Pilots (General
Aviation) Award 1984 are as follows:
"9,
(a)
(dD)
"21.
{a}
(b)
(coc)
Duty and flight time records
each pilot shall be required to keep a
progressive record of his duty and flight
times, using duty and flight time record
forms which shall be provided by his
employer, in or similar to the format
shown in appendix 2;
the pilot's record shall be signed at the
end of each calendar month by the pilot
and the employer or his representative
and shall be maintained or made available
by the employer at the pilot's base for a
period of 7 years or the duration of this
award, whichever is the greater period."
Right of entry
duly accredited representatives of the
Federation shall be entitled to enter an
employers premises at mutually convenient
times during normal business hours and
Shall without unduly interrupting an
enployers operation, be afforded
reasonable facilities for so entering to
discuss matters of federation business
with pilots and to investigate matters
relating to the application of this
award;
when pursuant to subclause (a) of this
clause, a federation representative is
investigating a matter relating to the
application of this award, he shail he
permitted to take notes from or make
copies of the employers relevant records
or documents;
it shall be understood that the parties
shall, at all times, adopt a reasonable
and co-operative attitude in relation to
the objectives of this clause and shall
have the right to request the assistance
Be pee Se ee
ee peter oon
ey a .
weer oe ee ee
"22.
(a)
(b)
The relevant provisions
3. .
of the tribunal in relation to
frustration or abuse of such objectives."
Salary records
each employer shall keep up to date
records in respect of each pilot in his
employ, showing the pilot's award
classification, gross salary, all
allowances, all additions to salary, ali
deductions and net salary;
the records referred to in subclause (a)
of this clause shali be maintained or
made available at the pilot's home base
and shall be made available for
inspection by duly accredited
representative of the Federation. Such
records shall be kept for not less than 7
years or for the duration of this award,
whichever is the longer."
(General Aviation) Award 1984, are as follows:
"21.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Duty and flight time records
each pilot shall be required to keep a
progressive record of his duty and flight
times, using duty and flight time record
forms which shall be provided by his
employer, in or similar to the format
shown in appendix 1;
the pilot's record shall be signed at the
end of each calendar month by the pilot
and the employer or his representative
and shall be maintained or made available
by the employer at the pilot's base for a
period of 7 years or the duration of this
award, whichever is the greater period;
the employer shall keep proper time and
wages books and shall record duty, stand
by, reserves and flight times of all
pilots;
of the Helicopter Pilots'
aS eee ete
Reece,
4. -
(d) such records shall be available in the
pilot's base and shall be liable to
inspection by a duly accredited
representative of the Federation during
normal working hours."
"26. Access to records.
(a) Any personal file equipment record or
check report of a pilot, whether at the
head office of the company or at an
outpost, shall be open to inspection by
the pilot in the presence of the employer
during normal business hours.
(d) each employer shall keep up to date
records in respect of each pilot in his
employ, showing the Pilot's award
classification, gross salary, all
allowances, all additions to salary, all
deductions and net salary;
(e) the records referred to in subclause (a)
of this clause shall be maintained or
made available at the pilot's home base
and shail be made available for
inspection by a duly accredited
representative of the Federation. Such
records shall be kept for not less than 7
years or for the duration of this award,
whichever is the longer period."
Clause 27 of that award relates to the right of entry of
union officials, but seems to be oriented to the
investigation of complaints concerning the application of the
award.
By two separate letters, each dated 13th July 1987,
the applicant, by its Industrial Officer, Mr. L.A. Cox, gave
notice to the respondent of its intention to inspect, by duly
a
_ ae - oF a
5.
accredited representatives, the relevant records of the
respondent. These letters referred to clause 21 of the
respective awards. The letters included the following
passage:
"I would be obliged if you would advise me of
a time convenient to you during the week
commencing Monday 3lst August when Federation
representatives can call to inspect your
Salary, Duty and Flight time Records."
A copy of a letter of authority accrediting Mr. Cox on behalf
of the applicant was enclosed with each of the letters. On
lst September 1987, Mr. Cox, together with Mr. Hinds, the
Chairman of the Northern Territory sub-branch of the
applicant, attended at the business premises of the
respondent at the Alice Springs airport. At that time, Mr.
Cox requested a Mr. Leach, apparently a director and the
manager of the respondent, that he be allowed to inspect the
records of the respondent. Mr. Leach refused that request.
A subsequent attempt was made by correspondence
with the respondent to induce it to permit inspection of its
records under the Pilots (General Aviation) Award 1984, That
correspondence included a letter from Coldham J., who is the
Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal, supporting the
request. The letter was returned, delivery having been
refused by the respondent on or about 7th October 1987.
ee a re er epee oe
The respondent has appeared before the Court and
has admitted breaches of the awards. In those circumstances
the applicant is content to proceed only in respect of one
breach of each award, even if the breaches concerned cannot
be brought within s.119(1)(a) of the Act as two or more
breaches of a term of an award. For these reasons, I am
content to deal with the matter as if one breach of each
award had occurred.
Mr. Levy, on behalf of the respondent, has given
from the bar table some account of the respondent's business
and the size of its operations. It was incorporated in 1973
and has been operating a general aircraft charter business
since then. Mr. Roger Leach is a director and manager of the
business, which operates primarily from Alice Springs, with a
branch at Yulara.
Six full-time administrative staff are employed,
including a company secretary, who is the chief pilot, and
flies when required, a manager at Yulara, who is a pilot, who
flies as required, and four office workers. There are also
three full-time pilots, each of whom flies some 600 or 800
hours per annum, and casual daily pilots. At present there
are nine such casual daily pilots. The respondent claims to
have benefited pilots, by being prepared to hire persons of
little experience and to give them opportunities to fly large
numbers of hours. Ten aircraft are operated altogether.
ae
.
err Ho
eee
. way :
As to the reason for the breaches of the awards,
the respondent says that its employees at the relevant time
were not members of the applicant and actively rejected
membership of it. This rejection led Mr. Roger Leach to the
mistaken belief that he was entitled to refuse entry and
inspection by the applicant.
Subsequent to the events which I have outlined, the
respondent took legal advice, and last November received
legal advice that it was obliged to permit entry and
inspection by the applicant in relation to its records. As a
result, the respondent has now undertaken in court that it
will give to accredited representatives of the applicant the
right to enter its premises and to inspect the appropriate
records. It should be noted that this undertaking has been
given today in court and that no step has apparently been
taken since the legal advice was received last November to
ensure that inspection takes place. The undertaking is
presently in broad terms, no date having been negotiated for
an inspection to take place.
By virtue of s.119(1D)(a)(i) of the Act, the
maximum penalty applicable in a case such as the present is
the sum of $1000. This is not a criminal case, but a civil
case for recovery of a penalty. By analogy with the usual
principles applicable to the criminal law, a respondent who
yre me memes sew ey eer me
es ite ile: Siete
oo,
ey
a
my
8.
in effect pleads guilty should be given some consideration
for that, with respect to penalty.
There should also be, in my view, a large reduction
in the normal penalty for the respondent's preparedness to
give access to its records inthe present circumstances,
although that reduction should not be as great as it would
have been had the inspection been given prior to today, or
even had there been firmer arrangements negotiated for such
inspection.
Naturally, proper regard should be given to the
fact that the breaches arose from a mistaken view that the
respondent's award obligations were in some way tied up with
membership of the applicant by its employees. Taking all
those matters into account, it seems to me that an
appropriate penalty for breach or non-observance of each of
the awards is $150. JI therefore propose to order that the
respondent pay $150 in respect of its breach of each award.
The only other issue which arises is as to the fate
of each of the penalties. Section 120 of the Act provides
that the Court has a discretion to order the payment of a
penalty into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or to such
organization or person as is specified in the order. When a
registered organization takes steps to enforce an award under
aa ee
we ae eee
en ay ern ee
. os t eo "0
meer ee
ees
Me nepee ceepenp eg
the Act, it is appropriate that that organization should
receive the benefit of any penalty. The legislation, in my
view, is designed to encourage observance of the law by
encouraging the taking of action in respect of breaches of
awards.
For those reasons, I make the following orders:
1. The respondent pay a penalty of $150 in respect of
breach or non-observance of clause 21(a) of the Pilots
(General Aviation) Award 1984, which breach or
non-observance occurred on Ist September 1987.
2. The respondent pay a penalty of $150 for breach or
non-observance of clause 21(d) of the Helicopter Pilots'
(General Aviation) Award 1984, which breach or
non-observance occurred on lst September 1987.
3. Each such penalty be paid to the applicant, the
Australian Federation of Air Pilots.
Appearances
Mr. Tony Nemec for Australian Federation of Air Pilots
Mr. Grant Levy for Leach Aero Services Pty. Ltd.
Hearing Date: 24 June 1988.
oo
r
ye ene ee ee et ret ee
ee eee
10.
I certify that this and the
preceding nine (9) pages are a
true copy of the Reasons for
Judgment of the Honourable
Justice Gray.
Dated: 9 Avayst 1786
Associate Ly aha Abb
we meee
ee er te ee een cr
' ied ee :
a :