PR956921 Note: An appeal pursuant to s.45 (C2005/3002) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 3 August 2005 [ PR960704 ] for result of appeal. AG787549 PR956921 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 s.170LW - Application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement) The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association and Qantas Airways Limited (C2004/2186) LICENCED AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT IV [1998-2001] (ODN C No. 24675 of 1998) [AG787549] Airline operations COMMISSIONER RAFFAELLI SYDNEY, 14 APRIL 2005 Classification entitlements - Part C clause 4.4.2, etc of the agreement. DECISION [1] This decision deals with the contention of The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) that some licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs) employed by Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) are entitled to receive two additional points related to their wage rates in recognition of additional skill and training. Qantas does not agree that there is such an entitlement. [2] The matter before the Commission is an application pursuant to section 170LW of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). Qantas did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the matter which is a dispute over the application of the Licenced Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways Limited) Enterprise Agreement V 2001 - 2002 [AG812938]. That instrument has as its components two earlier agreements, which are relevant to the matter at hand. These are the Licenced Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways Limited) Enterprise Agreement IV [1998 - 2001] [AG787549] (the 1998 Agreement) and the Licenced Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways Limited) Pay Agreement 1997 [L0513] (the Pay Agreement). [3] The relevant parts of the 1998 Agreement are: "4.4 Movement through the graded wage structure shall be by points system determined by training and/or experience as a Qantas LAME as follows: 4.4.1 Four (4) points shall be required for a movement from one grade to the next higher grade. 4.4.2 Points shall accrue from 16 August 1997 as follows: One year Qantas LAME experience - 1 point Full Qantas Aircraft Type licence (Mechanical or Avionics) - 4 points Single Category Qantas Aircraft Type licence (Engine, Airframe, Electrical or Instrument) - 2 points All applicable Qantas Radio Category and Groups - 10 points 4.4.3 A Qantas Type refers to B747-100/200/300SP series; B747-400 series, B737-300/400 series, B767-200/300 series and A300B series and Engines currently (as at 16 August 1997) operated by Qantas on those types, as well as the 707 series operated by the RAAF. 4.5 The points value of future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed by the parties prior to their introduction." [4] Similar provisions are found in the Pay Agreement. These are: " 6. PROGRESSION THROUGH GRADED WAGE STRUCTURE Movement through the graded wage structure shall be by a points system determined by training and/or experience as a Qantas LAME as follows: a) Four (4) points shall be required for a movement from one grade to the next higher grade. b) Points shall accrue from the date of commencement of this Agreement as follows: One year Qantas LAME experience = 1 point Full Qantas Aircraft Type licence (Mechanical or Avionics) = 4 points Single Category Qantas Aircraft Type licence (Engine, Airframe, Electrical or Instrument) = 2 points All applicable Qantas Radio Category and Groups = 10 points c) A Qantas Type refers to B747-100/200/300/SP series, B747-400 series, B737-300/400 series, B767-200/300 series and A300B series and engines currently operated by Qantas on those types, as well as the 707 series operated by the RAAF. d) The points value of future training packages shall be negotiated and agreed by the parties prior to their introduction." [5] In that light, what has occurred is that in about mid-2003, Qantas initiated what is termed a Life Extension (LE) program to its B747-300 aircraft. The program involved alteration of the B747-300's avionics system (specifically instrument and radio), thus extending the life of the B747-300 aircraft. [6] According to the ALAEA the LE program involves training for B747-series avionics licensed LAMEs in the full instrument package involved in this upgrade, and the consequential interfaces with the navigation systems. [7] LAMEs so trained, have received licence endorsement from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). [8] The ALAEA say that LAMEs trained on the B747-300 LE aircraft are entitled to two points, as such training and licence can be said to be a "Single Category Qantas Aircraft Type Licence" (4.4.2 of the 1998 Agreement or 6(b) of the Pay Agreement). [9] Qantas says that the training and licence cannot be described as a separate Qantas Aircraft Type. The training and application is consistent with the broad Qantas Aircraft Type of the B747-100/200/300/SP series (4.4.3 of the 1998 Agreement or 6(b) of the Pay Agreement). [10] The question for the Commission to decide is whether the training and licence associated with the B747-300 LE aircraft is such that in accordance with 4.4.2 of the 1998 Agreement (or 6(b) of the Pay Agreement) it is a single category aircraft type and therefore that it justifies 2 points. [11] Mr Gregory Smith, a member of the ALAEA and a LAME employed by Qantas at Sydney International Terminal prepared a statement. He was not present to give evidence, however, his statement was made an exhibit (Exhibit ALAEA3) and it included reference to the fact that: 11.1 the technology associated with the B747-300LE requires a much broader range of skills and knowledge compared with the original B747 series aircraft. 11.2 new systems fitted to the B747-300LE aircraft include the Flight Management System, the Electronic Flight Instrument System, the Inertial Reference Systems and the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System. 11.3 there is also a need to be aware of the potential and actual interaction between systems associated with the Life Extension enhancement and the older systems on the aircraft. 11.4 the LAMEs have been maintaining and certifying the B747-300LE aircraft under the belief that they would receive two additional points under the wage structure. [12] Mr Michael Torpey, a member of the ALAEA and a LAME employed by Qantas at the Sydney International Terminal gave evidence. This included that: 12.1 he underwent training to obtain a B747-300 LE endorsement. This required theoretical training for just under three weeks. The practical training lasts two hours. 12.2 he had an expectation that he would receive two additional points. 12.3 he is a practical consolidated trainer for the B747-300 LE program and as such instructs up to three other LAMEs at any one time. 12.4 based on his knowledge, he prepared a summary of the differences between the original B747-300 and the B747-300 LE aircraft. This summary is part of the formal submissions provided as an exhibit by the ALAEA. 12.5 the technology changes incorporated on the B747-300 LE compared to the original model are vast. Not only are there significant changes in the avionics and instrument systems but also there is a heightened need for awareness of the interaction between new and older systems on the aircraft. 12.6 the B747-300 LE is now a partly modern aircraft and is unique. 12.7 he disputed Qantas's assertion (including the evidence of Mr Deahm) that the new avionics package makes it easier for LAMEs to deal with. 12.8 CASA issues an endorsed licence rating once the necessary training has been undergone. 12.9 he agreed that to obtain a new licence such as on a B767-300 aircraft the training period would be of the order of three months theoretical training and about three weeks practical training. With such training, and then licence, a LAME would receive four points on the wage scale. 12.10 he agreed the training associated with an aircraft such as the B767-300 was more than that relating to the B747-300 LE aircraft. 12.11 part of the reason for the disparity in such training periods was because LAMEs, in being trained on the Life Extension program, were all in possession of the original B747-300 training attained years earlier. 12.12 he agreed that for such training on the original B747-300 aircrafts, four points had been awarded. 12.13 he agreed that LAMEs do undertake training on differences in changes to aircraft and in such circumstances they do not always receive points. 12.14 he agreed that given the requirement to have the avionic licence rating on a B747-300 before gaining the rating on the B747-300 LE, the ALAEA's claim would mean that a LAME would receive four points for the original training and a further two points for the Life Extension enhancement. 12.15 however, should Qantas choose to train someone in the future on the B747-300 LE and who did not have previous B747-300 licence rating, they would need to be trained on all aspects of the model, the Life Extension aspects and the base model aspects. In that case four points would apply. [13] Mr Bruce Deahm, Qantas's General Manager, Line Maintenance gave evidence which included that: 13.1 the Life Extension program does not represent a significant change in technology. It does not justify two additional points. 13.2 just because CASA issues a licence rating does not mean that additional points are warranted. 13.3 the Life Extension technology is not as advanced as that found in the B767 series and B747-400 aircraft. 13.4 he disagreed with the evidence of Mr Torpey as to the length of theoretical training required for the B747-300 LE aircraft. 13.5 the awarding of two points for the Life Extension training would effectively apply six points to those LAMEs trained on and servicing the B747-300 LE aircraft. This would be in contrast to four points applicable to work on the B747-400, the B767 (both four points) and the A330 (five points) where all those aircraft types represent more advanced technology. [14] The submissions of Mr Ryan, who represented the ALAEA, included that: 14.1 there are substantial differences between the B747-300 and B747-300 LE aircraft. The differences and their impact on LAMEs was detailed in Attachment B to the ALAEA's written submissions of November 2004. 14.2 the fact that CASA issues a licence endorsement for the Life Extension enhancement training adds to the justification for the additional two points claimed. 14.3 the interaction between Life Extension based items and the original features of the B747-300 necessitated heightened awareness on the part of the LAMEs. [15] The submissions on behalf of Qantas by Mr Mills and Mr Styles included that: 15.1 the Life Extension program has not resulted in a significant net addition to the work of LAMEs. 15.2 the training associated with Life Extension takes approximately four days on theory, and two hours on practical learning. This is to be contrasted with training for a standard licence (usually four points), which is 10-12 weeks theory training, and 4 weeks practical training. 15.3 CASA's determinations as to aircraft and training is not of itself determinant of points going to remuneration. 15.4 the awarding of two points in these circumstances would be inconsistent with the rest of the points applicable to other more advanced aircraft. 15.5 in some ways the Life Extension changes simplify some of the work for LAMEs. CONCLUSION [16] The Commission has been greatly assisted by the parties and in particular by the two witnesses, Mr Torpey and Mr Deahm. Their evidence was not in conflict as to material facts. They differed, of course as to what should be made of such facts. The only difference not easily resolved is as to the training period. It is sufficient that I accept that it is certainly no more than of three weeks duration as to theory and two hours as to practical learning. [17] I have earlier observed in a decision [ PR953571 ] that LAMEs are highly trained and proficient technicians who exercise a high level of skill and within an environment requiring maximum responsibility. It is in that context that I need to apply the facts at hand. That is, whatever the requirements as to the training undertaken and then applied need to be seen in the context of the occupation of a LAME. [18] From that necessary viewpoint, I have difficulty viewing the B747-300 LE as a single category Qantas aircraft type and therefore the justification for the awarding of points where, on the evidence of the ALAEA, the level of training (up to three weeks theory and two hours practical training) are appreciably less than that associated with other licence endorsements that have resulted in points being applied. In that regard, I note that the ALAEA suggested that the duration of the training was as it was because LAMEs being trained on LE changes had an assumed knowledge. However, they have presumably been paid for such assumed knowledge in the past. I am interested in the training required of LAMEs to enable them to work on the B747-300 LE aircraft. In my view, such training is appreciably less than that when compared with that provided in other circumstances and where points are allocated. [19] Further, it would seem inappropriate that the ALAEA claim would result in the application of six points (cumulative of the current four for the B747-300 series and two for the Life Extension) where only four applied to other aircraft including more modern aircraft. The additional possibility where persons might be freshly trained on the entire B747-300 LE receiving only four points would create a further anomaly between such persons and those who have held the B747-300 series rating for some time and who more recently upgraded to the B747-300 LE aircraft. [20] The underlying aspect of the point system is to ensure that the many and continuing changes to training and skills necessary to meet the needs of the modern aircraft and airline industries do not result in a myriad of varying wage increase outcomes with ensuing anomalies. Rather, it aims to provide the means for consistent and sizeable wage increases and levels but only where there is a significant change to aircraft type or system. [21] In my view, given the nature of the changes particularly reflected in the level of training encompassed by the Life Extension program and noting the need to maintain a consistent remuneration structure and avoid anomalous outcomes, the claim of the ALAEA is not made out. [22] The application is dismissed. BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Appearances: C. Ryan with R. Merrison for The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association. D. Mills with P. Styles for Qantas Airways Limited. Hearing details: 2004 Sydney: March 24; September 1. 2005 February 23. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code A>