Qantas Airways Limited v Australian and International Pilots Association (No 2)
Citation: [2024] FCA 756
What happened
Qantas Airways sought to allocate junior pilots (Second Officers Under Training or SOTs) directly to its A380 aircraft for operational reasons. The Qantas Airways Limited Pilots (Long Haul) Enterprise Agreement 2020 (LHEA10) clause 19.1.2 provides that SOTs will normally be allocated to B787, A330, or A330/A350 aircraft unless there are insufficient bids from suitably qualified pilots or such allocation is otherwise agreed with the AIPA. On 20 August 2022, when sufficient bids existed, Qantas requested the AIPA's agreement to allocate 20 SOTs to the A380. The AIPA withheld its agreement.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed both Qantas's claim that the AIPA unreasonably withheld agreement and the AIPA's cross-claim that Qantas contravened the enterprise agreement. The court found that Qantas did not establish the AIPA's agreement was unreasonably withheld. The AIPA's position was not unreasonable, and Qantas subsequently used an alternative method (clause 16) that required compensation to senior pilots who were bypassed. The enterprise agreement was interpreted and applied according to its terms.
What it means for employers
Enterprise agreements often contain provisions requiring the agreement or consent of unions for certain employment actions. When a union withholds agreement, employers cannot assume it is unreasonable. The union's position must genuinely be unreasonable before it breaches such obligations. Alternative contractual procedures may be available.
What it means for employees
Enterprise agreements protect pilots' seniority and career progression rights. Union representatives have a role in protecting members’ interests in these negotiations. Bypass arrangements and seniority protections are enforceable contract terms.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0756Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →