The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (107N) v Qantas Airways Limited Trading AS Qantas Airways
At a glance
- 715
What happened
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) sought intervention from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) regarding Qantas Airways Limited's decision to remove Receipt and Dispatch (R&D), including towing duties, from Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) with the introduction of the Airbus A321-XLR aircraft. Qantas intends to progressively replace its Boeing 737 fleet with A321s over the next decade and reallocate R&D tasks to ground handlers. The dispute relates to a clause in the Licensed Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways Limited) Enterprise Agreement 11, which addresses job security for employees. Both parties complied with the Dispute Settling Procedure outlined in the agreement.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined that Qantas did not comply with clause 11 of the Enterprise Agreement regarding job security. The Commissioner considered evidence from the Applicant and the Respondent, who both attended the hearing. The decision was based on Qantas’s reallocation of R&D functions for the A321-XLR aircraft to workers other than LAMEs before assigning responsibilities to a Ground Service Provider (GSP). The Commission agreed with the ALAEA’s contention that this action breached the agreement.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully consider the implications of changes to job roles and responsibilities, particularly when introducing new aircraft or processes. Any alterations must align with existing enterprise agreements and commitments made regarding job security for employees. Unilateral revisions to procedures without proper consultation can lead to disputes and legal action.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of their rights under enterprise agreements and dispute resolution procedures. If an employer’s actions appear to breach those agreements, seeking assistance from a union or the Fair Work Commission is a viable option. It's important to follow established processes for resolving workplace disputes.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.