The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (107N) v Qantas Airways Limited Trading AS Qantas Airways
Citation: [2026] FWC 2522
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2522.pdfWant 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 →