Qantas denied a say in looming court case over treatment of pilots’ standby duties

Australia’s biggest airline will be shut out of a court case examining whether pilots’ standby duty should be counted as work hours.

Qantas is taking up the fight over standby duty for pilots to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots in the Federal Court. Picture: AAP

Qantas will be shut out of a court case that will determine if standby duty for pilots should be treated as hours of work and therefore paid accordingly.

In April, the South Australian Employment Tribunal ruled that the Air Pilots’ Award allowed for standby duties to be included in a pilot’s 38-hour working week.

The ruling was delivered in a case brought by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots on behalf of member Nina Paluska against small Adelaide-based operator Corporate Air Charter.

Ms Paluska was successful in arguing her standby duties should have been counted as work, and Corporate Air Charter was ordered to pay compensation of $26,000.

CAC appealed the decision to the Full Federal Court, on the basis the requirement would be devastating to its operation.

Qantas applied to intervene in the case, arguing the decision also had significant implications for the company as Australia’s largest employer of aeroplane pilots.

In a hearing before the Federal Court on Friday, barrister for Qantas Matthew Follett KC said the effect of the Tribunal’s decision meant periods of rostered standby and reserve were counted as hours worked.

He said under the Qantas short-haul pilots agreement, there was provision for 12-hour periods of reserve for three days, which would amount to 36 hours.

“Any duty thereafter would automatically enable an employee to contend the working of that particular shift is unreasonable and lead to disputation about that matter,” Mr Follett said.

Corporate Air Charter was supportive of the intervention, on the basis Qantas’ involvement would make the battle with the “well-resourced” AFAP less of a David and Goliath affair.

“Corporate Air Charter is a minnow compared to Qantas and perhaps that’s why we were the focus of the (AFAP’s) strategic attack on us — if they can kill the minnow they can kill the beast,” barrister for CAC Jeffrey Phillips SC, said.

“I think having the bigger picture presented of what standby and reserve means from the biggest employer of air pilots in Australia, that would be of great assistance to us and great assistance to the court.”

n April, the South Australian Employment Tribunal ruled that the Air Pilots’ Award allowed for standby duties to be included in a pilot’s 38-hour working week.

Jim Hartley for the AFAP argued against allowing Qantas to intervene, saying the larger airline would not bring anything “useful or different” to the case.

He said there was no doubt the outcome of the case would affect Qantas “albeit indirectly” given their pilots were covered by enterprise agreements rather than awards.

But Mr Hartley said it was no different to a tax case, where a change in taxing statute affected an individual as well as a much larger organisation that then sought to intervene in an appeal.

“Then the question becomes whether the particular intervener has something to say that the parties haven’t already said,” Mr Hartley told the court.

“It’s difficult to see how Qantas could persuade the court of that.”

Justice John Logan agreed that Qantas would not bring anything “different or useful” to an appeal and dismissed the application to intervene.

Among the reasons cited in his judgment was the defamation case brought by actor Rebel Wilson against Bauer Media as the publishers of Woman’s Day and Women’s Weekly in 2017.

Justice Logan pointed out in that matter, a number of other media outlets sought to intervene but were unsuccessful because their contributions were unlikely to be useful or different.

“It is clear that Qantas has a singular interest indeed in terms of precedent in whatever result there may be as to construction of the (pilot’s) award as a result of determination of the appeal,” Justice Logan said.

“That said, Qantas is in that regard in no different position than for example an employer whose interests might be affected by the disposition of a tax case.

“In other words, I’m not persuaded that the submissions of Qantas would be useful and different.”

The appeal before the Full Federal Court was set down for November 19 and 20.

Originally published as Qantas denied a say in looming court case over treatment of pilots’ standby duties