Blake, Chuck C & Anor v Sitefate Pty Ltd & Anor Jackson, Paul H & Anor v Airwarm Pty Ltd & Anor McCarthy, Brian & Anor v Impulse Airlines Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 782

Blake, Chuck C & Anor v Sitefate Pty Ltd & Anor Jackson, Paul H & Anor v Airwarm Pty Ltd & Anor McCarthy, Brian & Anor v Impulse Airlines Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 782

Although Impulse exercised a high degree of operational control over pilots, that control was largely an inevitable feature of civil aviation regulation. Other factors pointed against employment: the pilot-providing companies, not Impulse, rostered pilots; remuneration of individual members was not directly proportional to work performed; the companies were created and operated genuinely rather than as shams; and directors of those companies acted as having authority over members. Considering all relevant factors, none of the individual applicants was an employee of Impulse, so the Judicial Registrar's orders against Impulse or Air Transportation Group could not stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Claims of Unlawful Termination of Employment / Applications to Review Decisions of a Judicial Registrar
Outcome
Applications for review allowed; orders of the Judicial Registrar against Air Transportation Group Pty Limited and Impulse Airlines Pty Limited set aside; Brian McCarthy's application dismissed; orders against Sitefate Pty Limited and Airwarm Pty Limited left intact.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'whether Pilots Were Employees of Airline Operator' 'pilot Providing Companies' 'sham Arrangement' 'control and Remuneration in Employment Relationship']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'whether Pilots Were Employees of Airline Operator' 'pilot Providing Companies' 'sham Arrangement' 'control and Remuneration in Employment Relationship']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claims of Unlawful Termination of Employment / Applications to Review Decisions of a Judicial Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any of the individual pilot applicants were employees of the airline operator named as a respondent.' 'Whether the pilot-providing companies were genuine entities supplying services or part of a sham arrangement.' 'Whether the high degree of operational control exercised by Impulse, including through the Chief Pilot, established an employer and employee relationship.' "Whether the Judicial Registrar's orders against Impulse or Air Transportation Group should be set aside."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Impulse exercised a high degree of operational control over pilots, that control was largely an inevitable feature of civil aviation regulation. Other factors pointed against employment: the pilot-providing companies, not Impulse, rostered pilots; remuneration of individual members was not directly proportional to work performed; the companies were created and operated genuinely rather than as shams; and directors of those companies acted as having authority over members. Considering all relevant factors, none of the individual applicants was an employee of Impulse, so the Judicial Registrar's orders against Impulse or Air Transportation Group could not stand.

Court Disposition

Applications for review allowed; orders of the Judicial Registrar against Air Transportation Group Pty Limited and Impulse Airlines Pty Limited set aside; Brian McCarthy's application dismissed; orders against Sitefate Pty Limited and Airwarm Pty Limited left intact.

Orders

  • ['The application by Air Transportation Group Pty Limited for review in VI 1384 of 1995 be allowed.' 'The order made by the Judicial Registrar on 14 March 1997 against Air Transportation Group Pty Limited in VI 1384 of 1995 be set aside.' 'The application for review in VI 1663 of 1996 be allowed.' 'The order made by...