Australian and International Pilots Association v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 14

Australian and International Pilots Association v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 14

The proceeding was dismissed because Mr Kent was not an employee within the meaning of the Jetstar Enterprise Agreement at the relevant time, so cl 19.1.7 did not apply to him. Although the cadets were employees when the replacement funding agreements were signed, the training costs related to initial A320 endorsement training required to qualify for employment, which was outside cl 19.1.7 and Attachment 2 of the Jetstar Enterprise Agreement. The applicants also failed to prove that the 10% facilitation fee was unreasonable for the purposes of s 325(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), given evidence that Jetstar undertook administrative, organisational and funding activities to facilitate...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Fair Work Division Proceeding Alleging Breach of the Jetstar Airways Pilot Agreement 2008 and Contravention of S 325(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed.
Legal Topics
['workplace Agreement' 'training Bond or Endorsement Agreement' 'recovery of Pilot Training Costs' 'fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 325(1)' 'unreasonable Requirement to Spend Amounts Payable for Work' 'employee Standing Under Enterprise Agreement']
['contracts' 'industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['workplace Agreement' 'training Bond or Endorsement Agreement' 'recovery of Pilot Training Costs' 'fair Work Act 2009 (cth) S 325(1)' 'unreasonable Requirement to Spend Amounts Payable for Work' 'employee Standing Under Enterprise Agreement']

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

Fair Work Division Proceeding Alleging Breach of the Jetstar Airways Pilot Agreement 2008 and Contravention of S 325(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth) / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Jetstar Enterprise Agreement applied to Mr Kent at the relevant time when he had accepted a conditional offer of employment but had not commenced employment.' 'Whether requiring the cadet pilots to repay A320 endorsement training costs in excess of $36,000 and to pay a 10% facilitation fee breached cl 19.1.7 and Attachment 2 of the Jetstar Enterprise Agreement.' 'Whether Jetstar contravened s 325(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by requiring Mr Kent and the cadets to pay a 10% facilitation fee associated with training.' 'Whether the 10% facilitation fee was unreasonable in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was dismissed because Mr Kent was not an employee within the meaning of the Jetstar Enterprise Agreement at the relevant time, so cl 19.1.7 did not apply to him. Although the cadets were employees when the replacement funding agreements were signed, the training costs related to initial A320 endorsement training required to qualify for employment, which was outside cl 19.1.7 and Attachment 2 of the Jetstar Enterprise Agreement. The applicants also failed to prove that the 10% facilitation fee was unreasonable for the purposes of s 325(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), given evidence that Jetstar undertook administrative, organisational and funding activities to facilitate...

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed.']