Adelaide and Queensland EA Ballots
As all members employed by the Alliance Group know, in just a few more hours the ballots for the two enterprise agreements - Adelaide and Queensland - will open.
At that point, if you are a based in either State, you have a simple decision to make. You need to decide whether the EA proposed by Alliance Group management in your State, contains a level of pay and conditions that you would accept, and that you expect colleagues to also accept (for the next few years)!
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Importantly, only you and your colleagues get to vote on the proposed EAs. Certainly not Alliance Group management.
As the two ballots scheduled for tomorrow have drawn nearer, the AFAP has been contacted by a number of members. In short, the AFAP has been asked to explain:
- various aspects of the proposed EAs (including what they will mean to Pilots generally);
- what occurs in the situation where a majority of Pilots vote in favour of a draft EA; and,
- alternatively, what happens if a majority of Pilots vote against either of the draft EAs.
On consideration, the AFAP considers that it is worth starting our response, with an answer to the third point first.
‘NO’ Vote
Members should understand that a majority ‘No’ vote will lead back to the resumption of the current EA negotiations. To be clear, that is exactly what happened after the failed Queensland EA ballot in October 2024.
There is a significant difference though. Unlike what occurred following the October ballot, Protected Industrial Action has now been approved for AFAP (and TWU) members in both Queensland and South Australia, and is able to be used.
Consequently, if there is an overall ‘No’ vote in one or both ballots, there is now a clear option to apply increased pressure on Alliance Group management, in order to achieve an improved deal.
Questions have also been asked of the AFAP as to the ramifications if there is a ‘No’ vote, and the Alliance Group subsequently applies for an Intractable Bargaining Declaration (IBD). Well, the first thing for members to understand is that the IBD process is relatively new (having been introduced into the FW Act only fairly recently). As such. everyone involved in industrial relations in Australia is keenly watching to see what the IBD process actually ‘delivers’ in both the short and long-term.
In fact, as you and other Pilots will be aware, the AFAP (along with the TWU) is currently awaiting the final decision from the FW Commission, related to the IBD application submitted by Network Aviation. Once the Commission releases that decision, we will then all have a far better understanding of the likely type of provisions that the FW Commission thinks are appropriate in the aviation sector.
Importantly, it may also turn out that going down the path of an IBD application, is potentially the last thing Alliance Group management actually ever wants to do. In any IBD process, Alliance Group management would lose all control of the final decision. It would be left up to the FW Commission to determine what remuneration rates would apply, along with a wide array of other EA conditions.
Given their past performance, that potentially would not suit Alliance Group management at all. In EA negotiations, they notoriously argue against any significant changes that are sought, and have clearly been prepared in many negotiations, to drag proceedings out, with the deliberate aim of frustrating the relevant Pilot group over that time.
Does any of that sound familiar? By wearing Pilots ‘down’ in the past, Alliance Group management have been able to convince its Pilots, along with its other workers, to accept mediocre deals, just as a means to bring to an end various drawn out negotiations.
Sound familiar?
‘YES’ Vote
It is unclear currently whether the two State EAs will be supported by Pilots in the two different States.
One outcome that may present itself in the ballots tomorrow is that one EA receives the support of a majority of Pilots in that State, whilst the EA in the other State is rejected by the majority of Pilots. In that scenario, negotiations will start again for the the EA that did not get majority support.
Meanwhile, if there is a majority ‘Yes’ vote in either State tomorrow for a proposed EA, it means that Alliance Group management subsequently has to lodge a formal application to the FW Commission for the approval of that EA. Importantly, there can be legal implications if there are any inaccuracies in the documentation that is submitted.
After lodging that documentation, there is no specific timeframe in which the FW Commission must decide whether to approve or disallow the proposed EA.
Before an EA can be approved, the FW Commission needs to be convinced that a number of mandatory steps have been completed appropriately. It also needs to confirm that the pay and conditions of the proposed EA are better than those in the Air Pilots Award 2020, when considered overall (rather than when comparing them provision by provision).
At this point, the AFAP (and TWU) can lodge separate applications, in order to have the FWC rule that each Union is to be covered by the proposed EA.
After an EA is approved by the FWC, it legally comes into operation seven (7) days after that approval, unless a later start time is actually specified in the EA itself.
Queensland and Adelaide EA Ballot
The AFAP, over the past week, has been very clear in its message to all members based in Queensland and South Australia, that they need to look very closely at the content of the applicable draft EA, before they cast their vote (tomorrow).
In short, the AFAP hopes that all affected members have, at a minimum, compared the proposed EA in their State against their existing EA. There have been a wide range of changes made to the content of the existing EAs in Queensland and Adelaide, with many of the changes clearly not introduced to benefit Pilots overall (which is highly problematic).
For example, there is a strong concern about changes to the wording in the draft EAs in relation to rostering protections, along with changes to Standby provisions.
Similarly, there are significant problems concerning the new definition of a “Tour of Duty’, and what might evolve from that change.
Aside from those two examples, there are plenty of other issues that need to be rectified in the wording of the proposed EAs, including:
- The lack of any significant back-pay (even though bargaining has been unnecessarily dragged out);
- The delay in introducing the full Grey Day proposal;
- The numerous “half-baked” provisions rushed into the proposed EAs;
- The lack of suitable protections for F100 Pilots in Queensland, when transferring to the E190;
- The changed rules concerning the Duty Extension allowance;
- The lack of suitable rules around Standby duties;
- The lack of any penalty following a disruption into a Grey Day;
- The failure to increase Sick Leave entitlements, to match current industry standards;
- The failure to include both the weekend prior and the weekend post, in 7 day annual leave blocks;
- The lack of any guarantee that rosters are to stay as published;
- The deletion of specific accommodation standards; and,
- Insufficient changes to part-time arrangements.
The AFAP encourages all members in Queensland and Adelaide to seriously consider these and other significant problems contained in the draft EAs. Unfortunately, it seems that in their rush to get the two proposed EAs out to ballot, the Alliance Group took a few liberties.
So, if you are voting on either of the EAs tomorrow, the AFAP strongly recommends that each and every AFAP member gives close consideration to the highly problematic content of the proposed EAs, and the negative impact that the proposed EAs are likely to have on not only yourself, going forward, but also on your colleagues too.
If you have any questions, please contact AFAP Senior Industrial Officer James Mattner (at james@afap.org.au).