top of page

Employer fails to freeze representation ruling: Implications for Fair Work Commission proceedings

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision highlights the complexities surrounding representation rights in employment disputes. PHI (International) Australia Pty Ltd, trading as HNZ Australia, sought to delay an underpayments case by requesting legal representation, which the FWC ultimately denied.

Background of the Case

PHI aimed to secure representation ahead of a hearing regarding a jurisdictional objection to a casual entitlements dispute initiated by three pilots supported by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP). The employer argued that the FWC lacked jurisdiction as the pilots had not adhered to the dispute resolution procedures outlined in the 2017 Karratha Helicopter Pilots MPT Operations Agreement.

Employer fails to freeze representation ruling: Implications for Fair Work Commission proceedings
Employer fails to freeze representation ruling: Implications for Fair Work Commission proceedings

Representation Rights and Dispute Resolution

Clause 22.1.4 of the agreement specifies that a person "initiating a dispute may appoint and be accompanied and represented at any stage by another person, organisation or association, including a union representative or company association in relation to the dispute." This clause does not explicitly extend representation rights to other parties involved in the dispute.

Initially, Deputy President Peter O'Keeffe was inclined to grant PHI's representation request, acknowledging AFAP's opposition. However, after further deliberation, Deputy President O'Keeffe denied PHI's request, citing the specific terms of the dispute resolution procedure and previous case findings as the basis for his decision.

Appeal and Balance of Convenience

PHI argued that Deputy President O'Keeffe erred in law by not granting representation rights under section 596 of the Fair Work Act. Vice President Mark Gibian acknowledged PHI's "sufficiently arguable case on appeal" but emphasised that the clause's primary focus is to ensure the pilot's right to representation, not to exclude other parties from being represented.

Despite this, Vice President Gibian noted that the broader question of balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay of Deputy President O'Keeffe's decision. The stay would not automatically allow PHI representation but would only enable PHI to reapply for such permission.

Procedural Objections and Industry Impact

The ruling underscores the procedural intricacies and the importance of adhering to specific terms outlined in workplace agreements. An AFAP spokesperson remarked on the increasing procedural objections from aviation industry employers, suggesting these tactics serve to delay dispute resolution.

This case, PHI (International) Australia Pty Ltd T/A HNZ Australia Pty Ltd v Mr Martin Nash & Mr Paul Micheletti and Another [2024] FWC 1735, illustrates the FWC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and the specific terms of employment agreements in determining representation rights. Employers and employees alike must carefully consider these provisions to navigate disputes effectively within the framework of the Fair Work Act.

For more insights on employment disputes and representation rights, visit 1800ADVOCATES for expert guidance and support.

This blog post is an interpretation of recent FWC proceedings and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult a qualified professional.

6 views0 comments


bottom of page