IS MAKING A SINGLE LAME REDUNDANT A WORKPLACE CHANGE TRIGGERING AN OBLIGATION TO DISCUSS?
In the case of Blood v Kareela Aviation Pty Ltd [2022] FedC 432, the Federal Circuit Court considered the issue of whether a decision to make a single Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) redundant was a major workplace change and therefore triggered consultation requirements under the Airline Operators – Ground Staff Award 2020 (Award).
David Blood was employed by Kareela Aviation as a LAME from February 2013 to December 2020. He was made redundant in December 2020 and commenced a proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court alleging that the decision by Kareela Aviation to make him redundant was a definite decision to make a major change and that under clause 32 of the Award, Kareela Aviation was required to consult with him and the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) as soon as practicable after the definite decision was made. Mr Blood claimed that as a result of the failure to have these discussions he had lost the opportunity to convince Kareela Aviation that it was not necessary to make him redundant and he sought to recover lost wages. The ALAEA also commenced proceedings seeking pecuniary penalties for breach of the Award.
The Federal Circuit Court rejected the arguments made by Mr Blood and the ALAEA and held:
The decision to make Mr Blood redundant was not an event which triggered the requirements of clause 32 of the Award to give notice of the changes to affected employees and discuss the changes with those employees;
Mr Blood was told of the decision and of the effect it would have on him and was given a written document setting out the decision and its final particulars and even if clause 32 of the Award had applied it required no more than what was done by Kareela Aviation; and
There was no requirement to discuss the decision with the ALAEA or provide written notice of the changes to ALAEA simply because Mr Blood was a member of that organisation in the absence of any notification by Mr Blood that he had appointed the ALAEA as his representative.
In these circumstances the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the Application by Mr Blood and the ALAEA.
It is important to note that although the Federal Circuit Court held the decision to make a single employee redundant was not a major change by Kareela Aviation, each case will turn on its own facts and employers should carefully consider their organisation’s circumstances when determining whether obligations to provide notice or hold discussions are triggered.