Application for approval of the Australian Services Union (Qantas Airways Limited) Agreement 13

[1] Qantas Airways Limited has applied for approval of a single enterprise agreement known as the Australian Services Union (Qantas Airways Limited) Agreement 13 ("Agreement"). The application is made under section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 ("Act").

[2] The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union ("ASU") was a bargaining representative for the Agreement. It supports the approval of the Agreement.

[3] After the application was filed, the Commission received emails from 13 Qantas employees who fall within the "Senior Professionals" classifications in the Agreement. The emails were in largely similar terms and raised concerns with the Agreement, stemming from the fact that most Senior Professionals will receive lower wage increases than those that all other employees under the Agreement will receive. The employees contended that due to the size of their cohort compared to the total number of employees covered by the Agreement, they were unable to effectively influence the outcome of the vote, resulting in an inequitable result. The employees sought, in effect, that the Commission "review" the Agreement and ensure that all Senior Professionals receive the same wage increases as the other employees covered by the Agreement.

[4] On 12 January 2026, I arranged for an email to be sent to Qantas, the ASU and the 13 Senior Professionals, in which I expressed the provisional view that the concerns raised by the employees did not go to whether the relevant statutory criteria for approval of the Agreement had been met. The email invited any Senior Professional who disagreed with my provisional view to send an email to my Chambers setting out their position.

[5] On 14 January 2026, my Chambers received an email from Jackson Bukor, a Senior Professional. In his email, Mr Bukor set out the basis on which he contended that the requirements of section 186, 187 and 188 of the Act had not been met in relation to the Agreement. Following a directions hearing on 20 January 2026, Mr Bukor filed additional submissions on 22 January 2026.

[6] Apart from Mr Bukor, no other Senior Professional filed submissions or sought to be heard on the application. In saying that, I note that Sandro Di Matteo, a Senior Professional, appeared at the directions hearing but did not request to be heard, and that part of Mr Bukor's submission was a "supporting statement" from Trina Wyllie, who was said to be a Senior Professional.

[7] Distilled to its essence, Mr Bukor's position was that Senior Professionals represent a distinct cohort under the Agreement and the Commission could not be satisfied that they had genuinely agreed to the Agreement, within the meaning of sections 186(2)(a) and 188(1) and (2) of the Act, in the absence of cohort-specific evidence as to how they had voted. He contended that "the Commission lacks sufficient material to be satisfied YES voters were sufficiently representative" and that "[w]here materially different conditions apply to a defined classification group, the Commission's satisfaction under s.188 must be established in relation to that group, not inferred from the experience or voting behaviour of the broader workforce".

[8] Those submissions are incorrect. A single-enterprise agreement is made when the majority of employees who will be covered by the agreement cast a valid vote to approve it (section 182(1) of the Act). The making of the agreement is not conditional on each cohort within the workforce separately and by majority approving it. It follows that the Commission does not need to know how the Senior Professionals voted and whether a majority of them voted to approve the Agreement.

[9] Further, Mr Bukor's submissions misapprehend what is meant by "sufficiently representative" in section 188(2)(b) of the Act. That concept is not confined to whether those Senior Professionals who voted to approve the Agreement represented the majority of Senior Professionals, or were "representative" of that cohort. The relevant assessment is reflected in section 17 of the Statement of Principles On Genuine Agreement, which is in these terms:

17. In considering whether employees have a sufficient interest in the terms of an enterprise agreement as required by section 188(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act, and whether the employees are sufficiently representative as required by section 188(2)(b), the FWC may take into account:

(a) whether the employees entitled to vote on the enterprise agreement are to be paid the rates of pay provided for in the agreement, and

(b) the extent to which the employees entitled to vote on the enterprise agreement are employed across the full range of:

ii. types of employment in the agreement (for example, full-time, part-time and casual)

iii. geographic locations the agreement covers, and

iv. industries and occupations the agreement covers.

[10] There is nothing before me to suggest that the employees who were entitled to vote on the Agreement, viewed as a whole, were not sufficiently representative within the meaning of section 17 of the Statement of Principles.

[11] Mr Bukor further submitted that Senior Professionals comprise approximately 13% of the total workforce covered by the Agreement, and as such could not have influenced the outcome. This was said to raise questions as to whether the Agreement "was genuinely agreed to by all employees covered". However, genuine agreement does not require "all" employees to vote to approve the Agreement. It is not unheard-of for an enterprise agreement to provide for different outcomes across the relevant workforce.

[12] Mr Bukor also argued that Qantas had failed to provide modelling or explanations on certain terms of the Agreement, and that its failure to do so and to provide "cohort-level data" meant that there was "an insufficient basis to be satisfied employees had a reasonable opportunity to understand the effect of terms". But there seems no question that the Senior Professionals understood the effect of the terms; they simply did not agree to them.

[13] This leads to another of Mr Bukor's contentions, namely that Qantas and the ASU acted in a manner inconsistent with good faith bargaining (section 187(2)). This was said to have been demonstrated by Qantas and the ASU failing to "substantively consider" multiple submissions made by the Senior Professionals and not having made counter-proposals. However, the submissions fall short of demonstrating that either Qantas or the ASU did not meet the good faith bargaining requirements as described in section 228(1) of the Act. Mr Bukor's grievance appears to be more about a failure by Qantas and the ASU to agree to the Senior Professionals' position. But good faith bargaining does not require concessions to be made or agreement to be reached (section 228(2) of the Act).

[14] Finally, Mr Bukor raised a question as to whether the Agreement passed the better off overall test (section 186(2)(d) of the Act). However, the submission did not rise higher than a contention that "a non-trivial cohort of SPs (particularly SP2 and SP1 above minimum) are plausibly worse off than under the Award" (my emphasis) and that the Commission could not be "satisfied under s.186(2)(d) without SP-specific BOOT analysis". It suffices to say that the Commission's Agreements team conducted a BOOT analysis of the Agreement and raised no issues in relation to Senior Professionals. It is relevant, but not determinative, that Qantas and the ASU have filed declarations asserting their views that the Agreement passes the BOOT. Mr Bukor has asserted that those views are incorrect, but has not shown that to be the case.

[15] Having regard to these matters, I am not persuaded that Mr Bukor has demonstrated that the conditions for approval of the Agreement have not been met. Despite his apparent dissatisfaction with the terms of the Agreement, he has not raised any issue that would preclude me from approving the Agreement in accordance with the Act.

[16] Having regard to the material in the application and accompanying declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of sections 186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to the application have been met.

[17] The ASU has given notice under section 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. As required by section 201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the ASU.

[18] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with section 54 of the Act, the Agreement will operate from 4 February 2026. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2029.

[19] Qantas has applied for a variation to the Agreement, pursuant to section 218A of the Act. The effect of the requested variation is to replace the existing Schedule 3.2 with the table which is Appendix A to this decision.

[20] The error relates to a particular category of Senior Professional employees. In short, the rates of pay in the existing Schedule 3.2 do not provide for a 3% increase from 1 July 2026, as required by clause 77.1(c) of the Agreement. This has a consequential effect on the rates payable from 1 July 2027 and 1 July 2028, as the percentage increases are not being applied to the correct minimum rates. Qantas submitted that this was an "obvious error, defect or irregularity" of the kind contemplated by section 218A. It stated that there are no employees currently engaged in the relevant category who are impacted by the error.

[21] The table at Appendix A to this decision corrects the error. It reflects a 3% increase from 1 July 2026, with the subsequent increases being applied to the correct, higher minimum rates.

[22] The ASU consents to the variation that Qantas proposes.

[23] I am satisfied that the existing Schedule 3.2 of the Agreement contains obvious errors. It is appropriate that an order be made to correct them

[24] Pursuant to section 218A(1) of the Act I order that:

• (1) The Agreement be amended by deleting the existing Schedule 3.2 and replacing it with the document which is Appendix A to this decision.

• (2) This variation will operate from the date of this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer