The 'reasonable overtime' requirement stemmed from an Industrial Relations decision:
Transcript of Decision
One (de-identified) legal interpretation of the current ruling:
In relation to the vexed issue of “reasonable overtime” I reproduce the ‘model clause’ that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission endorsed in its Working Hours Test Case (or “Reasonable Hours” case) (2002) 651 AILR 4-648.
“1.1 Subject to clause 1.2 an employer may require an employee to work reasonable overtime at overtime rates.
1.2 An employee may refuse to work overtime in circumstances where the working of such overtime would result in the employee working hours which are unreasonable having regard to:
1.2.1 any risk to employee health and safety;
1.2.2 the employee's personal circumstances including any family responsibilities;
1.2.3 the needs of the workplace or enterprise;
1.2.4 the notice (if any) given by the employer of the overtime and by the employee of his or her intention to refuse it; and
1.2.5 any other relevant matter.”
This is the clause that the Full Bench endorsed for inclusion in Awards, thus it is a safety net clause and could be described as a current community standard.
This clause has been on the table during the Certified Agreement negotiations. Airservices are willing to include the clause with the exception of the word “refuse”. They proposed alternative words and these were still the subject of discussion when the negotiations were suspended.
In the Reasonable Hours decision, the Commission limited any concept of "reasonableness" with respect to hours of work to a combination of ordinary plus overtime hours. They rejected the notion that ordinary hours may, in cases, be unreasonable. As such the Commission rejected the ACTU application to prohibit the employer requiring an employee to work unreasonable hours of work. In addition the Commission rejected a proposition that, where employees are required to work extreme hours they should be provided with additional time off to recover from that work.
We have a situation where the model clause referred to above has not yet been expressly incorporated into the terms and conditions of employment for Airservices employees, although this is our intention, and it should not be problematic given the Full Bench authority on this matter.
The doctrine of precedent does not strictly apply in industrial proceedings – but consistency of decision making is necessary to ensure the authority of tribunals and uniformity of wages and conditions- therefore, individual members of the Commission treat earlier decisions as highly persuasive. The Commissioner Sheather decision of 1989 was a decision specific to the employment of air traffic controllers. It predates the development of the current Fatigue Management knowledge. I accept that the decision is 15 years old, however, until it is appealed, challenged, overturned or a new standard is established in the Certified Agreement (our intention) it remains a relevant decision for the purposes of this matter.
--------
As far as how busy nights shifts are, well that is pretty subjective - if you have worked in the Middle East I would suggest the night shifts are relatively quiet - unless you are working the big procedural sectors which by nature of the time zone change are their busiest time of day in some cases at 2300-0400 local.
------
Why is there a lot of overtime? Staffing levels have been inadequate - the recruitment program that this thread is based upon is recognition of that to some degree. Also, ATC as a career is not as attractive to Australia graduates any more as much better long term remuneration prospects are available now - with more sociable hours, as well as the competition from some 'progressive' employers. For example Graduates (early 20's) who succeed in employment in Investment Banking start at around 70-75K.