The employer argued that it was not required to negotiate, in accordance with the statutory recognition framework, with BALPA on proposals concerning rostering arrangements because only matters which would result in specific contractual rights should be within scope of negotiations on hours. In its view, the rostering arrangements were not ‘apt’ for incorporation given their flexible nature. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument stating that the scope of collective bargaining was defined in the legislation by subject-matter (whether it related to ‘pay, hours or holidays’) and not by contractual status. As such, it did not matter whether the negotiation proposals, if accepted, would give rise to contractual rights, since the employer was required to negotiate about them so long as they related to pay, hours or holidays. Many will view this as a common sense approach in the circumstances.