TWU may challenge QF Fair Work Australia ruling in the courts

[harvyk]

I suggest this is taken with a grain of salt at this stage. I can only find this story in news limited sites at this stage.

• TWU said advice was they had grounds to appeal
• Want to fight Fair Work Australia through courts
• Qantas rejects claims, insists acted within the law

Transport Workers Union may challenge Qantas after legal advice airline broke law | News.com.au

My personal view is if this is true, the unions may end up taking QF out altogether (and if the company folds who do you pester for payrises?). Whilst I don't like AJ and his grand visions, I do think he did the right thing by grounding the fleet and getting FWA to make a ruling.

 

[markis10]

AIPA has also not ruled out a challenge, so while the TWU did announce last week their decision would be in the 48 hours after the ruling re an appeal (ie by Wednesday), the delay in that announcement suggests that things are still under consideration.

 

[harvyk]

The whole notion of protected industrial action is designed to get managements attention. I'd say they have got that, especially as the whole process is now going infront of an independent arbitrator who is able to deliver binding rulings on both parties. I do not see what good additional industrial action will do at this stage except for hurting the hand that feeds them and probably more importantly keeping union employees and bosses employed.

Wouldn't the best course of action which is in the interest of the employees the unions supposedly represent be to work with the guidlines of the system and put together a case for raising wages inline with the percentages asked for?

 

[oz_mark]

Wouldn't the best course of action which is in the interest of the employees the unions supposedly represent be to work with the guidlines of the system and put together a case for raising wages inline with the percentages asked for?

The issue for the unions is that it is not really about the pay. It is about the conditions related to job security/outsourcing etc. Arbitration may get them the pay, but there is some question about whether the other items related to conditions would be granted by FWA.

 

[awilcockson]

It is about the conditions related to job security/outsourcing etc.

There's not much job security if you force the company you work for to go under ...

 

[harvyk]

The issue for the unions is that it is not really about the pay. It is about the conditions related to job security/outsourcing etc. Arbitration may get them the pay, but there is some question about whether the other items related to conditions would be granted by FWA.

Hypothetical - is "not doing your job" the best way to prove that they should keep you employed and not get someone else in to do your job at a cheaper rate?

Whilst I am anything but happy with the thought of QF becoming anything other than the "Australian airline" it is within any company's rights to use whatever resources they legally have available to them to get the job done. No doubt the Qantas Sale Act restricts the legal options QF have available to them.

It comes down to does any one individual have a right to work for any specific company? My thoughts are no. In the real world there is always a risk that your services will no longer be required for a variety of reasons ranging from someone else will do the work cheaper to customers no longer want to use your product. I fail to see why a company should be forced to employ any one person or group of people against the companies wishes.

 

[notzac]

The issue for the unions is that it is not really about the pay. It is about the conditions related to job security/outsourcing etc. Arbitration may get them the pay, but there is some question about whether the other items related to conditions would be granted by FWA.

I thought QF had already basically agreed on pay? I'd challenge the good folk at the union to find their members another job that promised job security as a part of the contract.. does such a thing even exist in the real world?

I don't think this has finished playing out yet..

 

[oz_mark]

I thought QF had already basically agreed on pay? I'd challenge the good folk at the union to find their members another job that promised job security as a part of the contract.. does such a thing even exist in the real world?

I don't think this has finished playing out yet..

My understanding is that the argument is not about the pay. That they basically agree on. It is the other conditions the unions want. I suspect that the unions won't have those conditions agreed to by FWA should it go to arbitration, and hence the talk of legal action over the previous decision.

 

[markis10]

My understanding is that the argument is not about the pay. That they basically agree on. It is the other conditions the unions want. I suspect that the unions won't have those conditions agreed to by FWA should it go to arbitration, and hence the talk of legal action over the previous decision.

The main sticking point with AIPA is the clause in the contract that a QF flight must have a QF pilot!

 

[dfcatch]

The main sticking point with AIPA is the clause in the contract that a QF flight must have a QF pilot!

This one is easily solved.

A/ Jetconnect gets an orange star on the tail

B/ Jetconnect gets a Silver fern on the tail and a "Qantas Group Airline" on the fuselage.

I don't like either option - personally - i'd rather stick to the status quo.

I guess that means AIPA should drop its demand IMHO, as in all honesty, they're never going to get that. And if they do - QF will simply adopt one of the above.

 

[NM]

The main sticking point with AIPA is the clause in the contract that a QF flight must have a QF pilot!

I wonder how BA will cope with QF302 having a QF pilot?

 

[markis10]

I wonder how BA will cope with QF302 having a QF pilot?

They would love it I imagine, especially if there was no cost base associated with it!

 

[drron]

Very interesting.The government justified this course of action as it could not be challenged in the courts but if the Minister made a termination order hence stopping the grounding it could have been challenged in the courts.

 

[rechoboam]

The board should liquidate the international operations. The resources could be making real money on the profitable arms. If the unions and pilots want to buy it out and make a go of it good luck to them. They can all give themselves jobs for life in that case. Does the QSA mandate a premium intl service has to continue until the airline is bankrupt?

 

[medhead]

Wow. I see we're take an extreme definition of the meaning of Job Security. Unfortunately, that doesn't exactly match the words that were coming out of the mouth of the head of AIPA the other weekend. He was saying that the job security bit has always been subject to negotiation and limitation via exemption and restrictions on when and how they would apply. The truth must be somewhere between both extremes.

Very interesting.The government justified this course of action as it could not be challenged in the courts but if the Minister made a termination order hence stopping the grounding it could have been challenged in the courts.

The government did not claim it wasn't subject to legal challenge. All law is subject to challenge. They said that one path gave greater certainty. There is a whole heap of case law existing for the path the government took. Unlike for a ministerial termination notice.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[amaroo]

My understanding is that the argument is not about the pay. That they basically agree on. It is the other conditions the unions want. I suspect that the unions won't have those conditions agreed to by FWA should it go to arbitration, and hence the talk of legal action over the previous decision.

I think you're correct. Whatever happens it will be interesting - deep down the unions know they've lost the battle & probably the war along with it.

Now the Government wants to change their own IR laws to ensure a different outcome to the one QF (lawfully) undertook last week.

Given the whole FWA framework is the PM's baby, it's just another nail (must be getting very close to being the last one) in her career coffin. Poor thing, couldn't win a chook raffle down at the local ALP branch.

 

[straitman]

Poor thing, couldn't win a chook raffle down at the local ALP branch.

I don't think they would currently let her in the door let alone buy a ticket :!:

 

[markis10]

Looks like its back on:



THERE are fears the Qantas row could reignite, with the transport union gearing up to contest the Fair Work Australia ruling that stopped them striking. If the TWU is successful, its workers would be free to restart industrial action and Qantas could ground its fleet again, causing chaos for passengers.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...ow/story-e6frfq80-1226190889176#ixzz1dFdY1sUq
​

 

[harvyk]

Seriously, what are the unions going to achieve by striking? What I would love to see is the unions take QF to court, and a judge tells them to pull their head in and then reaffirms the ban on striking...

The actions of the unions right now make me think of a child running home to mummy because a teacher told them off for fighting at school. Infact that analogy fits very nicely because the teacher would usually sit two kids who had been fighting down in a room and get to the bottom of the issue, which is exactly what FWA is planning on doing.

 

[amaroo]

Looks like its back on:



THERE are fears the Qantas row could reignite, with the transport union gearing up to contest the Fair Work Australia ruling that stopped them striking. If the TWU is successful, its workers would be free to restart industrial action and Qantas could ground its fleet again, causing chaos for passengers.

Read more: Union threatens to reignite Qantas row | News.com.au
​

Well, does that face tell you he's ready to negotiate in good faith :?: