TWU may challenge QF Fair Work Australia ruling in the courts

[markis10]

AIPA have moved before the TWU


The long-haul pilots' union has today launched a legal challenge to the workplace umpire's termination of its long-running battle with Qantas.
In a decision that threatens to reignite the bitter battle that led to the grounding of Qantas's fleet for two days, the pilots' union today filed proceedings in the Federal Court in Sydney, seeking a review of Fair Work Australia's decision last week to terminate its protected industrial action.
The Australian and International Pilots' Association had been waiting for further talks today with Qantas negotiators in front of the workplace umpire before deciding whether to challenge. It had said that Qantas had made "semi-conciliatory noises" in negotiations on Tuesday.

Read more: Qantas pilots move to overturn ban on industrial action
​

 

[harvyk]

Interesting, although I thought the extent of AIPA industrial action was limited to 30 second announcements by pilots prior to take off. I was under the impression it was the TWU which did most of the stop works.

 

[markj23]

Im probably on the side of the Pilots on this one - the action was not disruptive. They have unfairly been associated with the likes of Sheldon and the TWU

I hope Sheldon doesn't become ALP President

 

[amaroo]

I think it's about time they ran their own race. Attempting to "do a Bradbury" behind the TWU & ALAEA was never a good look or strategy.

I still think they're flogging a dead horse & do not support their claim.

 

[docjames]

The issue (challenge) is around the lockout announced for the Monday (which never truly eventuated) rather than the grounding itself.

If a lockout is "allowed", the union concern is that lockouts will be legally allowable in any business as a means of resolving industrial action. The union wants to protect other unions and it's own members from future lockouts.

 

[simongr]

The Australian and International Pilots' Association

Interesting name for a union that is believed to only want Australian pilots on board...

 

[oz_mark]

AIPA posted this on their Facebook page:

[h=6]Statement: Our Federal Court Challenge
The Australian International and Pilots Association has today launched proceedings before the Full Court of the Federal Court to seek an order challenging the decision of the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia to terminate protected industrial action by AIPA in relation to its negotiations for an enterprise agreement. The proceedings will not halt negotiations currently underway between AIPA and Qantas management and AIPA remains fully committed to negotiating an outcome.

It is important to remember that the protected industrial action which was being taken by AIPA involved its members from time to time wearing a red tie and making limited announcements on the aircraft broadcasting system prior to take off. Not one aircraft was delayed or cancelled by any action taken by AIPA members. Not one passenger failed to depart on time due to the protected industrial action of AIPA members. The protected industrial action of AIPA did not damage the national economy or any part of the national economy. It was solely the actions of Qantas through Mr Joyce in determining to ground the fleet which AIPA contends was not in any way protected industrial action by Qantas, that caused damage to the national economy and inconvenienced passengers around the world.

The obligations under the Fair Work Act of all parties involved in bargaining activities is to act in good faith. The obligations do not preclude but in fact protect the limited industrial action that was being taken by AIPA members. The concern which AIPA has with the decision of the Full Bench is that, in essence, it has squarely impacted upon the ability of AIPA members to lawfully engage in measures to ensure that the bargaining process is not one sided in favour of Qantas to the detriment of AIPA members.

It is concerning that in a bargaining process, a party such as AIPA members can take minor lawful industrial action, such as the wearing of a tie or making a statement and it is met with a disproportionate response of the employer in the form of a lockout which then results in AIPA’s members losing their rights under the Fair Work Act. The decision of Fair Work Australia has the effect of creating an uneven bargaining situation based purely on the size of an employer and its position within the national economy.

The proceedings before the Full Court of the Federal Court will challenge the validity of the order made by the Full Bench of Fair Work Australia on a number of grounds. The Full Bench appears to have used the power given to it pursuant to s.424 to make an order terminating the protected industrial action of AIPA in circumstances where there was no evidence at all that the actions taken by Qantas was a response to the limited industrial action being taken by AIPA. This is a matter that needs to be clarified in order to ensure that a precedent is not set which may give an employer the impression that it can conduct itself in a similar manner to Qantas to bring about a calculated result which deprives its workforce of any rights during their bargaining process.[/h]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/AIPA/189421481088284

 

[Moody]

I agree 100% with the pilots.

They were king-hit by Qantas but were treated as equally guilty as Qantas in escalating the dispute to the forced arbitration stage.

Anyone* can see this is wrong.

The TWU has a case but it is less strong considering their actions.

 

[dfcatch]

I agree 100% with the pilots.

They were king-hit by Qantas but were treated as equally guilty as Qantas in escalating the dispute to the forced arbitration stage.

Anyone* can see this is wrong.

The TWU has a case but it is less strong considering their actions.

I take your point - and I do have 'some' sympathy for the pilots.

However, IMO - I don't care for them wearing red ties (not that I noticed), but I most certainly don't appreciate their announcements, and TBH - they lost my support the moment they started inflicting that upon me.

It was their choice to piggyback industrial action behind the other unions, and they lay down.... and woke up with fleas - as the saying goes.

Again - if they don't like the pay deal - they can leave. Compared with TWU and ALAEA staff - very easy for a QF pilot to pick up work with airlines around the world.......

 

[medhead]

I think it's about time they ran their own race. Attempting to "do a Bradbury" behind the TWU & ALAEA was never a good look or strategy.

I still think they're flogging a dead horse & do not support their claim.

Completely OT, but I'm sick of this bradbury anology. The man won his race, he crossed the line first. That ice race stuff is not just about who is fastest but also who crosses the line first. It is no good being fastest if you cannot make it across the line. Three people fell over, they stuffed up. Bradbury ran a smart race he got himself in a position where he wasnt taken out and he did cross the line first. Simple as that. Bradbury is not some also ran hiding in the shadows; he got himself in the main game and he won. Some of the greatest downhill skiers have crashed out, does that mean the person who won the competition were also rans.

This ongoing suggestion that Bradbury didn't deserve to win highlights Australia's own insecurity of its place in the world. It also clearly frustrates me.

 

[amaroo]

I agree 100% with the pilots.

They were king-hit by Qantas but were treated as equally guilty as Qantas in escalating the dispute to the forced arbitration stage.

Anyone* can see this is wrong.

The TWU has a case but it is less strong considering their actions.

I'll support any union that battles on wages/salary, conditions, safety, productivity, etc (within reason) however, when a union wants to push/dictate their ideology onto a public company they lose me.

 

[amaroo]

Completely OT, but I'm sick of this bradbury anology. The man won his race, he crossed the line first. That ice race stuff is not just about who is fastest but also who crosses the line first. It is no good being fastest if you cannot make it across the line. Three people fell over, they stuffed up. Bradbury ran a smart race he got himself in a position where he wasnt taken out and he did cross the line first. Simple as that. Bradbury is not some also ran hiding in the shadows; he got himself in the main game and he won. Some of the greatest downhill skiers have crashed out, does that mean the person who won the competition were also rans.

This ongoing suggestion that Bradbury didn't deserve to win highlights Australia's own insecurity of its place in the world. It also clearly frustrates me.

I look at it in a completely different light. His achievement is just as inspirational as it is outrageously funny......don't just take my word for it:-

Vancouver Now - 'Lucky' Bradbury still inspiring his countrymen - Joe O'Connor

I think he has a great understanding of the term & wears it with pride.......& obviously still draws a decent income from it - 9 odd years down the track.

IMHO, linking it into a negative on a National basis is ridiculous

 

[harvyk]

I agree 100% with the pilots.

They were king-hit by Qantas but were treated as equally guilty as Qantas in escalating the dispute to the forced arbitration stage.

Anyone* can see this is wrong.

The TWU has a case but it is less strong considering their actions.

Here is the problem, whilst what the AIPA's actions where not disruptive, they where "hanging around the wrong crowd" so to speak. The grounding and resultant action may not have been directed at AIPA specifically, and if it wasn't for the TWU and the ALAEA I doubt the grounding would have happened. That said QF really needed an all or nothing approach with resolving this issue.

 

[medhead]

Here is the problem, whilst what the AIPA's actions where not disruptive, they where "hanging around the wrong crowd" so to speak. The grounding and resultant action may not have been directed at AIPA specifically, and if it wasn't for the TWU and the ALAEA I doubt the grounding would have happened. That said QF really needed an all or nothing approach with resolving this issue.

Ok, so, guilt by association? Besides attempts in anti-bikie legislation, that is generally not a valid legal concept. The qantas action was specifically directed at 3 unions including the AIPA. The lock out was targeted at all 3 unions. The point that wearing a red tie doesn't warrant a lock out is entirely valid.

IMHO, linking it into a negative on a National basis is ridiculous

Clearly not in your case. But Bradbury is generally given a negative context as if to say he shouldn't have won. I think, like the pilots union, he ran his own race rather than riding on the coat tails of others. only my opinion....


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

 

[Justchecking]

The time for tit for tat and taking things to court is over. Both parties need to start fairly and honestly negotiating new terms for their employment as that is where the future for everyone concerned lies. If that means they need an arbitrator present to prevent either side from walking out of negotiations then that's what it means. My solution would be to lock negotiators from both sides into a hotel and let no-one leave until a resolution is found. This is the modern world we are living in here. Unless parties start acting like adults and negotiating with each other there is a very real danger that we will just see the rise of individual work contracts, like the rest of corporate Australia. When you are on an individual work contract your most viable option for renegotiation of T&Cs is to find a new job somewhere else. If pilots feel as if their work rights are in danger now, wait until the rise of that. :shock:

 

[medhead]

The time for tit for tat and taking things to court is over.

It has been to court once, for the first time when the government referred it to FWA. I would say there has been no tit for tat in court, there has only been tit. Otherwise, I agree with your comments about negotiating but taking court action doesn't prevent negotiating. I also feel that a bigger threat to employees is the idea that wearing a tie and saying a few words is reason for a lock out.


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

 

[harvyk]

Ok, so, guilt by association? Besides attempts in anti-bikie legislation, that is generally not a valid legal concept.

Valid legal concept or not, guilt by association is very much alive in the minds of the general public. Joyce needed to do an action which was not only a legal one, but one that would help him secure QF in the minds of the general public. By stating that he is stopping all protected industrial action in the minds of the public they can now feel more confident in using QF.

Whilst the AIPA was running their own race so to speak, the timing was unfortunate. No one could argue that QF would have taken those measures had it only been AIPA with red ties and misuse of the PA, but the fact of the matter was that the other two unions where threatening a year of pain. AIPA was just wrong place and wrong time.

 

[Moody]

Valid legal concept or not, guilt by association is very much alive in the minds of the general public. Joyce needed to do an action which was not only a legal one, but one that would help him secure QF in the minds of the general public. By stating that he is stopping all protected industrial action in the minds of the public they can now feel more confident in using QF.

Whilst the AIPA was running their own race so to speak, the timing was unfortunate. No one could argue that QF would have taken those measures had it only been AIPA with red ties and misuse of the PA, but the fact of the matter was that the other two unions where threatening a year of pain. AIPA was just wrong place and wrong time.

The actions of Qantas are not the issue - it is the decision by FWA to suspend ALL industrial action by ALL parties. I can see why they did it (to allow some clear air on a balanced playing field), but I can also see why the AIPA (and to a lesser extent the TWU) are saying that they are being punished for the Qantas dummy spit.

To be fair to FWA we take a similar approach at home - if our kids argue about whose turn it is on the computer or he/she hit me then we just ban the activity, which effectively punishes them both equally regardless of who was most at fault. And you should hear them complain about it!

 

[medhead]

No one could argue that QF would have taken those measures had it only been AIPA with red ties and misuse of the PA,

That seems to be the basis of the AIPA challenge. Guilt by association is the whole crux of the matter. Should AIPA have their legal rights removed because of the actions of other parties that they cannot control?

BTW for anyone who sees an agenda in my post, I'm glad about the FWA decision. But I also think that little questions, like that of the pilots, deserve to be heard, at the very least to validate the FWA decision.


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

 

[harvyk]

But I also think that little questions, like that of the pilots, deserve to be heard, at the very least to validate the FWA decision.

The whole point of industrial action is to show management that the workers where serious about their demands. It's effectively a big stick that worker can use when management is resting on their laurels and won’t negotiate in good faith. But good faith has now been taken out of the equation as FWA and an independent arbitrator will now decide what is happening.

The question could then be asked, would it even be necessary to provide any union the ability to take industrial action of any kind considering that binding decisions are being made on both parties by an independent party based on the strength of each parties arguments?