So a fine of $96K for underpaying pilots a total of $123.4K.
Corporate Australia really must be quaking in their boots.
How much was spent by them on defending the case?
How much did the taxpayer fork out to prosecute the case?
Will the defendant have to pay any costs?
Are you saying the fine is not enough? Comparatively to other cases it seems to be on the hefty side, even though the employer seemed co-operative during the investigation - ie they repaid the $123K once the Fair Work Ombudsman got involved.
Underpayment of legal entitlements appears to be quite prevalent whether deliberate or oversight, so the courts have to send a message out somehow.
Also a reminder to all to keep on top of their own payslips and take a greater role in knowing if they are getting all that has been agreed to in a contract/agreement
If they happily paid up once FW Ombudsman was involved then why did it make it to federal court? I reckon any fines don't work with companies - just gaol the CEO if the company has illegal dealing!
your logic is great Crusader. Going by that, provided shoplifters hand back what they stole, all is forgiven. Hope your'e not with the AG office there in CBR...
Are you saying the fine is not enough? Comparatively to other cases it seems to be on the hefty side
Yes I am saying it is not enough. You believe it to be hefty. Amazing.
This was not a one off event. THIRTY THREE people were underpaid deliberately by their employer.
The message this sends to corporate Australia is if you are in a grey area or wish to try your luck with pay and conditions simply roll the dice and even if you lose the fine will be marginal in its effect on profits.
I believe the MAXIMUM fine is much higher, look it up. What about the argument that the fine should be for each EVENT. As it stands 96 divided by 33 is around $2900 per individual offence.
I believe the company spent much more than the 96 + 123 to defend the case, maybe that in itself may be the deterrent because the fine is not.
Quote:
I reckon any fines don't work with companies - just gaol the CEO if the company has illegal dealing
Just look at the Qantas freight fines. The CEO and managers are Teflon.
The company will simply view a fine as a cost of doing business. Just like insurance, electricity and wages.
The quantum of the fine may appear small in consideration of the effect on the individuals concerned. But it does have a sting in its tail, it will have to be declared to all who fund the operation as it is a judgement against the company, some funders will not be charmed by the thought that the managers are prepared to break the law to further their career objectives, it will make ongoing funding more difficult.
some funders will not be charmed by the thought that the managers are prepared to break the law to further their career objectives
That assumes that there was no knowledge of the decision at board level. Plausable deniability anyone? "Go ahead and do it but we know nothing" Or the other way, get some "legal advice" that says that the plan is "legal" and hold that up as justification. The "legal advice" does not have to be revealled publicly so will not cause any grief. I believe that mangement in this case used that justification. "We were badly advised and made a mistake m'lord"
I have a mate now working at Emirates who was ex NJS. Are the company or the FWO attempting to contact ex employees to give them the cash?
Mr chow, I can tell you first hand, that the oxygen thieving scum at Fair Work ( an oxymoron if ever there was one ) consider it " fair " that anyone who leaves NJS misses out on any such benefits. That is to say that as long as s like National Joke keep your entitlements from you and then fight it until you resign, then that is apparently OK.
On the bright side, your mate and I no longer work for Nat Joke
"The Fair Work Ombudsman also alleged that company had breached workplace laws by applying duress to two pilots in an effort to pressure them into signing workplace agreements.
However, Magistrate Lucev dismissed this allegation, finding that while National Jet Systems had applied pressure to the two pilots, it did not amount to unlawful duress."
Looks more like this was about "Workchoice Legislation" than CPI increases. Perhaps the focus was lost somewhere during the case.
It's all a matter of trust, and this is not an isolated incident of wrongdoing by this management.
The question Cobham's customers will be asking is: 'if Cobham can't be trusted to honor their obligations to their staff - and demonstrably they cannot - then how can they be trusted to honor commercial agreements?
Tenmen - really? I don't think that Cobham's customers really give two hoots about how they treat their staff. As long as the aircraft is there when they agree it will be, and everything is up to the right standards of safety and operations they are happy. I don't see Qantas or Bristow/Chevron getting too excited about how Cobham treat their own staff.
having worked at NJS, I have seen first hand how management treat and relate to their staff, especially on this case of unpaid entitlements. Lets face it Airlines are now run by lawyers and accountants! the accountants cut cost to the bone, eroding terms and conditions and the lawyers determine if that the changes made are, at least, somewhat legal. The CEO controls the accountants and lawyers but also uses them as a sheild to protect his own arse. Just ask PN, shits on his staff and takes a promotion to head of all cobham aviation worldwide. I met him once, A grade f#@kstick. If I meet him again I think I'll just hit the c#@t.
s like National Joke keep your entitlements from you and then fight it until you resign, then that is apparently OK.
