Originally Posted by
theheadmaster
Non compete and confidentiality are two separate, but related, issues. Stopping someone from working in a competing business is separate to having an obligation not to disclose information. A non-compete clause is generally a part of of a contract of employment. Most AIPA committee and executive are not employees of AIPA. In fact, they are employees of Qantas and have pre-existing obligations to Qantas with respect to restraint of trade. To say that a subsequent arrangement with AIPA should limit that original employment contract and associated obligations would be difficult to argue.
With respect to confidentiality, committee members, office holders and other volunteers already sign confidentiality agreements regarding information gained in these positions. It is also worth noting that even without signing anything, employees have common law obligations with respect to disclosure of confidential information. In this instance how you would practically enforce this or take action against a breach is probably difficult. So, as I stated, the best defence is for the AIPA committee to do its duty and appoint people who are likely to act in the best interest of the association and its members (even if at some point they chose to take a management role).
The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure,
not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce.
That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.