Originally Posted by
FightDeck
It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time.
Here are the facts.
The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%.
The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates.
787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots.
There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign.
Primarily section 311.
(1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer
if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA.
In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal!
Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position.
In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees.
Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager.
If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up.
Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position.
Folks, rest assured that the IR and consultants have modelled and assessed execution risk for any strategy to 'outsource' mainline flying.
As correctly asserted, had it been feasible they would have ipso facto, already tried it.
One could deem the 'terminal decline' precisely that: A narrative to provide the impetus necessary to support a risky strategy to transfer a lot of their international ASK to JQ.
It is worth remembering that the QSA 1992, was the original reason that the fossil, Leigh Clifford said was the reason for the re-equipment delays. That the QSA 1992 prohibits facilities et al being 'outsourced' in aggregate greater than 50% is a limit that globalists detest. Stopping the wholesale sell off and outsourcing are special acts of parliament and indeed your work place laws. The Qantas International brand is still flying, albeit in a far reduced capacity, despite their effort.
The risk comes from the reality that cash flow is very fickle for an airline.
Cash flow shortages driven by non-compliant employees is a huge risk for it take little time for investors and other stakeholders to notice.
Diversions, fuel, medical and just not answering the phone, the list is endless and all have an operational cost.
Thus, a stalking horse that serves their agenda is a common as the sun rising in the east.
Qantas desperately need a new fleet. They need a new direction too, with airline specialist managers. Fort Fumble lacks these types of managers and should one appear they very quickly lose their heads.