Originally Posted by
2theline
AIPA's warning was nothing more than an attempt to destabilise and undermine the PIA about to take place this weekend, for whatever reason. Slater and Gordon have provided an indepedant ruling in favour of the AFAP. Absolutely mind blowing that instead of seeking unity, division is being sought. No wonder as pilots we are the laughing stock around the world!
1. I am no lawyer.
2. I believe your statement that AIPA’s warning was attempting to destabilise and undermine the PIA is false. That’s my opinion against yours. I am not a member of AIPA’s committee, and have no inside knowledge, but I don’t believe they would do that, I also don’t believe they would have any reason to do that.
3. It’s nice to hear from Slater and Gordon, AFAP didn’t divulge that in the communication... maybe it’s more recent advice.
Hang on, did you just say it was an “independent ruling”?
Wow, that’s different then. An independent ruling is very different from “Slater and Gordon advice”.
One is a legal opinion from a law firm, which could easily differ from a legal opinion from a different law firm, such as the one Qantas may chose to employ. An “independent ruling” implies a decision made by a justice of the court or similar upon the presentation of two competing cases under some kind of legal framework. Which are we talking here? Sorry to be picky but this is important when colleagues careers are on the line.
Sorry to be argumentative, but your tone triggered me to question what you said. I doubt it’s factually correct.
Back to the point, maybe AFAP are now quoting an “independent legal advice” or similar. They didn’t earlier.
Potentially AIPA could counter the argument with their “independent legal advice” which may or may not differ. Seriously, I doubt they would, because it would serve them no gain - it would only provoke a “tit-for-tat” social media war with the AFAP. They have already cautioned a small number of pilots to be cautious of unprotected industrial action, presumably based on their advice of legal risk. They have no reason to devote resources to further question that advice just because AFAP may have secured a law firm and published an alternative advice.
4. Agreed about the mind-blowingness of seeking division. One union provided its internal legal advice to its members, then another union went nuts about it publicly, for no useful reason that I can determine. Maybe both unions need to send their presidents to lunch together to sort their **** out. I’ll happily donate the garlic bread and a bottle of Coonawarra. This crap serves none of us well.