Originally Posted by
MickG0105
Yes, there's certainly reasonable grounds for an appeal.
The appeal will likely turn on the Court's interpretation of the phrase 'substantial and operative factor/reason' as in did the fact that the ground handling function heavily unionised form a substantial and operative part of Qantas's reasoning in determining to outsource it? There's some case law around the phrase and its application but there's a fairly rudimentary test for determining if something is 'substantial and operative'; if that element was not present (that is, if ground handling wasn't heavily unionised) and all other factors remained the same (the commercial/financial factors) would the same decision be reached? Form your own view on that.
Not questioning your explanation, but it seems a bit of a paradox. If it wasn’t unionised the commercial/economic factors to outsource it would probably not have been present as, without unionisation, the staff would more than likely be on lower T&Cs. Makes Back to the Future look like elementary meta-physics!