Originally Posted by
framer
I agree with the gist of what you’re saying BeerBaron but…..would you agree that a full bench might determine that Qantas, having once agreed to those five specific provisions, was ‘engaging in conduct that undermines collective bargaining’ when they ‘un-agreed’ to them? Ie they were not bargaining in good faith?
It was obvious to most what the eleventh hour retraction was designed to do, it was more checkers than chess and it is debatable if the manoeuvre was consistent with good faith bargaining.
While Qantas IR’s tactic is cynical and transparent, it is in accordance with the letter of the law. In that, the agreed terms are determined at the time the application is made, which was the day after Qantas un-agreed to the terms. Unfortunately the definition of
good faith bargaining is incredibly narrow and does not rule out their conduct. Given Qantas have been negotiating with representatives from 3 different unions it would be hard to argue they are undermining collective bargaining.
I am sure the FWC will look at the full history though, but this goes both ways. How will the commission look at AFAP’s addition 7 claims given they had agreed to the terms of the 2nd and 3rd EA’s put to vote? Adding extra claims or deleting agreed terms, after a in-principal agreement, looks bad for all parties.