G'day Clamp,
Good questions and ones I have been asked dozens of times over the last couple of weeks. I will answer them shortly but I can generally say that there are a lot of members out there thinking about what they consider fair, that redundancies should be offered first (calls predominantly coming from those around retirement age) and every single LAME has a personal reason why changes being brought in by the company will unfairly affect them.
The company you guys are working for is being run by a pack of fools. The changes they are seeking in many cases do not make sense. LAMEs will be hurt by poor decisions that the Engineering management appointees are making such as the dumping of all contracts, a separate 380 dept and a merger in Mel that is entirely unnecessary. They have neglected training, not replaced staff who have left and have convinced themselves that the better on time performance this year is due to their fine management skills (it is because our PIA and associated work to rule has stopped).
Unfortunately the law (even under a Labor Govt.) is heavily weighted against workers. Two weeks ago my 17 year old daughter complained in writing to her boss at Subway that she was being underpaid by 20% compared to the minimum wage rates set by the National wage case. She was sacked within a week. I helped her lodge with Fair Work Aust and we have been told that the first concilliation hearing will be 6 weeks away. What hope have you got with laws that work against fairness. Qantas are masters at using these laws and their law firm (Freehills) wrote most of them in the first place. They are designed to fk you over. Ok, time to stop telling stories and get these questions answered. Please accept what I say when I explain that there is nothing legal you can do about something. Please support me and yourselves when I put out a notice recommending you work to rule, not cut corners, refuse half ar$ed training or withdraw your goodwill. These are our tools, we need to work with them.
1/ fed sec, can set out clearly what qantas can and cannot do with these transfers please. Any precedents ?
It would mean a change in extended hours roster and a change of "employer "given line and the base are separate businesses.
Qantas can run their business however they like. They do have to "consult" us regarding changes but that is about it. Can they force staff from one section to another? Not at all. There is another door you can walk through if you don't like their offer. 12 blokes will only be given 2 options though.
Precedents? In 92 I was forced out of SIT to keep a job with Qantas. When SHM closed, staff were forced out of SHM to other depts. They are closing an engine line, if the staff want to remain employed, they must retrain and move to Base. In some cases, VR is offered but there are only a limited number on offer. Most staff faced with the situation prefer to move to the new section.
The argument that they are separate businesses is a bit of wishful thinking. It is a different business only when Qantas want it to be (to compete with each other in tendering processes, as an excuse not help each other to retain contracts, when they wish to not co-operate on training, when they just want to blame another dept). It is one company though, Qantas. The EBA covers all LAMEs in whatever they want to call their business units.
Different rosters? Didn't vote? There is something you can do about this. When you get to the new section, call for a vote. If 66% aren't in favour, it goes down and negotiations start for a new one. Careful you don't upset your new workmates though, they might like their roster.
2/ If qantas just picked people and said 'you' start in your new section in a months time (for example) and you didn't want to change, could it be fought credibly in an industrial / legal sense because of the above points (roster, place of employment) ???
No. Sorry, not at all on the above points. If we could use them, we would. If there was the smallest chance we could prevent changes for these reasons we would give it a go.
We do have some other ideas though unrelated to the points above that many members think are fair claims for decency for long serving loyal employees. Our ideas are a little outside the box, it may call on the members to stick together or it may not. I would rather not give Qantas a heads up on this forum though.
3/ If the above points can be fought wth a chance of success would qantas be faced with offering redundancies if they truly want to reduce numbers at SIO?
The redundancy thing comes up all the time. We know there are a large number who would love to escape right now. If they want to reduce SIT (SIO is a Murrayology. SIT is how we term it) LAMEs but need them elsewhere, we can't force them to offer VR. If I can term it a different way.
We don't need you in your job anymore but the great news is this. We have another job exactly the same as yours at the same rate of pay and classification (LAME) (suitable alternative employment) just across the street. Once they offer suitable alt. employment, they don't need to offer VR. Your choice is move or leave. Its harsh but thats the law. We can't force them to offer VR and won't waste our time trying.
Happy to answer any further questions.
ps. as I don't have the opportunity anymore, can each of you please raise 12 hold items this week on your aircraft, one for each LAME who they are trying to force into another dept against their wishes. Sorry, on second thoughts don't raise too many hold items, it may cost Kev his bonus.