ALLEGED COERCION BY QANTAS MANAGEMENT
An email has been widely circulated by a member of a crew that was caught up in the disruptions of the dust storm in Sydney last week.
The contents of the email indicate that she and her crew were subjected to being “asked, pushed, threatened, coerced, pleaded with, made to feel guilty” in order to extend beyond 20 hours.
We are disappointed that nobody on the crew contacted the FAAA to advise us that these alleged threats and coercion were taking place. Nonetheless these are indeed very serious allegations and if true should result in the termination of employment for those responsible for this behaviour.
The FAAA will not tolerate its members being treated in this fashion and I have contacted the Company this morning asking the Company that every one of the crew be interviewed and formal statements be taken from them to identify who carried out these threats.
Coercion and threats have no place in our work environment and these are indeed extremely serious allegations and there will be serious consequences if proven.
For the members’ information, there is no capacity for the company to vary any set limitation in the EBA except as provided by the EBA facilitative provision. It is a requirement of the Law that every EBA has a clause that allows the Company and its employees when unusual circumstances arise to reach agreements on changes to hours or work practices. These facilitative agreements are often referred to as “dispensations”. The FAAA “always” has regard not only to the interest of an individual crewmember when considering a dispensation but the overall impact on all of us.
In the circumstances on that day the FAAA was contacted by the Company and advised that there was going to be major and significant disruption to its flights for up to 24 hours or more because of the dust storm.
The Company sought the assistance of the FAAA to manage the disruption. The FAAA indicated that consistent with past practice all practical assistance would be granted. However it was made completely clear by me that
individual crewmembers would have the final say about whether they would work over EBA limits based on their personal circumstances, fatigue levels and needs.
There would be no majority votes where individuals would be forced against their wishes to exceed maximum hours. If 4 crew out of 15 said that were not prepared to extend and 11 said they would, then the 11 crew would continue based on what they agreed with the Company and the remaining 4 crew would be slipped for example. These dispensations are nothing new; Melbourne based members would be particularly aware of commonplace diversions of LAX-MEL flights into Sydney or Brisbane due to fogs in Melbourne and that the FAAA has always allowed individual crew to decide if they wish to work beyond 20 hours due to the diversion.
The imputation of the member in her email is that this did not occur and that the terms of the dispensation agreed to by the FAAA were misrepresented by the Company to the crew.
A number of crew on the day contacted the FAAA for clarification around what was expected of them and were clearly advised that it was a matter for each individual to assess their own fitness to operate and that we would support any crew member who was not fit to exceed maximum hours.
It requires a dispensation from the FAAA for a crew member to even passenger into home base and relinquish rest and we grant those dispensations again depending on the individual circumstances of the member. Many have child care responsibilities and need to get home and we are not so dogmatic to take a blanket approach around the EBA and have individual members unable to exercise some choice.
A tiny minority of our members would like us (the FAAA) to take away the ability of members to decide for themselves if they are able to work beyond 20 hours, in this very isolated scenario of a diversion into an Australian port other than home base. These same individuals believe it is better to disrupt the lives of individual cabin crew, to disrupt family and social responsibilities, to subject crew to being turned around etc all in the name of “industrial purity” or some reference to fatigue, as if they are somehow experts on what constitutes fatigue and even more peculiarly as if they are experiencing fatigue on behalf of someone else and thus entitled to dictate what someone else must do. This approach is nothing more than “blinkered dogmatism”.
They also believe “they” know better as to how their fellow crew members are feeling and that “they” are entitled to have their views imposed on other members irrespective of the personal consequences for their colleagues. These individuals are often the same ones who demand “votes of the membership” when it suits their purposes but when it doesn’t suit their purposes they want the FAAA to behave as Dictator.
A once in a generation event, such as the dust storm occurs, creating havoc to crew, to passengers and to Qantas. Aircraft are “stranded” in cities throughout the country and a few of our members want to add to this chaos; by the FAAA preventing grown adults exercising their individual choice as to what is better for them.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the way that a responsible professional union operates in 2009. We have a challenge in 2012 of maintaining our conditions. Going out of our way to provoke the general public ( imagine the newspaper headlines) and the employer,
when every cabin crew member was given the choice to work or not work beyond 20 hours is not a sensible way to go.
There are penalties under the relevant Industrial Laws and Qantas Policy for behaving in this way or making false statements.