Originally Posted by
neville_nobody
There is nothing written therefore there is no requirement for notice of lockout.
So why then is there so much mention of the '72 hours notice' in the FWA hearing? The entire Qantas argument for the shutdown of the airline was that they had to give 72 hours notice and that it was a safety threat so therefore it is safer to ground the airline. If there is no requirement as you say the statements in the hearing are completely illogical. Their whole justification for the shutdown was that they had to give 72 hours notice.
If QF could have just locked out the workforce as you say why didn't they just do that rather than stuff around with a safety based shutdown?
So locking out the majority of LH pilots, ground staff/baggage handlers and LAMEs, would have had no effect and kept things running as normal?
The s424 FWA hearing really wasn't the forum for airing all this because that was not the substantive issue at play. It's a legitimate concern and I'd bet the house that AiPA are preparing questioning for their Fed Court application. There's the opportunity to ask some questions about the evidence of "heightened safety risks".
Also for the earlier arguments about notice period for a lockout, there isn't any prescribed in the legislation. The reasoning is because its a "response" to action that is taken. The Greens moved a Bill in the parliament to have the 3 day notice period for lockouts. I don't think it will get anywhere personally.
I think one for the lawyers is the interpretation of s424(1) that says: "FWA must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement..."etc.
Is there solid precedent that FWA should have terminated "all" protected industrial action. This isn't about red ties vs lockout, it's about the ambiguity in that provision where no distinction is made between employee claim and employer response action.