in the end they are assessing the facts, interpreting the law, and then applying the law to that fact situation.
Hmm, common sense suggests the pilots actions didn't strand a passenger, so the law is flawed in this case... the simple fact is, on the day of the lockout (Saturday 29th October) the only action from AIPA was the red ties & PAs...
TRANSPORT Minister Anthony
Albanese actually said this in parliament the following Tuesday..
It is also my view, both the government & opposition knew that Qantas would possibly opt for the lockout, they both simply didn't believe Joyce would go through with it.. In this clip Gillard demonstrates she didn't understand the legal aspects/ramifications of her own legislation, the FWA act itself....she was very vague indeed....
This leads to the issue of whether the lockout by QF satisfies the definition of employer response action under the legislation and an argument about whether employer response action needs to be 'proprtional' and/or if it can be in response to just bargaining claims or only in response to industrial action, or can it be in response to either.
Clearly, the decision should be proportional, the pilots never stopped work once... The legal eagles can complicate it all they like, something is wrong with the whole process if simple facts are ignored..
Shorten confuses the issue even further in this clip.....
.