Originally Posted by fedsec
Even more important and handy for all the Qantas employees with a similar clause is what he judge said about our job security clause -
In summary, the court is of the view that the clause is clear in its
terms;taken within its context, in particular its juxtaposition to clause
12, it constitutes a commitment by Qantas to retain an engineering and maintenance capacity within its own organisation. The court does not believe that the clause will permit the closing down of Qantas’ engineering and maintenance divisions and their outsourcing to another entity or entities unless this was a matter beyond Qantas’ control. In order to allow Qantas to maintain these functions, the employees covered by the agreement must accept work practice changes which improve productivity, efficiency and overall profitability. MoD is one such change. The court is of the view that there has been no breach of the agreement by Qantas in the introduction of MoD and will not grant the relief sought by the applicant in relation thereto.
Will now be very hard to close Avalaon as they surely plan.
Makes it very very easy I would have thought.
Q: Do Qantas have a significant maintenance capability?
A: Yes. We have a major facility in Brisbane undertaking heavy maintenance
OK then, no need for Avalon to remain then.
Statement: But your Honour! Avalon does 747 aircraft, Brisbane does not! That makes a huge difference!
Answer: But Brisbane does maintenance of all types although on different sorts of aircraft. That is sufficient to meet the terms of the agreement.
Equally you may want to beware the law of unintended consequences. If you push the line that once in always in down to aircraft type then that encourages very very strongly the outsourcing of all work on the 787.