WorkChoices & Effective Dismissal of QF FA

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I noticed the last topic on this got padlocked because a lot of the audience couldn't get past their adolescent boyhood fantasies.

But some real moral employer-employee issues are raised - how far do we let this cancerous policy eat in to a fair workplace and destroy any residual enjoyment or security of working in Aviation in Australia?



From Crikey


Thomas Hunter writes:

If Qantas stewardess Lisa Robertson thought interest in her encounter with actor Ralph Fiennes was waning, she’s in for a surprise when she picks up today’s Daily Telegraph - it carries her photo and comments from her father in the presumptuously-titled “Ralph’s Mile High Hostie”.
“Lisa just does her job and if someone wants a cup of coffee and biscuits, she looks after them,” Dad told the Tele. “She's not a bad-looking girl. If you do the right thing people take a liking to you.”
Despite the same newspaper publishing a statement in which Robertson claimed she was innocent of any amorous wrong-doing, the Tele’s coverage wink-winks and nudge-nudges at the salacious undertones of the story. It also completely fails to raise the issue of Robertson's treatment by Qantas and her employer – fair, unfair, or otherwise.

Barely had the wheels touched back down in Australia before Robertson was stood down without pay pending the outcome of an investigation. According to the Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia (FAAA), strict procedures are in place to handle such incidents. It appears those guidelines have been adhered to.
But while the rules might have been followed, Robertson’s case raises questions about the balance of power in employee-employer relations in Australia, fairness of treatment at work, and more basically, the presumption of innocence.

Robertson is employed by Morris Alexander Management (MAM), a recruitment company specialising in airline industry staff. Despite her pay cheque coming from MAM, Robertson was recruited and trained by Qantas to their standards and for their planes, yet the company will only employ her on a casual basis.

A spokesman from the FAAA told Crikey that approximately one third of the Qantas workforce is casual, an arrangement which confers significant benefits on the airline. Casual staff receive no long service leave from the airline, they have no entitlement to the Qantas superannuation scheme or sick leave. Further, Qantas’s casual staff operate under a significantly lower wage structure which isn’t indexed over years of service as it is for full-time Qantas staff. (Qantas was contacted for comment but didn't respond prior to publication.)

Those conditions are not unique to Qantas or the airline industry: they’re a reality for most casual employees. But as the FAAA points out, if Robertson was a Qantas employee, there would be a greater financial imperative to resolve the issue quickly. That urgency doesn’t exist with casual staff, with many resorting to Centrelink payments during periods of unemployment. The FAAA also says this case illustrates why Qantas is eager to base full-time staff in countries like Thailand where the labour laws are more generous to employers.
While this arm’s length employment arrangement contravenes no laws, Robertson's case raises other questions, especially with the private equiteers circling the tower waiting for approval to land.

With the profit motive poised to hit the booster rockets, how real is the threat posed to Qantas's Australian workforce by cheaper, easier-to-manage overseas and casual staff? And do the current labour laws give casual workers enough protection in the case of, say, an unwanted mid-flight moment with a Hollywood heart throb?

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Please do NOT let this thread deteriorate like the last one because ****su is absolutely correct: there are some very serious issues surrounding this alleged incident.

I don't know her employment status - there is the suggestion she is a casual employee hence stood down WITHOUT pay pending investigation. Just the way the company likes it. What an absolute disgrace. It is well known that Qantas is agressively pushing more and more of its workforce onto casual type arrangements and can totally screw them in cases like this. I bet Lisa never wanted to be a casual - but "if you want the job well that's the position". Make John Howard's unemployment figures look good too... two casuals vs one permanent...

Whatever - yet another serious blow by Qantas management to relations with its employees - they are sinking to a further low over this, if that is possible. But then, QF management don't care - they would rather everyone left while they just hire more JetStar staff on even lower conditions. The public doesn't care (just thinking about cheaper fares), the Govt doesn't care (no votes in it), shareholders are just going "$5.60, $5.60, $5.60"...

Why is that trash paper, The Daily Telegraph, publishing her picture on the front page today, with a headline "Fiennes Mile High Hostie". What??!! Absolutely nothing proved, most unlikely to be proved, most likely completely untrue. Talk about slander - I hope the Robertson camp sues them all the way. Totally disgraceful. And now - online - they are headlining "Mile High Hostie's Police Burn Out"! Geezus... Lisa: sue the bastards.

What is the FAAA actually doing? Anything constructive other than saying "procedures for handling this sort of thing are in place"? They had better be, I truly hope so. Qantas is in serious trouble too for letting things like pax manifests out. And what about the "colleagues" on her flight?! What a nasty, nasty company this is that I work for. I am truly ashamed and embarrassed for what we have become.

Please, keep it clean and civil.

[Quokka]

In no way did the last thread deteriorate.

It started below the belt... in the toilet cubicle and maintained a consistent level throughout the discussion. It is slanderous to suggest that the thread in any way deteriorated from the level that it started at. :rolleyes:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Quokka,

OK - but you are not helping!

[B A Lert]

The link below shows an operational document from the flight in question. what dirty pool has been played for it to find its way into the open media?

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5388734,00.jpg

Also, was Maurice Alexander a TN employee or did he come from one of the Flight Atendants unions before starting MAM?

[chimbu warrior]

This case poses some very serious questions indeed.

Why did the employer release the F/A's name to the media? Trial by media??

Why did QF respond openly to the media whilst an "investigation" was still in progress? That symbol on their tail is representative of the type of court they conduct.

Why did the AFAA not criticise this breach of confidentiality? They dislike casuals, even those that are paid-up members.

Why is the alleged antagonist (Mr Fiennes) getting off scott-free from the media? Well QF will always crucify someone else to protect a J-class passenger.

Why has Mr Alexander not stood up for his employee? What, and jeopardise that contract that rewards him so richly?

Casual employment should not require the employee to be burnt at the stake, which is effectively what has happened here. Irrespective of the outcome, Ms Robertson has done her last flight as a QF F/A.

Instead of dancing on her grave, QF-employed F/A's should be demanding Ms Robertson be afforded natural justice.

What a disgrace.

[FlexibleResponse]

I can't see a victim in this alleged incident. That is until names were bandied in public about by unscrupulous parties.

Why do folks think that human nature is somehow put into suspended animation during the operation of a flight from A to B (if indeed that has got anything to do with the case)?

I deplore the actions of those involved with tittle-tattling in this instance. This behaviour was highly likely to have arisen from personal vendettas and a jealousy of the crew involved and is very unprofessional and regrettable.

Live and let live…

[JetA_OK]

FlexibleResponse makes a good point - the release of the name, the flight docs, the photo and other information would have come from Ms Robertson's colleagues, jealous or otherwise. The AFAA isn't saying boo because she is a casual employee and therefore the enemy (even if she is a member). I doubt very much that QF is pushing this story along at all. The last thing they want is this story having legs. The media is pushing the story along because its great copy - pax getting a shag on a flight from a FA, and the pax is "famous". C'mon, every tabloid newspaper in the world is going to pick up the ball and run with that one.

And WTF does this have to do with WorkChoices? The casualisation of the workforce occurred well before WorkChoices and most studies will tell you its popularity is driven employees who choose (not a word that fits well with most unionist hey comrade) to work casually. Just another case of facts getting in the way of another anti Howard rant hey ****zu?

[HotDog]

My twentytwo year old son is a commercial diver, working for a well known diving contractor. He is a casual but was offered the choice of a permanent contract. He declined as he receives a higher salary and can choose his time off.
To quote JetA-OK: And WTF does this have to do with WorkChoices? The casualisation of the workforce occurred well before WorkChoices and most studies will tell you its popularity is driven employees who choose (not a word that fits well with most unionist hey comrade) to work casually. Just another case of facts getting in the way of another anti Howard rant hey ****zu?
By the way, my wife is also employed on a casual basis with an airline company and prefers it that way.

[DutchRoll]

That's OK. Casual work does fit quite well with some people and that's fine.

But it's not all a bed of roses - unless you're particularly naive. Casual contracts are usually easier, and certainly much quicker, to terminate. And the younger people who often favour them don't see much into the future either, which is why they don't really give a stuff about the lack of Super, etc.

But if it suits you and you can deal with both the pros and the cons (employers don't, as a rule, offer you contracts which are not advantageous to them) and don't whinge about them later (eg, when you discover the cons by accident), it's OK with me.

[qfcabin]

I spent more than 15 years as a CSM , and occasionally encountered instances which appeared like this one. on board. I say 'appeared' because , with toilet door closed. it is really difficult to know what exactly has happened in there. I know this may be an old fashioned way to handle such things, but I would say to the crew involved.."You are a mug laying yourself open to trouble..use your brains next time and think twice!" And move on..
Now, i am sure in the current "give everyone up' environment where the 'mates act' is long gone and even laughed at, this won't wash..BUT the releasing of the F/A's correspondence with QF and the even more disgraceful release of the seat plan, is a symptom of a Qantas that bears no relation to the outfit where I spent a lot of years!
Today's assassination of the F/A regarding alleged financial problems and civil suits with ex husbands etc leaves the press even more disgraced. No wonder QF is saying nothing..trial by media is slaughtering this girl..I just hope when all settles that some very smart legal people versed in slander and libel get to work!

[cunninglinguist]

Any Tucker chucker that wants to work for QF mainline, has to start out as casual, THERE IS NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER, so lets cut the :mad: BS.
As with pilots, they play on lots of young girls, and guys' ambition to be an FA, the MAM conditions are crap but clearly better than not flying at all, and of course with the carrot " one day you could reach the lofty heights of full time QF "

Ever since MA left the FAAA ( yes its hard to believe he used to fight for the rights of FAs ) he has been low enough to free fall from a snakes ar5e.

That QF and MAM, have presumed guilt, evidenced by the " standing down " is disgusting, and yes it has alot to do with the lack of employees rights under " worknocoices "
Since when do flight crew get stood down for non safety related incidents ?
or incidents where the facts are by no means clear.
Lets face it, another Hollyweird pants man has attempted to join the mile high club unsuccessfully, probably end of story.

I hope she sues those miserable :mad: for everything they have.

[HotDog]

Since when do flight crew get stood down for non safety related incidents ?
or incidents where the facts are by no means clear.
I seem to recall a punchup in the Truck at Narita not so long ago that resulted in the crew being stood down.

[noip]

Hotdog,

There was a lot more to the "Truck" incident you allude to - nothing at all like what we are discussing here.

N

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Hypocrite.

You feel sorry for her being trialled by media?

And yet you just anonymously did exactly that?

Very sincere.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Unlike you and most who post on here who know nothing of this person, I have a far greater knowledge Eh? You are anonymous, everyone else is anonymous. How do you know he / most don't know anything? How do people know you do? I'm not saying you are wrong, just challenging your logic. ****su is correct to call you hypocritical.
I am entitled to state my thoughts without slandering her. Yes but given you are anonymous we don't know if you are libelling her. Quite possibly not given she's admitted what she did in that toilet (albeit hearsay) - but still, anonymity always causes people to question the facts.

[cartexchange]

I never thought I'd say this.....but everything that Midnight states is CORRECT.

Its correct she was dismissed for a safety related incident and then re employed.

If her AKL file is ever made public it would be very juicy indeed!

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Cartexchange,

Your location suggests you have a fixation with toilet activity - frankly your comments belong there.

How would you as an FA like to have a work issue 'leaked' to the media in a transparent attempt to discredit you as an individual? Whilst being suspended without pay?

Maybe you would hope that your colleagues would care less about what is 'juicy', and more about what is fair?

[cartexchange]

oh ****zu
if only you knew what I knew you would be eating your words BIGTIME

[DirtyPierre]

S T,

I'm certainly see where you're coming from, but I have a question for tech and cabin crew alike.

I've been in these toilets and I have trouble fitting in them (I suppose at 190cm and 105kg, I am biggish), but how do you go about getting all the bits and pieces in the right place to do the wild thing in an aircraft toilet with a willing partner?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

You don't get it.

Regardless of what you say you know, my view stands.

Keep it in house.

If you had an issue with the person in question at the time, you should have done something about it - in house.

Spreading unsubstantiated, and unspecified rumours is simply innuendo - I would expect it from Naomi Robson. But I would be furious if it were from someone I worked with.

[tail wheel]

Cartexchange. Even if you were able to justify your insinuation to the satisfaction of a court of law - which I doubt - this forum will not contribute to any trial by media, nor will it become a platform for unsubstantiated allegations emanating from the cloak of anonymity!

****su tried to raise a valid and legitimate point. From there the debate went downhill.

The matter is closed!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/Closed-1.gif

[cartexchange]

there will be more to come

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21236605-948,00.html