Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011]

[Pegasus747]

Flying Kangaroo made worker call Australia home: Court


11 February 2011 5:26pm

Qantas coerced and took adverse action against an employee who complained about underpayments when a manager verbally intimidated him and deprived him of the opportunity to apply for overseas postings, a court has ruled.

Federal Magistrate Kenneth Raphael found the employee, a licensed aircraft engineer and ALAEA member, had been subjected to the unlawful treatment on his return to Brisbane from a six week posting at Japan's Narita International Airport.

The employee gave evidence, accepted by the court, that he put to Qantas manager Peter Cawthorne that he was entitled to additional RDOs to make up for an extra 126 hours he had worked in Narita over and above the Brisbane roster.

Cawthorne in a series of emails questioned the basis for the employee's claim and why previous employees posted to Narita hadn't raised the issue, culminating in a "heated" phone call between the two on March 8 last year.

Federal Magistrate Raphael said he preferred the employee's account of the call, including that Cawthorne initially adopted an aggressive tone and "as the call progressed, it quickly changed to hostile as he was yelling at me".

Significantly, the court also accepted the employee's evidence that the manager had said: "The guys who go away and accept the conditions that they are given are the ones who get asked to go away next time".

Two other employees who were with the licensed engineer at the time also testified that Cawthorne sounded agitated during the conversation.

On March 26 the employee sent an email to Cawthorne, copied to other senior Qantas executives, notifying them that he wanted his claim dealt with under the dispute resolution procedure under the ALAEA/Qantas EBA 8.

The following day, with the employee's claim still unresolved, the two senior executives decided to suspend all international postings for licensed engineers out of Brisbane.

The executives testified that they made the decision to avoid disadvantaging other employees who went on postings, but Federal Magistrate Raphael found their evidence unpersuasive.

It was undermined by two emails Cawthorne sent to employees who were due to go on postings.

In the first, he said: "All overseas postings out of Brisbane have been cancelled because the company is in dispute with [the employee] and this will be the case until the dispute is resolved".

And in the second, which the executives were copied into but failed to clarify or correct, he said: "one of your fellow LAMEs has chosen to raise a grievance with the ALAEA in relation to a posting to NRT which he is quite entitled to do, however, as such, until the grievance is resolved or withdrawn, we cannot expect anyone else from BNE to commence an overseas posting".

On April 21 ALAEA launched legal action on behalf of the employee against Qantas and Cawthorne. On April 27 the airline rescinded the ban on Brisbane licensed engineers going on overseas postings.
"Intimidating" phone call and threat coerced employee
The union alleged Qantas and Cawthorne had engaged in several breaches of the Fair Work Act's general protections provisions, particularly:

* s340 (prohibiting actual or threatened adverse action against an employee in relation to a workplace right); and
* s343 (prohibiting actual or threatened action taken with the intention to coerce an employee in relation to a workplace right).

Federal Magistrate Raphael found that Cawthorne had adopted an "intimidating manner" during the phone call and made a "veiled threat" that the employee would be denied further postings if he persisted with his claim.

In attempting to exert "illegitimate pressure" on the employee to drop his claim and demonstrating an intention to coerce him to do so, Cawthorne (and therefore Qantas) had breached of the Act's s343, he found.

However, he rejected the union's argument that the phone call constituted adverse action contrary to s340 because Cawthorne had verbally abused the employee for exercising his right to utilise the dispute procedure.

"I think it would be difficult to describe the conversation. . . as abusive because I do not think it was insulting or unkind to [the employee]," he said, and continued that it had not otherwise injured the employee in his employment.

Federal Magistrate Raphael said it might have been open to make the alternative finding that the phone call "prejudicially altered" the position of the employee because "it had reduced his status in relation to his colleagues and upset him".

However, the union's pleading had been confined to whether an "injury" had occurred and on that point it failed, he said.
Posting ban constituted adverse action
The union also successfully argued that Qantas engaged in adverse action against the employee when, via the executives, it decided to ban international postings for Brisbane licensed engineers.

Federal Magistrate Raphael found that Qantas had failed to displace the presumption – raised as a result of the reverse onus imposed by s360 - that the employee's claim was at least part of the reason for the suspension.

The airline attempted to argue that the ban had not injured or prejudicially affected the employee because, having just returned from a posting, he had gone to the bottom of the list and could not have secured another posting while the ban was in place.

But Federal Magistrate Raphael said: "I do not think that is a correct way to articulate the test".

The opportunity to apply for postings was a benefit provided to the employee as an licensed engineer, he said, but as a result of the suspension he was deprived of that benefit.

"When the suspension was put in place, there was no temporal limit, whatever [the executive's] intentions may have been.

"To my mind, his employment was adversely impacted by the decision and he was thereby injured or, at the very least, had his position altered to his prejudice," he said.

On the union's contention that the ban also constituted unlawful coercion, he said the authorities required it to establish that Qantas had tried to put the employee "in a position where he has no choice and intending that result".

In this case, he said, it appeared the airline had intended to give the employee a "slap on the wrist" for what had occurred rather than to compel him to drop his claim.

"Thus it would be difficult to define the action as one that was intended to negate choice as opposed to being one intended to influence or persuade or induce," he said.

Federal Magistrate Raphael also rejected the employee's argument that his failure to win a promotion to a job in Toulouse, France, involved adverse action.

He accepted the party's submission that penalties should be determined at a further hearing and said he would make directions on February 16 to set down a date.
Decision shows benefit need not be immediately available: lawyer
Maurice Blackburn senior associate Giri Sivaraman, who acted for the ALAEA and the employee, said Qantas had reacted in a "knee-jerk fashion" to the employee's claim.

He said it was significant that Federal Magistrate Raphael had found that the ban on postings had been detrimental to the employee even though it was unlikely he would be able to take advantage of it in the near future.

"The Court recognised that a benefit, even if it is not immediately available but may be at some time, is still a benefit in your employment that is protected," he said.

Sivaraman said it was also noteworthy that, despite the high threshold the authorities had set for establishing coercion, the Court had found intimidation and threats conveyed over the phone could satisfy the test.

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 58 (11 February 2011)

[airsupport]

Seems things just get worse and worse at The Spirit Of Australia. :eek::sad:

[Sunfish]

Spirit Of Australia? Spirit of Ireland!

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

When we heard news of this victory in court today we were over the moon. Qantas defended this case with the most expensive QC in Australia over a 3 day trial. We estimate it has cost them 100k.

Our member Luke has put his life on hold, answered 5 hours of questions from the witness box and has never once had a second thought that he should reconsider and succumb to enormous pressure from management to drop the case.

Qantas and their manager have been caught with their pants down doing what I suspect takes place everyday. Threatening, bullying and harrassing staff who stand up for their rights. The win on the 343 coercion grounds is the first for any union in this country.

We have no doubt that Qantas will appeal the decision.

[Clipped]

Another example of Qantas employee disengagement. 'Our people are our priority'.

And another bloated legal bill for the Big Rat. Those financial resources are unlimited for making sure those pesky employees know their place.

[Arnold E]

Well done FEDSEC, congratulations on an action well delivered .:ok:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Fed Sec, well done and good luck with the appeal. It's good to see a union standing up for their workers. LAMEs are professionals in all but name and should be valued by their employer, not treated like crap because they have the nerve to stand up to ignorant managers without a quarter of the training and knowledge the LAMEs have worked for.

[VBPCGUY]

Now Fedsec you know Im not your best mate but that is quite and achievement, but surely QF arent going to be silly enough to waste another $100K to appeal??

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

They were silly enough to let JB go.

[Jet-A-One]

Well done by the Association and it's legal representation.

But most importantly, well done Licka and the BNE flying spanners who backed him!

Interesting to hear postings described as a "benefit" despite the fact QF won't hesitate to dock your pay if you refuse one...

[Ngineer]

Good on that bloke who had the balls to stand up for his own rights, thats the spirit of Australia!! It must be very hard to do your work under such circumstances.

I've have heard of a few guys from "the mates club" who were going around slagging him off for doing so. Gutless cowards.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I will release all the transcript when I get a chance but Cawthorne said words to the effect of -


"I want to put together a crack team of LAMEs who would be on standby for all the overseas postings"


what I and I think the judge understood this to mean was


"I want to give all the trips to my mates because I can underpay them and they never complain because I keep giving them trips."

[Sunfish]

If Qantas appeals the decision, it digs an even deeper hole for itself.

I'm beginning to think that the Board and Senior Management of Qantas are exactly like the Bourbon Kings of France: "They learned nothing and forgot nothing." - Tallyrand.

[another superlame]

Your last post is right on the money Fed Sec, there is no list for LAME postings, it is always the same faces who get to go for their matey matey jollies.
Is there any chance that this manager will find himself removed from this position? Or will he be promoted out of danger.

I believe he also likes to use these mates as his personal overseas courier service.Whether they like it or not.

[EWANQF]

I am curious to know why after this particular overseas posting,the individual felt compelled to take it further?I mean,they may have done 10/20/30 postings.......then felt the need to pursue this one.I am 100% ALAEA all the way,but will this outcome benefit all that have done previous postings,(and been short changed ) if this individual is compensated ?

[gobbledock]

Is there any chance that this manager will find himself removed from this position? Or will he be promoted out of danger.
I put $20 on 'promotion'. Remember the adage 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'.

[1746]

Well done guys!:D:D:D:D:D

Keep up the good fight!

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I am curious to know why after this particular overseas posting,the individual felt compelled to take it further?I mean,they may have done 10/20/30 postings.......then felt the need to pursue this one.I am 100% ALAEA all the way,but will this outcome benefit all that have done previous postings,(and been short changed ) if this individual is compensated ?


Licker was short changed $10,000 from this posting. When he tried to claim it they went nuts. After we started the case they tried to back peddle and paid him the $10k. They said essentially that they always intended to pay him, they just needed time to work it out. The judge found their excuse unconvincing.

Anyone who has been overseas in the past is open to claim this money in fact those who don't are undercutting the others. It only applies if your shift was worse or you worked longer hours. For narita is about 5k per month. Regardless of the penalty, this case has already opened the door for these payments. The penalty is for them threatening a good member who tried to claim it.

[EWANQF]

Thanks Steve,for the explanation!Other Airline/GA non-union LAMES take note.This is what can happen with the ALAEA supporting you.:ok:

[lamem]

We all applaud the effort that you all (and Luke) put into it. If we cannot stand up for our beliefs we have nothing.
But what of MT. This has all the hall marks of having his grubby little bully boy hands on it.

[WOLVERINES]

Great result, congratulations L.M. It really takes a spine and a lot courage to stand up for yourself.

I think there could be a storm further north where the cyclone hit.

The two Dmm's and certain seniors should take note because they employ the same tactics that have been exposed here.

If anyone decided to take action, the outcome would be the same.

[EWANQF]

Use The Force LUKE................ALAEA!!

[UPPERLOBE]

Quote: ignorant managers without a quarter of the training and knowledge the LAMEs have worked for.

The manager in question was a LAME at the SIT.

[division1]

And probably not much use as a lame.
Come to think of it, most of the managers who were once lames were
either pretty hopeless on the job, lazy, or going home early.

[UPPERLOBE]

Hahahaha too true in too many cases.

I was only pointing out that the person in question was a LAME.

[DERG]

Fully support your cause....

[legaleagle73]

For those of you who want to read the decision

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 58 (11 February 2011) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/58.html)

Cheers

[magoo31]

Without trying to get personal, which everyone else seems happy do do in slagging off PC, those that know will know the litigious history of this fellow and may well alter their opinion if they knew the trouble he has caused for many a fellow worker over the years.

As for the ALAEA's involvement, not the first time money has been wasted on a frivolous claim but if a member, genuine or not, approaches the asn with a grievance, what can they say? Pull your head in, i know what you're entitled to but is it really worth spending tens of thousands of dollars? This is clear when the case proceeded even though the entitlement issue had been settled.

In reading the transcript it was clear from day one he was setting this up for litigation, as his history would dictate. He has also ensured that he dragged as many people in on the issue as he could. this is a standard MO for person's of a litigious nature.

We all know that trips are about swings and roundabouts, sometimes its a tough one, the hours aren't real good, the a/c is a bucket and the beer's warm. Other times you come home thinking how good is this, and feel guilty putting in your expense claim.

If I wanted to nit pick, then I'd put in WTMB (work through meal break) for about a 200 days for my time at the SIT. But being a fair and reasonable person, I'd remember the days when I'd sit on my arse waiting 4 hours for a late aircraft, or do 4 hrs OT for a bay 22 737 transit. Yeah sure, I know what I'm entitled to, and if i asked for it there would be some grumbling and groaning from my DMM but could you blame him?

People are picked for trips based on whether they get the job done without fuss and deal with non-standard issues/defects efficiently. If you come home from a trip and tie up a manager's time for a month with petty sh!t, don't complain when you get overlooked for the next one.

Before you slag me off as a management stooge, I was a LAME for 17 years and proud member of the asn.

As for PC, he was an excellent LAME/Snr LAME at SIT and very well respected by his peers, from memory he may have also been a union rep at some stage (AMWU).

To the moderators, I'd be dissapointed if this thread was locked now only after someone is defending PC but I do understand your position.

[The Green Goblin]

Maybe Magoo, but those four hours you could have been home with the family. So you should be paid overtime.

As for working through your meals, if you don't claim them, you are setting precedent. It then becomes unofficial policy to not claim them. When more junior guys put in a claim, management will say "Magoo" doesn't claim these, are you sure you want to? These fellas then could be labelled troublemakers and given the work no one else wants to do. Sooner or later they'll fall into line when they are sick of working the red eye.

Fair enough, there is a little give and take in any relationship. These days however it's all give and no take from a faceless corporation like Qantas.

Get what you're entitled too, give a fair days work, and get a fair days pay for doing it.

[Jet-A-One]

It's obviously a long time since you've worked at QF Magoo. The days of goodwill from the company are long gone cobber. Doing things like working 6hrs+ without a meal break isn't going to get you a pat on the back or an early home time or any kind of goodwill from the company these days. On the contrary, you'll get nothing but buggery and disrespect from all levels of management.:ugh:

I'm not here to knock PC either. I worked with him years ago and never had a problem with him. But I've also worked with Licka and I can tell you that all that bullsh!t you just said about him is exactly that.

It's about time the matey club of can-do men in line maint was broken up and every deserving LAME had an equal opportunity to the jollies. :D

[magoo31]

Nothing against a fair days work for a fair days pay. Some people need to get out in the real world, do you honestly believe that Qantas is any different or more special in the way it screws employees. All you can hope for is a balanced screwing, it was like that when I was there and it hasn't changed, sometimes just more obvious with a different pair of hands on your shoulders.

And as for Licka..... I've just deleted what i wrote in this post due to the fact that the people on the receiving end know exactly the sort of person he is....

Jet-A-one, "Jollies", was that a Freudian slip? Are you admitting that trips aren't that hard? Exactly what i was getting at. For example, spending 2 hours on a transit, 8 hours sightseeing, 2 hours on a transit then back to the hotel for 2 days.... then claiming the whole day as "working". That's the sort of sh!t I'm getting at. And you wonder why a Manager rolls their eyes when you put in the expense claim, they're not stupid (most of the time).

I don't want to get in to a tit for tat slanging match, my opinion is that the employer/employee relationship needs to be balanced and flexible. Some LAME's see their job as getting as much as they can out of the company cause the company's intention is to screw them at every turn.

Some people need to give up the conspiracy complex and just get on with the job.

Certainly not going to help your case with the EBA negotiations.

[unionist1974]

Magoo ,
I knew PC when he was an apprentice in the Engine shop , a staunch Union man when a tradesman and Union delegate of a Union not an Association . Top bloke , who I have kept in touch with over many years two sides to every story and I would like to hear PC before casting judgement .

[ampclamp]

I dont know either of them so I can only go on what I read in the judgement and 2nd hand experience with Narita.
Not sure if you have been there of late but it is not a cushy gig.Far from it from what I am told.Some are cushy, some not.There are agreed conditions and should not be undercut.If it is a cruisy deal that is not the engineers problem.If the posting involves lots of nil tens, long hours the award deals with that clearly.
The courts will deal with the facts from the case in front of it.The past means jack shyte.It matters not what you or anyone else thinks of them from past dealings.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I don't know the manager either but what he was in a former role is completely irrelevant to what he is today. If he was a Rep as an AME does that make it ok to threaten LAMEs when they try and claim a legitimate entitlement? If he has some friends or people who like him is that a green light to turn around to a bunch of others and say that they will not be given offerings of posting because one of their mates wanted to get paid correctly?

This manager has won the title as being the first manager in Australia in any company to be found guilty of illegal coercion against an employee under section 343 of the FWA. He has broken countless Qantas policies in the process when he is meant to lead by example.

Do you two supporters think this is ok because you know or remember him as a good bloke?

[magoo31]

A manager who became frustrated with an unreasonable employee is nothing new. Unfortunately PC was set up from the beginning.
Courts deal with paper facts.
Not with personalities and past known behaviours. Glad it's not my money you're wasting.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just wondering if you can answer the questions at all. There are three and here they are-


If he was a Rep as an AME does that make it ok to threaten LAMEs when they try and claim a legitimate entitlement?


If he has some friends or people who like him is that a green light to turn around to a bunch of others and say that they will not be given offerings of posting because one of their mates wanted to get paid correctly?


Do you two supporters think this is ok because you know or remember him as a good bloke?

[division1]

I can't think of a single lame that says any money was 'wasted' on this case.

[Ngineer]

Unfortunately this is what's left over from working under management regimes of the likes of TG, MH etc.

The names have changed but the toxicity lives on.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I just wanted to point out one thing for those reading this. There are plenty of good members who have been offered these postings from time to time and they themselves are not mates and may not even know Cawthorne or the other managers who make the selections.

It is the system that is flawed. It has an underlying or unsaid rule that those who buck the system do not fit and should not be part of it. This case has exposed the system that allows for discrimination because a manager said and put in writing the unsaid laws that regulate overseas postings.

Since our notice of last week, two members have contacted us to say that they had tried to make similar claims in the past. They were told to get knicked and removed from the list of persons who could be selected for overseas work. This is absolutely unfair to these blokes.

The ALAEA will be supporting any member who comes forward to claim money they are entitled to. We don't want those guys excluded or put on an unofficial blacklist becasue of this. For this reason it is imperative that everyone claim the unpaid money so we are all in the same boat and nobody can be excluded.

As union members we do not fight for wage Agreements only to have management dishonour the terms because they can. The only reason they get away with it is becasue some members allow them to.

[the rim]

Well said fed sec and well done to the team for a great result....I was going to reply to the post from "magoon" yesterday but was too angry after reading it and would let the other posters attack him,cannot see how PC was set up from the start ???...for some that dont know there are several requirements you have to have before you can do these "jollies" and that makes the numbers small to start,but do agree that some are kept in a boys club....rim

[the_company_spy]

Put quite simply there is only one thing pertinent here, the behavior of the manager in question and the actions he took after an employee legitimately requested remuneration he was entitled to by law.

The rest is irrelevant.

The choice was made by one person, the rest is in the court transcripts.

[halfback]

Hey Magoo, I sincerely hope that you are not inferring Licka to be an unreasonable employee. I have both worked and socialised with Licka in years past and I can tell you (as many others would, both inside and outside of the flying rat) that he is a fair and reasonable man, a pleasure to work with, and his ethics are beyond reproach. As for PC, I wouldn't know him from a bar of soap, so no comment there. You say that PC was set up, so, quoting from a famous Aussie Ranga ---- PLEASE EXPLAIN !!!!!

[griffin one]

FEDSEC
while were banging the drum re postings and payment how about reviewing the posting allowances.
last time reviewed 2006, they are now so below the allowable ATO rate its farsical.

[poison pen]

Good onya Lika. You have my support 100% any time, any where.

[FlyingHigh101]

:ugh: Magoo you say PC was setup from the beginning............ this I find to be nothing but a load of :yuk:, but thanks for a good laugh. It doesn't take the smartest bloke to realise that this was obviously not the case.

Maybe if your mate, had followed the correct proceedures and policies in the first place, he wouldn't have found himself in this position. After all that's what they are there for, to protect both managers and employees alike.

I think it's beautiful and sets a warning to all managers, if you wanna act like an assclown be prepared to be treated like one.

Hopefully next time a manager will think twice before they try to make up their own rules and regulations, or try to deny a bloke something that he's entitled to.

Keep up the good work Fed Sec:ok:

[Clipped]

Don't forget the general conduct of QE management in general. Even after they ignored LM's case during their 'robust' internal investigation, they spared no expense to crucify Luke and our Ass'n.

Their new chant of fairness and transparency is both a mockery and insult to their 'engaged' Lame's.

During the court case, I heard there was a round the clock presence of QE managers watching their counterparts sink in their loose interpretation of events. GH must be very proud of his men.

[Redstone]

Any word of appeal yet by QF management? Wonder if they have to put a business case together with capex justification to get the money for such projects?

[ampclamp]

Good news. The ALAEA has prevailed. Well done!:ok:

[Going Boeing]

More info please - I couldn't find any update on the ALAEA website.

[rmm]

Qantas facing fine over 'bullying' judgment - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-04/qantas-to-be-fined-over-bullying-judgment/3992950)


Qantas facing fine over 'bullying' judgment

Updated May 04, 2012 22:59:26

Qantas is facing a fine after it lost an appeal against a judgment over the company's treatment of one of its aircraft engineers.

The Federal Court has upheld a judgment that the airline and a manager breached the Fair Work Act after the engineer tried to claim for more than 120 hours he said he worked while posted in Japan.

The court has found the manager pressured the engineer to drop the claim.

Steve Purvinas from the Aircraft Engineers Association says the next step will be to decide on a penalty for what he says amounted to bullying.

"It goes back to the Federal Magistrates Court to work out what the penalties against Qantas and their manager are going to be," he said.

[Arnold E]

Well done FEDSEC.:ok:

[Bagus]

Well done ALAEA ,this shows qantas management attitude against their staff and against hardworking Australians .

[airsupport]

Well done Steve, and any others involved. :ok:

[Managers Perspective]

It must be all "high fives" at Bexley.

I hope they don't cramp, they are probably a bit short on 'high five" match practice lately.

MP

[Cargo744]

Would only be left handed...

[hewlett]

Muppets x2 !

[ACT Crusader]

Would only be left handed...

Nice one cargo :)

Was an interesting case and while in my opinion there was little doubt in the result under the general protections, I wonder why this one couldn't be resolved internally under the dispute res procedure?

[Going Boeing]

I wonder why this one couldn't be resolved internally under the dispute res procedure?

I think everyone knows that all the perpetrators of bullying in Qantas are in management and they are not going to admit it during an internal dispute resolution procedure.

Well done to all the guys who have stood up to these mongrels and well done to the ALAEA for their persistence and support of its members.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I wonder why this one couldn't be resolved internally under the dispute res procedure?


Tried that and failed.

Notice will be out today.

[going postal]

How sad it is that the manager at the centre of this now pathetic episode now has the title of "Business Improvement Manager " in Sydney. No slap on the wrist from his superiors just a pat on the back and " better luck next time, oh and by the way, the company will pick up the tab".

:yuk:

[blow.n.gasket]

Also play these "Smartest guys in the room" back with their own rules.
They can't legally wriggle out then.
Have a look at Qantas' "Standards of Conduct Policy manual ", downloadable from the company website.

Have a look at the following sections for example
s2.2 Key principles underpinning the qantas group's Standards of Conduct Policy are building and fostering a culture in which diversity is valued and seeking to provide a workplace that is free from Discrimination, Harassment, threats, intimidation and humiliation
s5.1 particularly "Managers also have responsibilites as employees."
s6.1 Standards of personal Behaviour.
(a) Acting with honesty and integrity
(ii) never misuse any privilege, authority or status.
s9.4 Unlawful Discrimination ...... In Australia, unlawful grounds include, but not limited to:
(k) trade union membership/industrial activity.
s10 Harassment
s10.1........ Harassment can take many forms. it may be verbal, phisical, written or pictorial. Harassment is usually a pattern of behaviour but one act may constitute Harassment if it is serious.
s10.2 ties in with section 9.4
s16.26 failure to comply with any company or applicable qantas Group policy
s17.1 When the conduct of an Employee (includes Management s5.1) does not meet the standard od conduct required by the Company, appropriate corrective action WILL be taken, which may include termination of employment.
s17.6 reports/Complaints
(c) Staff should be aware that it is possible for an individual to be sued or prosecuted separately from the Company in respect of complaints of workplace Harassment, discrimination and Bullying and that they may be personally liable for any penalties imposed by a court breach of legislation.
s17.18 Procedural fairness..... In any investigation
(a) allegations should be provided to the Respondent ,generally in writing
(b) the respondent is entitled to know the substance of any allegations or complaint(s) against them;
(e) the Company MUST consider the response of the respondent;
(f) correct and thorough documentation must be maintained, so far as reasonably practicable;

This section is important. Qantas Management have a habit of keeping these type of incidences on the quiet, rarely any written paper trail. Keep the bastards honest!

s17.19 The investigation process guidelines
s17.21 (a) iv whether the investigation process guidelines set out in this Policy has generally been followed.
s19 Compliance
19.1 Managers and People representatives of each Entity/Business Unit are resposible for monitoring and enforcing compliance of this policy.
19.2 any identified breaches of this Policy should be reported to the relevant Entity/ Business Unit People representative.


Just a quick precis, but I've found if you use "their" own rules against them it then limits "their" lawyers wriggle room.

[Long Bay Mauler]

I hope that the ALAEA will be publicly calling for the manager concerned to be removed from his employment once the penalties are handed down in court?

How can the Senior Qantas management and other employees have confidence in the Qantas system if he is not appropriately penalized for his actions.

He, and Qantas as an organisation, have been found guilty under Australian law, and not some company doctrine. He deserves to lose his employment, as this is serious.

Will Qantas want to be seen as the defenders of workplace bullying?

I would bet that if this occurred at VAH, he would be stood down awaiting the final court decision. Yet at Qantas, he is allowed to continue face to face contact with employees.

[ampclamp]

bug a lugs.The manager concerned is clearly due for promotion.

[aveng]

The manager will probably just be moved sideways - sort of like RH when he was sacked from Perth MLM job. Like weeds - just pop up somewhere else.:ok:

[Ngineer]

he would be stood down awaiting the final court decision

Are you freekin kiddin me??

This is new paradigm in management.

[Collando]

He is already supported by upper management as they made the call to appeal the first decision, in other words they thought he (the manager)had done no wrong and were prepared to waste thousands of dollars defending him in the misguideded belief that the worker should work for free if he works longer than 38 hours while he's on secondment(and if you don't carry out overtime for free you won't be selected for an overseas secondment.) After all, managers don't get paid extra for working more than 38 hours why should he?
Jealousy and KPIs are a bitch ain't they. ( if your a manager)

[LAME2]

Latest news and should bring to a close this saga

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/qantas-manager-fined-for-coercing-engineer/story-e6frf7kf-1226450898944)

[Collando]

Ha ha, they made a morally bankrupt decision and now it has bitten them on the arse. (not so much by the fine, more from exposing themselve as the bastards they have been)Got to question Senior management judgement to pursue this to this extent. More money wasted needlessly. Prob still wont admit they were wrong though.So much for the work place ethics training they get their staff to do. They dont practice what they preach.Hippocracy at its finest.

[Clipped]

The financial penalties were just a joke.

Over a hundred thousand bucks in legal fees and a miniscule penalty outcome.

[Arnold E]

The financial penalties were just a joke.

Over a hundred thousand bucks in legal fees and a miniscule penalty outcome. Well maybe not really small penalties, I'm guessing had they won then costs would have been awarded against the union, but they lost so the penalty was really $100k plus the fine. I am not a legal eagle, but I am assuming that's how it works.

[LAME2]

A win is a win and this, whilst it seems a small penalty, is a good win for us all.

[outnabout]

ABC News reports:

In a decision lawyers describe as a warning to bullies, Qantas (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=qan&ql=1) and one of its managers have been fined for mistreating an employee who complained about his conditions.
The aircraft engineer made a claim for entitlements arising from an overseas posting.
The company retaliated by suspending further postings.
The Federal Magistrates Court fined the company and a manager a total of $15,500.
And for the first time under the Fair Work Act, the Court found the employee was subjected to unlawful coercion to withdraw his complaint.

Read the full news report here
Qantas fined $15,500 for mistreating worker - Yahoo!7 Finance Australia (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/qantas-fined-15-500-mistreating-111346037.html)

[The Kelpie]

It is refreshing to see the managers being held personally responsible and fined rather than simply the corporate penalty hopefully it will make some think twice before they simply toe the company line.

A little disappointed with the values of the fine though and does not really send out an effective warning to other as a token fine could just be re-imbursed through a small enhancement at bonus time when they all pat themselves on the back for achieving bean-counting KPI's.

Nonetheless the decision is an important one.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Wally Mk2]

What a shame it came to that, a court case that had or will have minimal impact on the company at fault, QF. It's somewhat obvious to us laypersons that our judicial system is sadly lacking in strength to make an impact for any future cases.
But I guess we are talking about QF here, a protected species albeit a dieing one.

A very sad indictment on what was once a great Aussie icon, now just a company that's rotting within.
I hope the engineer in question here can at least get some peace of mind.

I also don't think this thread will last too long,we can't have yet another QF bagging thread now can we?


Wmk2

[gobbledock]

At QF, for a Manager that is a good thing. No doubt he was promoted?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I think I should just put a bit more clarity to this. The entire case was run on a no costs jurisdiction. That means neither party can "win" costs off the other regardless of the result.

The ALAEA spent about 100k to run this. I estimate (from the trolleys they wheeled into the courtroom) that Qf would have spent between half to one million defending their actions. You could add that figure to he 15k they were eventually hit with. Still nothing however compared to the freight fines they agreed to.

I suspect it would really hurt them to have to pay these fines to the ALAEA, for us this is a heartening result. The fines were higher than our legal team thought may be handed down. Speaking to Luke when the whole case kicked off, we both agreed that a $1 fine would be enough to bring a smile to our faces.

Qantas are one of the first companies to be found guilty of breaching the adverse action sections of the FWA. Fines were mid range but should they be caught again (and we have already commenced another case at Sunstate), the first offence goes against them and the next fines will increase. The Sunstate case is for 6 breaches so fines could be based higher and times by 6. It would also set a solid base for a major class action for a large group of employees to each hit them should they do something like ground their airline for an incorrect purpose such as pressuring the govt to bail them out. Now there is a project we could all look into.

The Manager who was found guilty has already been moved. I suspect it has something to do with this case but not sure. He is the first manager in this country to be found guilty of illegal coercion under the FWA. It sends a clear message to others that there are consequences for treating people poorly.

Thnx to Luke for supporting this case and following ALAEA advice from the outset. What he has done will not help him with his QF career but will go some way to helping each and every one of us. If you ever pass through Bne International and bump into LAME Luke Murray shake his hand or buy him beer, he is a loyal supporter of our industry.

[Clipped]

like ground their airline for an incorrect purpose such as pressuring the govt to bail them out.

Is it theirs?

What if the chief of the Water Board, an Energy Supplier or even a Bank had, to further their industrial agenda, turned off the taps, power grid or closed it's branch doors and shut down it's online site?

But it appeared shutting down the airline was OK? Hooroo!

[Worrals in the wilds]

What if the chief of the Water Board, an Energy Supplier or even a Bank had, to further their industrial agenda, turned off the taps, power grid or closed its branch doors and shut down its online site?Which is one of the reasons for keeping critical infrastructure government owned, even if it costs taxpayers' money. Of course that's very untrendy and the federal and state governments are flogging off everything they can think of in the name of 'efficiency' (and the ALP has been just as guilty as the Libs), so I suppose we'll see more of it. :uhoh:

Who run Barter Town? :E
who run barter town - YouTube

[K9P]

And if critical infastructure/utilities were still government/taxpayer owned would it be costing us more than it is now?
Me thinks we are truely being taken to the cleaners (also in corporate hands)