"Qantas Group" PIA... one for the lawyers

[L8ngtkite]

Jetstar, Qantaslink and Jetconnect staff aren't allowed to participate in Qantas PIA as they are employed by separate legal entities.
These entities are however identified as subsidiary companies of Qantas Airways Limited and form part of the "Qantas Group".
Question:
Is it possible to have companies within the "Qantas Group" identified as a single entity in the eyes of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission? (Especially as staff perform the same functions across all subsidiaries)
Could a precedent be set and legal unity achieved for the participants of those companies within the group?

I want the legal right to support my peers performing the same role within the same group and industry.

[Di_Vosh]

No.

Briefly, to legally participate in PIA you must be a member of the union conducting the PIA AND you must have been a member of that union working for the company in question when the ballot was done (i.e. eligible to vote on the PIA in question).

Both the AFAP and AIPA conducted PIA ballots during the recent Eastern EBA negotiations.

In the above case, if AIPA had conducted PIA, only the AIPA members who were eligible to participate in the ballot could legally take PIA. Any AIPA members joining after the ballot would not be eligible, neither would any Eastern AFAP members nor would any AIPA members who were flying for Sunstate.

DIVOSH!

(P.S. Neither the AFAP or AIPA conducted PIA)

[carbonneutral]

Also, you have to be working under an award that is being negotiated, ie long haul award in this case. So Q 737 drivers wont be able to participate in any PIA...

[flyingfox]

That is how our free society works!! Protests must be approved!

[HF3000]

No, they don't have to be approved. But if they aren't you won't be "protected".

[L8ngtkite]

Thanks for explaining the situation. I'm not alone in struggling to find a meaningful way to support the pilots, engineers, cabin crew and ground support staff who actually do the work. Letters of complaint to local Federal members of Parliament have been written. Institutional shareholders have been petitioned. Feet have been stamped. All to no avail.
In the face of a silent government and opposition perhaps it's time to rouse the electorate by way of media campaign sponsored by a coalition of unions explaining that a negative result in FWA may well have harmful and lasting ramifications for the wider Australian workforce and community. The Resource sector in particular. Our last great hope.

(It worked for "Twiggy" and the mining magnates when opposing the Resource Super Profits Tax)

[DutchRoll]

Yeah just be very careful. If you're not in Qantas mainline then you won't be covered by the PIA, so theoretically they can hang you out to dry if you get caught doing anything which could be construed as industrial action. This can basically be anything which is different from your "normal" routine.

However non-AIPA members who are in Qantas mainline are covered by the PIA, as long as they individually notify the company of their intent to participate.

[Di_Vosh]

However non-AIPA members who are in Qantas mainline are covered by the PIA, as long as they individually notify the company of their intent to participate.

Dutchroll, Not saying that you're wrong, but if you were going to do that I think you'd want the relevant legislation in front of you. Otherwise...
:ouch::ouch::ouch:

DIVOSH!

[DutchRoll]

Fair Work Act, Section 410, Para (1) (b) (ii), pages 345-346.

You don't have to be an AIPA (or union) member. You have to be "an employee covered by the agreement". If you are covered by the Long Haul Award, authorised PIA is valid whether you're an AIPA member or not. BUT, you must comply with the notification requirements in Section 414. If you're an AIPA member, they do this on your behalf. If you're not, you'd have to do it yourself.

So yeah, tread carefully. But it can be done. Just sayin', ya know......;)

[ACT Crusader]

Dutchroll you may want to refer to a few other sections of the Fair Work Act.....

At the end of the day you can take PIA if you are on the roll of a PIA secret ballot. Now you don't have to vote in it, you could even vote no and still take PIA. But you must be on that roll.

Not every employee is automatically put on that roll.

[DutchRoll]

Yep yep yep yep. I said before and fully acknowledge again, tread carefully.

There is still nothing preventing a non-union member covered by the EBA taking part in PIA, any more than a union member taking part in it, providing the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed. That was the original point I made. It hasn't changed.

[waren9]

(It worked for "Twiggy" and the mining magnates when opposing the Resource Super Profits Tax


Wrong analogy. The golden rule applies. He who has the gold makes the rules, or put another way, those with the chequebooks have a lot of say about the rules.

Twiggy and his mates have a lot of gold and awfully big cheque books.

AIPA and Australian pilots in comparison have...........

['holic]

I reckon the key thing there was that management and employees were on the same side, opposing the mining tax and presenting a united front to the media.

They must live in some kind of parallel universe ....

[L8ngtkite]

Imagine that... management & line staff pulling in the same direction. Novel idea, I like it.
How about neglect of fiduciary responsibilities. Can't we challenge Mr Joyce & the Board on this front given the price fixing scandals that have happened on their watch? Decisions made contrary to the CEO's charter which have negatively affected Shareholder value & interests.