Question For QF Pilots and Engineers

[Sunfish]

Listening to a "Pilots wife" in ABC radio talkback with John Faine in Melbourne yesterday morning in the context of Joyce's salary, the lady made the claim something like: "My (pilot) husband is not allowed to talk to the media or anyone not even a member of parliament."

John Faine asked her to repeat that, which she did.

If any QF pilot or engineer has such an agreement which states in writing that they are not allowed to communicate with a member of Parliament, or approach a court of law, then send it to your union ASAP.

I am not a Lawyer, but I think I know why Faine picked up on that point. My recollection is that everyone has the absolute right to talk to a member of parliament about anything and everything, and it is illegal under common law for anyone to try and interfere with that absolute right. If Qantas purports in writing to have the power to do so, then I think that perhaps the good Senator Xenophon might like to inform the Senate privileges committee about it and a groveling apology by Qantas to Parliament and their own employees might possibly be in order.

Similarly if there is a clause prohibiting an employee from approaching a court of law about their agreement - that will send any Judge apoplectic because it is another absolute right. Such a clause is unenforceable.

I have seen such clauses in employment agreements and codes of conduct inserted in employment contracts before, notably by a firm with a "U" in its name..

[unseen]

She is incorect

[brodle]

She is partly correct and partly incorrect.....check your 'administration' manual,
if you have one.

[V-Jet]

I haven't go the FAM reference, but my understanding is it is a _slghtly_ grey area. Grey is in I would love to be part of the court case that proves Qantas' head is up its (very short, but well used) arse, but from QF's view, as evidenced by the FAM, there is no greyness about it at all.

Away atm so can't give the wording, but after 90 years, there is not much in the Flight Admin Manual (FAM) that is not grossly in favour of the company.

The terms 'Cooler', 'Strengstens Verboten', 'summary dismissal' do spring to mind.

Just ask Lurch:) - that was at an internal education day during an informal discussion and he was stood down and sent home. Admittedly he was stood up again and brought back from home, but that was after the event....

In much the same way as this idiotic CEO is racing all over the globe to gamble OUR company away on reckless quixotic enterprises that IF they ever pay off will only benefit himself and his cohorts, it is a brave Qf employee who would discuss anything in public about a group that shoots first and asks questions later.

Come to think of it, Himmler (a man of similar stature) ran an organisation quite similar to modern QF. Another oustanding leader: Demonic, self centred, and totally disconnected from his staff. Wonder what happened to him???

[C441]

As suggested above if she were applying the directive in the appropriate manual, then yes she is correct - her husband could expect disciplinary action including dismissal if he were to communicate with anyone outside the company about company matters.

(I guess I'd better not get Dean Wallis or Heath Shaw to put any bets on Qantas's future for me lest I get suspended for 14 Bid Periods! := )

Whether that could be shown to meet with other areas of the law outside the sphere of the manual could be debated.....:ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

I wonder what happened to the Jetstar flight attendant at the senate enquiry.........

[fatmike]

The company manual prohibits QF pilots from talking to the media regarding "company operations and /or policy". How that translates to talking to an MP is only known to the pilot and his wife. He can talk as much as he wants to the media so long as it doesn't involve "company operations and/or policy"

[Sunfish]

Does the company use the word "Parliament", "Legislator", "Court" or "Judge"? That is what I was asking.

I have seen a draft contract written by the esteemed firm of Clayton Utz that contained words to the effect of not talking to such folk that was so one sided that the Sir Humphreyesque response I ended up giving my Directors was: "My legal advice is that if you want to strengthen this contract, you have to water it down".

[C441]

Does the company use the word "Parliament", "Legislator", "Court" or "Judge"? That is what I was asking.

No. It says "..any person outside the Company."

[DEFCON4]

As a company employee if you seen to bring the company reputation into disrepute you can be subject to disciplinary action which may or may not include summary dismissal.This also applies if you make reference to other employees particularly management.If on facebook for example you post on your wall that the CEO is fekin eejet and you can be identified as the publisher of that comment you are deep in it.Likewise if you criticize the service,IFE or lack of maintnenace you can also be subject to disciplinary action.
Seems that it only applies to disgruntled employees and not the CEO who has made some fairly disparaging remarks of late.Animal Farm comes to mind.Pre war Deutschland also rings a bell

[ACT Crusader]

I have seen a draft contract written by the esteemed firm of Clayton Utz that contained words to the effect of not talking to such folk that was so one sided that the Sir Humphreyesque response I ended up giving my Directors was: "My legal advice is that if you want to strengthen this contract, you have to water it down".


Sunfish what industry/sector was that ClUtz contract written for? Wouldn't be too unusual in a couple of sectors that come to mind where "not talking" is more important than others.

[eternity]

The amendments from my FAM are keeping the coffee table in my TV room level.


You mean there is another use for them...??

[Sunfish]

ACTCrusader, the ClUtz draft contract was for the IT industry.

It was given to me by the Directors and I was told to get my Seventy odd staff to sign it.

It contained words to the effect that:

- The employee agreed not to approach any Court of law regarding any disputed matter in the contract.

- The Company could approach a Court of law if they wanted to enforce the contract, and if it had to, the employee had to pay the company's costs.

I sent this to a legal mate who sent it to the architect of Victorias employment laws for comment.

The response was that the ClUtz contract was so totally one sided that it would be deemed unenforceable by any Court that was shown it, and the words that purported to curtail an employees right to access the Courts would enrage any and every judge who saw it since you cannot ever prevent someone from approaching a Court over anything at all. It is a matter of right.

I wonder how many poor schmucks in Victoria have a ClUtz contract with this type of clause in it? You can always take something to a Court, if its "confidential" the Court will simply be closed and it will remain confidential. Same goes for a member of Parliament.

Furthermore, if you discover illegal corporate activity and do not immediately report it to the authorities you may be guilty "misprision of a felony" and corporate confidentiality won't wash as a defence.

Furthermore, allocation of costs are for the Court to decide if there is a dispute over them.

This is why ClUtz has the reputation it has - it writes unenforceable sh1t into contracts to scare employees.

As a reflection, I have been asked to sign confidentiality agreements, or agreements containing confidentiality clauses many times. My general observation is that if the clause is much more than Two sentences, let alone a full paragraph, you can be pretty sure that the subject matter is either illegal, immoral or unethical. The biggest frauds and nutcases I've ever met when I dealt with inventors and investors, produced Two or Three page confidentiality agreements for me to sign that purported to give them the right to hack off my limbs if I ever so much as peeped about their activities.

[airsupport]

IF this is true, then surely all you Qantas Employees discussing anything about Qantas here on PPRuNe are in breach of it. :uhoh:

[mach2male]

All posters who are employed by the rat and have posted detrimental opinions are in breach of company policy and as such are liable for disciplinary action.
This would include some of the remarks made regarding AJ

[Arnold E]

This would include some of the remarks made regarding AJ
Would it include some remarks made BY AJ??

[rmm]

What if the employee is speaking with his shareholder hat on?

[600ft-lb]

AJ better watch out some of the things he's saying in public aren't in contravention of the PPM. He could find himself disciplined and/or summarily dismissed.

[teresa green]

Eternity, they are also good for keeping your beer fridge door closed tight. No wonder I never made CP, I used to jump up and down like a demented ant to my MP, and stuff the company and its crap. But then again I never achieved much either, on reflection. :ugh:

[bucko70]

Sunfish,
re: C441 "..any person outside the Company." is correct. This can be found in the FAM under "Media". It also states that disciplinary action can include dismissal.
The wording "any person" leaves no room for interpretation.

Whilst it would be thrown out at a FWA hearing if a pilot/staff member were found to be corresponding with an MP, it is still an illegal threat yet to be challenged and at the moment AIPA have bigger fish to fry.
AIPA are aware of the wording too.

[unionist1974]

Sunfish , Do you also believe man never landed on the moon ? who killed JFK , please tell us as I am sure YOU know . And what about Lady Diana , who knocked her off . Fair Dinkum , you are the King of Conspiracy .

[Poto]

Passing on Company Information is one thing, making a remark about information that is in the public domain is another. Disparaging or otherwise, we still live in Australia and freedom of speech does apply. Having said that defamation must also be considered when attacking individuals.

[600ft-lb]

This site has some good info regarding defamation
Australian Defamation Laws and the Internet (http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html)
On 25 October 2005, the Queensland Attorney General Linda Lavarch announced that a Bill (Defamation Bill 2005 (http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/51PDF/2005/DefamationB05.pdf)) to amend Queensland's defamation laws, in accord with proposed uniform national laws, had been introduced into Parliament and was expected to become effective from 1 January 2006. In a media release titled Queensland Moves To Adopt National Uniform Defamation Laws (http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/cgi-bin/display-statement.pl?id=9173&db=media) the Queensland Attorney General stated that key features of the legislation include:


"preventing corporations (other than non-for-profit organisations or small businesses) from suing for defamation, addressing current community concerns that large companies could stifle legitimate public debate by beginning defamation action;
establishing a defence of "truth" to replace the previous defence of "truth and public benefit";
reducing the time limit for bringing a defamation action from six years to one year (or three years if the court is satisfied an action could not have been brought within one year);
abolishing the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in civil defamation proceedings; and
limiting juries to determining whether a person has been defamed, leaving the awarding of damages to judges."

On 15 December 2005, the Federal Attorney General announced (http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Media_Releases_2005_Fourth_Quarter_15_December_2005_-_Belated_State_defamation_laws_-_2372005) that all six States had enacted substantially uniform defamation laws.
So according to that, Qantas can't sue an individual, however individuals within Qantas can sue individuals who they consider to have defamed them. In reality though they'd have to be quite thin skinned, especially considering what they're doing to a former national icon.

And they'd have to prove what anyone who is 'defaming' them on the internet
isn't telling the truth. Hah.
Defence of justification
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the
defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by
the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially
true.

[theheadmaster]

You might be surprised Poto, but there is no general right to free speech in Australia. The Constitution does not contain a bill of rights and the Parliament has not passed any Act making law the provisions of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Australia is a signatory to. There has been found to be an implied right of political expression in the Constitution, but that does not extend to free speech on all subjects.