Last on First off.

[Bigboeingboy]

Word on the streets is Joyce will force AIPA to arbitration. One of their arguments will be to drop the last on first off clause in the EBA due to the large cost involved to the company in retraining.
If they win this(and they have won everything else) they will do redundancies across the fleets and ranks where the excesses are.
I should imagine Qantas Captains will go across to Jetstar as Captains in preference to centre link. Any bush lawyers care to comment?:confused:

[Tankengine]

I understand VR must be offered [at a reasonable package] before CR.:)
This may cost more than the re-training!:eek:

Mind you, nothing would suprise most of us.:hmm:

C%£&s^&$%£*s:mad:

[Conductor]

I don't believe there is any requirement for VR in the long haul EBA. The long haul cabin crew have it but tech crew do not.

[mohikan]

BBB.

I reckon you are right about the company wanting mass redundancies out of seniority order, as well as about the arbitration piece.

QF have not negotiated in good faith at all since the beginning of EBA negotiations, and that has all been about getting to this point.

Don't think you a right about QF Capt's displacing anyone else in the group however. Joyce has been pretty clear he wants the "rouge overpaid pollution living in cloud cuckoo land" out of the industry altogether.

With extreme prejudice and maximum personal financial and emotional damage to each and every QF pilot.

[Tankengine]

Is there any requirement for R in the EA?:confused: [EBAs long gone]

Common usage with other parts of the company may influence the amounts of any redundancy package.

For example: LOA 154 regarding FEO redundacies refers to 3 weeks pay/years of service up to 5 years and 4 weeks pay/years of service over 5 years.:E

Plus 6 months notice etc.

[Capt Fathom]

How is it that an Award/Contract/Negotiation can include a Last ON, First OFF! clause, then all of a sudden, all bets are off!

Are there any protections for employees these days?

[Short_Circuit]

Are there any protections for employees these days?
Simple answer, NO.. :sad:

[CaptCloudbuster]

I'm sure Team Bazza has everything under control. Official word from the Exec when quizzed on this topic from within COM (reportedly on numerous occasions during their tenure) is that the Award will be followed -

President Jackson was elected because of his affable demeanor and negotiating skill set, surely there is no need to get hysterical now; is there?

[The The]

As I understand it, this was an ambit claim from the company that was quickly dismissed by both parties early in negotiations. I'm sure the company would like to have it revisited along with a 20% pay cut, reduction in allowances, loss of pay protection etc etc.

This dispute was mostly about the job security clause and the company have made enough public statements to verify that was the sticking point. I think that's the central issue FWA will rule on. I very much doubt they will start stripping away existing entitlements, at least I hope not.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Wow, you lot are really jumping at shadows.

It's not 1989, stand together and do not resign from your job unless you've got a better one to go to.

You start using more fuel, pushing headwinds, not carrying defects, don't do call ins.

You might lose the occasional battle, make sure you win the war.

AJ is not some super strategist, his game plan is simple, we've all been bullied before, fight the smart fight, stand your ground, I will be.

I'd reckon he's the kind of guy that could not stand on his own.

IMHO, as soft as a pensioners turd.

[VBPCGUY]

Shed Dog pretty much has it spot on work to rule, follow all SOP's, find the head winds, dont shut the engines off quite as promptly when you pull into the gate, gas it up when taxing etc.

[Jabawocky]

As an outsider looking in......think about this.

Your battle is not directly with AJ.

Study your enemy.....study real Damned hard...... It's L Clifford.

Do I make myself 100,000% clear.

This is LC all over. You can be blind to the Forrest due the trees if you like. I bet you all your houses and lives on it.

Sorry I am telling you the obvious if you already see it.

[Mr Leslie Chow]

Yep sheds on the money

This is just a bigger nastier version of any GA outfit. Intimidate and push the staff, see how far they go. When their back won't bend any further and they say enough is enough (fuel burns increase, OTP constantly crap and no more helping out the company) they stop and then come to an agreement.

But just like GA there will be those that jump ship early thinking the end of the world is nigh.

[astroboy55]

work to rule = UNPROTECTED industrial action.

[Toruk Macto]

How can work to rule be industrial action? Just doing what your meant to do , nothing more.

[404 Titan]

astroboy55

Under the Fair Work Act 2009, industrial action is defined as to include the following actions:
• Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed. (In other words no “Go Slows” operating at higher than normal Mach No etc etc).
• Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work. (In other words no pickets, harassing of other employees etc).
• A ban, limitation or restriction by employees on performing or accepting work. (An example here would be baggage handlers refusing to lift any bags over 10 kgs).
• A failure or refusal by employees to attend for work or perform any work. (Striking).
• The lockout of employees from their employment by their employer. (What Qantas almost did a few weeks ago).

Work to rule or contract compliance isn’t industrial action. When an employee performs his job as described in his contract, he is complying with the contract he signed with his employer. If he does more than what is in his contract, this is good will. Industrial action occurs if he does less than what is in his contract.

Fair Work Ombudsman - Industrial Action (http://www.fairwork.gov.au/factsheets/FWO-Fact-sheet-Industrial-Action.pdf)

[astroboy55]

Gday Titan,
Whilst I agree with the above, the unfortunate fact is that any work to rule is Unprotected Industrial Action. The key here is Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed.

I agree, simply following your contract SHOULD NOT be classed as IA, but as for the last however many years everyone has showed up a few minutes early and done that little bit extra to get away on time etc, any change to those practices can constitute IA if the company want to play hardball. Our goodwill has set the precedent for 'how work is normally performed'. Now, we all know that if we showed up at briefing AT sign on, etc etc, every flight (particularly international out of SYD) would be running at least 20 or so mins behind schedule, costing a fortune. I don't believe showing up AT rather than BEFORE is work to rule, as this is just complying with duty limitations. Remember, a work to rule would involve plotting all of those 'restricted area' NOTAMS and other rubbish through India etc on maps, checking that the obstacles didn't infringe the takeoff splay, pulling the FCOM out and following step by step in every pre flight, pulling the FAM out and following it exactly for briefings etc etc.

The other key is Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work Working to rule would delay the performance of work.

I dont agree with it, but it would be a brave person who tried a work to rule campaign right now without protection. However, as pointed out,there are far more subtle ways one can get their message across without resorting to such tactics :p

Cheers

[Shed Dog Tosser]

I believe you'll find:

* Organised work to rule is unprotected,

* individuals choosing to work to rule, is a person meeting the bare minimums of their employment contract, can't get sacked for that.

In the same way, an individual choosing not to overtime or call ins, is quite within their rights.

[busdriver007]

Margaret and Scrotum Face used to brag that no one was leaving...well they will now and the worry is the damage they do before they leave.....

[ACT Crusader]

Astro, while on the surface when someone "works to rule" the performance or output might be different, proving that in the Commission will be quite a task, when a Commissioner will just as easily turn around and ask the employer - "what is expected of the employee(s) under their agreement/contract".

An employer can't just come in and say "well this person usually works to this level which is above the terms of their contract etc etc" and think that would satisfy an unprotected IA claim.

Even if an employer has certain implied expectations of it's employees the contract is the contract.

[SpannerTwister]

IMHO it would be a brave manager who would stand up before FWA and "complain" that an employee followed the companies procedures !!

"Yes, your Honour, we do allege that this employee was taking "unprotected" industrial action.........

"And what was this employee doing"

"Your Honour, he was following our written procedures"

"And do you have a policy about your policies"

"Yes your Honour, we require that ALL of our employees follow ALL of our procedures ALL of the time"

"And are your employees aware of the requirement to follow procedures ?"

"Yes your Honour, we frequently have "read & signs" reminding them of this, we have posters up everywhere and it is one of our "Cardinal Rules" "

"So.....Let me understand this.........You have policies, you require that your employees follow these policies, you enforce these policies and you actively promote adherence to these policies ?

"Yes your Honour, now please find this employee "guilty" of "Following procedures"

"Are you sh!tt!ing me ?"

ST

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

You’re quite correct and I should have mentioned that.

astroboy55
Whilst I agree with the above, the unfortunate fact is that any work to rule is Unprotected Industrial Action.
Only if it is organised.

As far as what is “normal”, your contract is “normal”. Anything above your contract is simply good will, which as we all know is earned and should never be implied.

In determining unprotected IA is occuring, FWA will first look to see if it is organised, i.e. a union directive. If there isn’t a union directive it will be very difficult to prove unprotected IA by the employer. If you think labour laws are tough in Australia you should see what they are like here in Hong Kong. Even here individual “Contract Compliance” is common. Simple things like not answering your phone on days off and refusing to work on days off are no brainers.

[FGD135]

As far as what is “normal”, your contract is “normal”. Anything above your contract is simply good will, which as we all know is earned and should never be implied.

Perfectly true in theory, but not in practice.

The legal precedent has been established, and reinforced many times, that "normal" means what a group of employees "generally" do - and has nothing to do with their contract.


Only if it is organised.

A mere post on PPRUNE describing actions that could be taken to "inconvenience" Qantas could be shown to be an act of "organisation" !

[Shed Dog Tosser]

A mere post on PPRUNE describing actions that could be taken to "inconvenience" Qantas could be shown to be an act of "organisation" !

So which legal entity would be taken to Court/FWA ?, pprune didn't organise it, the individuals involved are exactly that, individuals..............

[ernestkgann]

Crews 'generally' divert to a fuel alternate if they consider that they cannot comply with the legal minimums required to conclude the flight. A diversion like this can sometime cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Keg]

Yes, but if those 'individuals' are seen to be 'coordinating' via PPRUNE.......

[ernestkgann]

But Those individuals don't read prune.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Warning: pure speculation follows.

Or the shut-down of an engine inflight at the exact time your boss is being measured up at a Senate Enquiry for a brand new pineapple. :}

Speculation disengaged.

[ampclamp]

dog tosser.
IMHO correct re following procs and so called unprotected PIA.

I am sure the toe cutters within q would love to take someone to task for NOT following procedures.

I think the risk of being hung out to dry trying a "work around" to achieve an end is much higher and less defendable rather than strict adherence to the rules at the risk of increased costs or inconvenience and the accusation of unprotected PIA.

If you have a licence to fly or to fix you are obligated to do so.

In other words cover your @rse. It is your licence. They are hard to get:ok:

[404 Titan]

FGD135
The legal precedent has been established, and reinforced many times, that "normal" means what a group of employees "generally" do - and has nothing to do with their contract.
Would you mind quoting the exact court case that established this as a precedent? I find it very difficult to believe that a court would rule ones personal decision not to work on days off as unprotected industrial action. Even in Hong Kong which makes Australian labour laws look pro employee, individual contract compliance isn't regarded as industrial action. If I choose not to work on my days off because I consider doing so too fatiguing that is my business.

[Nudlaug]

Under Human Factors it is highly desirable to break "Norm" behaviour.

"We kept doing the wrong thing over and over again cause everyone did it".

According to mandatory Human Factors training every employee is required to break norm practices and establish correct ones as required by the procedures.
Any time is a good time to break with norm behaviour

[FGD135]

I find it very difficult to believe that a court would rule ones personal decision not to work on days off as unprotected industrial action.

This is where the distinction between normal behaviour and industrial action comes in.

It would be normal for the members of the pilot group to sometimes work on their days off. This pattern of behaviour would consist of individuals sometimes working, sometimes choosing not to. To the employer, it would be generally unpredictable as to whether a particular individual will work on his day off.

This is normal work practice and could not be construed as industrial action.

When "industrial action" is being taken however, this "normal" pattern is noticeably different. In the case of days off, it becomes much more predictable to the airline that an individual will not work.

The difference in behaviour is statistically very easy for the airline to demonstrate.


Would you mind quoting the exact court case that established this as a precedent?
Will try to dig up a few cases.

[Toruk Macto]

You serious , you truly believe you legally have to answer your phone on your day off.

[Tee Emm]

IMHO, as soft as a pensioners turd.

Charming.:bored:

[404 Titan]

FGD135
Will try to dig up a few cases.
The reason I asked you is that I can’t find a case that sets the precedent of an “individuals” decision not to work on his days off or be contactable is unprotected industrial action. If there isn’t a case, then in legal speak, there isn’t a precedent.

[Bright Spark]

Just open your eyes and look at what has happened with the sunnies gingerbeers, docked pay and suspensions for working to rule and writing up actual defects because management considered it unprotectected industrial action.
CASA wouldn't get involved because it might be industrial action and it took months before the boys got any joy out of FWA.
In the end redundancies and move the work elsewhere - too many end up leaving and now they're looking for staff - nasty management and alot of ill will.
Recently I asked my union rep directly - if I refused to do any more overtime could it be considered unprotected IA and he said yes if I went cold turkey - slowly reduce donot go cold turkey is the answer.
Bright

[unseen]

You would scream yourselves silly if you saw a bunch of lawyers talking about how to fly a jet,

but you are quite happy to sit here and pontificate about your interpretation of the law as if your are an expert,

Anyone who thinks that the legal system and the law about something like 'working to rule' can be described in a few sentences is fooling themselves.

Pilots - great at what they do, but think that that expertise extends to everything,

Stick with what you are good at..

[neville_nobody]

if I refused to do any more overtime could it be considered unprotected IA and he said yes if I went cold turkey

What if said it was affecting your family life? How can that be considered Industrial Action. There is no requirement to work overtime unless it is written in the contract.

[404 Titan]

Well it would appear the nurses in Vic who are members of the ANF that were ordered to stop industrial action by FWA have ignored both FWA and their union and are continuing IA. The Vic government and their lawyers are calling for FWA to order the individuals back to work but it would appear there isn’t anything FWA can do under the current legislation as it isn’t organised IA. Individuals have taken matters into their own hands.

[FGD135]

... I can’t find a case that sets the precedent of an “individuals” decision not to work on his days off or be contactable is unprotected industrial action.

Yes, I very much doubt this has ever happened in the case of an individual. But, to be considered "individual" he must have changed his behaviour at a time and in a way that could not be construed as part of a group action (or he could have been doing things that way since he commenced the employment).

It becomes IA when a group of employees start doing something differently - when that "something" is of detriment to the employer.

It is always obvious when this kind of industrial action is being taken. The employees help to make it obvious because they want the employer to know they are doing it. No point doing it if the management aren't aware!

And to make it more obvious is the fact that it tends to happen at times when there are negotiations or disputes already occurring.


What if said it was affecting your family life? How can that be considered Industrial Action. There is no requirement to work overtime unless it is written in the contract.
If a group of pilots, at around the same time, all stopped working overtime then this would be considered IA. Giving the reason "because it affects family life" would make no difference.

An individual doing this, however, and giving the same reason, would not be considered to be engaging in IA. It would be believed that his reason was indeed "for family reasons".

As I said above, it is always very obvious when this kind of action is being taken!

[Baxter Dewall]

Unseen, you got it in one :ok:

He/She said

You would scream yourselves silly if you saw a bunch of lawyers talking about how to fly a jet,

but you are quite happy to sit here and pontificate about your interpretation of the law as if your are an expert,

Anyone who thinks that the legal system and the law about something like 'working to rule' can be described in a few sentences is fooling themselves.

Pilots - great at what they do, but think that that expertise extends to everything,

Stick with what you are good at..


That last sentence concerns me a little though.:D

[404 Titan]

FGD135

So contrary to your statement in post #23:
The legal precedent has been established, and reinforced many times
Infact isn’t correct.
Yes, I very much doubt this has ever happened in the case of an individual.
Everything you have said is just your opinion. Do you have a law degree specialising in industrial relations? I will admit I don’t but I have studied law in the degree I do have and most of the evidence you have claimed the employer would have is circumstantial at best and if all the individual employee is doing is not working on their days off or being contactable, I find it very unlikely a judge will order them to always be available to work on their days off and be able to be contactable when there isn’t a requirement for them to be contactable.

[Mr Leslie Chow]

From the Australian.......

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has repeatedly said that a decision to lock out workers and ground the airline was not made until the morning of the shutdown, although he has conceded the airline already had plans in place for such a contingency.

What a way to lead 33 000 staff and motivate a workforce, by using pure 100% Grade A bull****.

[gobbledock]

Once again I ask the question - If Joyce decided on the morning of the grounding to take that course of action, this shows a knee jerk adhoc action that could not have been risk analysed prior to him acting upon that impulse.
This is sheer lunacy, and it is equally disconcerting that CASA has done absolutely nothing. What ever happened to Section 28 of the act? Do we need to supply CASA with a copy of the responsibilities and accountabilities of the AOC holder?

If ever there was a time or need for Senator Xenophon to analyse the actions of Qantas and inactions of CASA it is now. It has become palpable that this is going on. I know we have focused a lot on the FWA issue at hand, as well as the bonuses and cloud cuckoo land mentality displayed by QF's leaders, and I don't wish to detract from that, but what about safety? What about CASA's requirement to uphold and ensure passenger safety? What about the operators agree and written safety policy signed by the CEO himself to uphold and promote a safety first business? This is a sham and a national disgrace.

[Arnold E]

CASA......A wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas

[unseen]

Once again I ask the question - If Joyce decided on the morning of the grounding to take that course of action, this shows a knee jerk adhoc action that could not have been risk analysed prior to him acting upon that impulse.

No it does not.

There was obviously planning, risk assesments, discussions etc prior to the decision being made on the Saturday morning as per the risk assement submitted to FWA.

What he has said is that the decision itself on whether or not to proceed with those plans was not made until that day.

I bet there were (are) a number of other plans that as yet have not been pulled out of the drawer for implementation as there has been no decision to do so (yet).

[Slasher]

CASA......A wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas

All been done before - DOT as it was known then was once a
subsidiary of ATI and cigar smoke was permitted to permeate
its head office.