RACWA does it again...

[Pay The Award]

Is anyone else aware that in the past RACWA has not been paying their Senior Grade 3 instructor with more than 300 hrs the same as a Grade 2?

The award clearly states...

B.1.7 Salaries—flight instruction
The following additions to the minimum salary provided in clauses B.1.1 and B.1.2 for flight instruction.

(b) Despite CAO 40.1.7 subsection 4.2, an instructor who has not achieved their 50 hours flight time instruction in navigational sequences but who has logged 300 hours in total will be paid as a Grade II flight instructor.

[avcraft]

Ummm.... Kinda simple really. Don't take the job if you're not happy with the pay. If you do take the job knowing the conditions then don't whinge about it. When are people going to take responsibility for their own choices/future/destiny. You're a big boy (or girl) now, go talk to them and sort it out

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Not happy with the pay?.

Simple - walk. Take your skills elsewhere.

There are several other organisations @ JT that pay the correct money.

[LexAir]

So, on a literal reading of the stated clause and by implication, if you DO have 50 hours Nav time and 300 hours total instruction but have not done a Grade 2 upgrade the employer does NOT have to pay you as a Grade 2? What else does the award say about this matter?

[The Kelpie]

Here's how it goes during your interview:

"We pay the Award"

After a few weeks you realise that the company think they are paying the award but in fact are not. In fact I would go as far to say that employers either have not read or chose to ignore some of the provisions that collectively make up the award.

The award is no longer a deal between the AFAP and selected employers. Since 2010 it is the law and represents a safety net including the very minimum you are allowed to be paid. Although the transitional provisions complicate this a little they do not affect allowances which can if properly claimed add up to 10% or more to your income.

You have to put them right and if they don't make good any shortfall then report them to the Fairwork Ombudsman. The General Protections provisions of the FW act protects you from making an enquiry or claim relating to your employment and if you do get harrassed as a result the onus is on the employer to prove no wrong doing not the other way round.

Why should you have to give up a job just because your employer is breaking the law?

I know there is going to be more focus on the Pilots Award and the failure of GA to abide by its provisions in the coming months so employers watch out Fairwork may be calling on an office near you real soon!!

More to follow

The Kelpie


Ps Lexair - Are you serious??

[Horatio Leafblower]

You have to put them right and if they don't make good any shortfall then report them to the Fairwork Ombudsman.

Even if you are getting paid above the award, why not go to the union and see if they can get more money for you?

I know of at least one situation where the pilot was getting paid $13k over award and the union got more money out of his employer for him!

So - go right ahead, it can be done.

[Pay The Award]

It has nothing to do with taking a job it was more about the option to work there... Is it a throwback to the financial axe hanging above the club?

[The Kelpie]

That's one of the reasons why you pay your union fees, for them to represent you. So if you are a member make that call!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[LexAir]

Kelpie. Notwithstanding what we all know is the intent of the relevant clause, an unscrupulous employer could well use the interpretation of the clause I postulated in an attempt to avoid the obligation to pay a higher rate. I have not researched any cases on this. I raise it merely as a discussion point.

[The Kelpie]

Lexair

Fair enough!!

So lets get some of these so called ambiguities to Fairwork and get a binding judgement then there can be no argument from employers.

The trouble with not doing anything is that the problem does not get resolved and we continue to be abused!!

A few companies through the tribunal with significant wins will be enough to put the wind up a lot of other companies who may just then decide to stick to the rules that very often they chose at the outset.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[LexAir]

Kelpie, the clause is very poorly drafted and the AFAP should forthwith apply to Fair Work to have it amended to remove any doubt. In the interim, it is my view that an applicant in Fair Work, seeking redress for underpayments, could rely on common law interpretive principles and would be successful.

[The Kelpie]

Lexair

The problem with that approach is that interested parties are invited to comment on changes and it often becomes a pissing match just like the recent modern award review.

Much better for individuals to raise issues before Fairwork as only the parties involved participate for a judgement to be made.

More to Follow

The Kelpie