Jetstar on the wrong side of the law... Again

[Ollie Onion]

Decision posted today:

Court rejects Jetstar's meal break claim | Business | 3 News (http://www.3news.co.nz/business/court-rejects-jetstars-meal-break-claim-2015091117#axzz3lWP43FBM)

Wonder what the penalty will be?

[Twiglet1]

A cheese sandwich tea with one sugar

[Soab]

Interesting an Australian airline should employ and base its pilot staff in NZ to circumvent Australian pilot award rates, yet then think they can operate under Australian Regs if they think they can save money by doing so.

Says it all really.


Kudos to the pilot for pointing out the errors of their way.


Now they just need to back pay 50 minutes overtime to each pilot for each shift worked for the last few years. :)

[Stanwell]

No, they can't do that - because it would have an effect on the airline's financial position, don't you understand?
Not to mention the bonuses for the bean-counters et al. :*

[KRUSTY 34]

I reckon you nailed it Stanwell.

It's not the first time an airline has argued that to comply with industrial law would impose a financial impost on the business. Or more to the point, the bonuses paid to the mongrels who's job it is to profit from cutting or ignoring the rights of employees.

And don't get me started about the risk of fatigue, which is what the provisions of breaks should be all about.

These people are nothing more than criminals.

[waren9]

p1ss poor attempt at being a borderless entity

well done rich g.

onya bloke. :ok:

[CurtainTwitcher]

Warren,for a moment there I thought you said a lawless entity. That is precisely the game plan. Regulatory arbitrage, cherry-pick the most favourable jurisdiction for labour, operations & finance. It will be based in a different place for the purpose of each set of laws & regulations.

They aim to be simultaneously based everywhere & nowhere. Lets just call it "Schrödinger quantum regulation", where it is simultaneously regulated and unregulated. They want completely unfettered control, to do whatever the hell they want, everyone else be damned.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

If something like a rudimentary human right, that is sustenance, represents such an impost to your bottom line that you are willing to employ legal buffoonery and slight of hand, then you are in the wrong business (that's assuming you should be in business at all).

[waren9]

that too twitcher

exactly right

[Keg]

Is it just me or am I alone with the background thought of 'careful what you wish for'.

1. If you can't get a meal or snack in for both crew on a sector of about 60-70 minutes then you're doing it wrong- particularly if you fly the route regularly. Occasionally turbulence or weather may preclude that.... delay the next service if it's an issue.
2. If J* have to start scheduling things like this in it absolutely will increase costs. Maybe they'll wear those costs given they're not massive, maybe it will affect the business case for particular routes to the detriment of the pilot group in terms of potential expansion.

I'm not condoning J* breaking the law. They should know absolutely know better. The meal/ tea/ coffee break law as it exists in the NZ workplace regime just strikes me as a level of interference in the workplace that's not warranted- particularly given the ability to mitigate it effectively.

[Ollie Onion]

I think you will find Keg that the NZ law allows for 'self breaking' if some sort of compensatory measure is negotiated with the employees, as far as I know NZALPA offered to take an extra 7 days leave per year in lieu of the required breaks during the shift. The theory being that it should be 'rest for rest' instead of a financial settlement. Jetstar in all their wisdom just shrugged this off and took the line that NZ employment law didn't apply to its NZ pilots despite having NZ contracts. This was chosen as a 'line in the sand' type scenario to show that if you are going to try and employ in local territories to exploit local laws to you advantage you have to take the local regime in its entirety, not cherry pick. The problem Jetstar have now is that instead of giving a few days extra leave per year they have a legal bill of a few hundred thousand dollars and now have to compensate ALL pilots and cabin crew for missed breaks over the past 6 years. A problem of their own making me thinks.

[waren9]

keg, as you're well aware nz is much smaller than aus and the weather is more often ****e. a 60 min sector in nz is luxury. in aus its a short one. along with the 25 min turns. rush rush.

having had some previous knowledge of what they used to roster, some days you hardly had time for a piss. let alone a feed.

and anyway, its the law. not sure what makes jetstar think they dont need to comply or negotiate other suitable arrangements for crew well being

[Keg]

Fair enough Ollie. That sounds like a decent compromise. That sort of background helps me understand it a bit more.

Thanks waren. I wasn't sure of the sector length.

[Icarus2001]

a 60 min sector in nz is luxury. in aus its a short one. along with the 25 min turns. rush rush.

What about the flights to Australia and Fiji mentioned in the article? What are the short sectors an A320 does in NZ?

[c100driver]

CHC to WLG 30 min block to block on the A320 is the shortest. Often less with a southerly.

[Daylight Robbery]

50 mins actually, block to block.

Still, 4 sectors in winter or spring will have you feeling like you've been in a washing machine for 6 hours

[waren9]

50? you're doing it wrong

[empacher48]

50?? I can do 50 easily in the ATR!!