Qantas outsources ground handling, slams TWU proposal

[MelbourneFlyer]

Qantas has this morning notified around 2000 employees that it will move to outsource ground handling operations at 10 airports across Australia as it works to recover from the COVID crisis.
In August, the airline announced its reasons for needing to restructure its ground handling operations, which includes baggage handling and aircraft cleaning, and commenced a review of external bids from specialist ground handlers and in-house bids from employees and their representatives.


The Qantas media release claims the TWU bids were not up to snuff, despite the TWU being given several extensions, and also comes out swinging against a number of reported TWU claims.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/update-on-proposed-outsourcing-of-qantas-australian-airports-ground-handling-services/

[wheels_down]

Swissport?

Who picked up the Jetstar work? I see those guys have already gone.

[TimmyTee]

Shattered for those guys and girls. Light at the end of the covid tunnel...

[patty50]

They’re sharing the load around, have to keep the ground handlers on their toes. All of the major ground handlers getting at least a couple of ports.

This has been predicted since privatisation so to take this long is remarkable. What’s next...

[Qantas 787]

It sounds most of the impacted staff found out the decision through the media - which is never the way you want to hear your future

Good luck to all impacted- I hope you have a better future and get treated better wherever your future lies

[getaway]

hold on, qantas claiming it's saving $100,000,000.oo a year by getting rid of 2000 employees. If my maths is correct (had 1/2 dozen beers, so might be wrong), they are saving $50,000.oo per employee. How much were they paid ?

[getaway]

so after 7th beer, I figure they must have been on around $100,000.oo a year on average & contract guys will be earning $50,000.oo ?

Is this correct ?

[Paragraph377]

so after 7th beer, I figure they must have been on around $100,000.oo a year on average & contract guys will be earning $50,000.oo ?
Is this correct ?

For full time staff, you are fairly close. What will be fun to watch is Alan’s precious OTP. In the regional ports (out of sight/out of mind) it’s not unusual to have turnaround delays, baggage delivery delays and so on due to very very minimal contract staff due to the contracts being so financially lean. Let’s see how they go with the bigger jets in the mainline ports. And not to mention some of the ancient and crappy GSE operated by newbies and muppets that regularly damage aircraft during turnarounds. Let’s see how much that adds up to per annum, Alan.

[B772]

How much Fringe Benefit Tax does QF pay for staff travel per annum,

[patty50]

so after 7th beer, I figure they must have been on around $100,000.oo a year on average & contract guys will be earning $50,000.oo ?

Is this correct ?

It’s not (primarily) the wages, mostly the flexibility and productivity.

Menzies and dnata pay comparable or better wages. The bottom feeders pay less but not 50% less.

[Turnleft080]

I would like to congratulate Qantas on becoming our latest LCC. Your last 100 years have been magnificent as being Australia's legacy carrier.
Usually when you start up an LCC airline you outsource your baggage and cleaners obviously to keep those exorbitant extremely high costs down.
To the fantastic 2000 people your pain is AJs pay-packet gain.

[PoppaJo]

https://australianaviation.com.au/2020/08/unions-win-swissport-work-agreement-appeal/

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I can’t wait for the “amazing” turn around in the profit sometime next year. Amazing what a dominant, virtual monopoly market share and a pandemic can do to your bottom line.

[blubak]

I would like to congratulate Qantas on becoming our latest LCC. Your last 100 years have been magnificent as being Australia's legacy carrier.
Usually when you start up an LCC airline you outsource your baggage and cleaners obviously to keep those exorbitant extremely high costs down.
To the fantastic 2000 people your pain is AJs pay-packet gain.
They have no idea how much money will be saved,this is just another exercise in keeping the kpi's going for the right fighting execs that tell us they care about employees & their families.
The idea that no decision had been made & a bid by the in house team would be looked at is just another botched pr stunt.
I guess there may be positions for some of the affected guys with the successful bidders but theres a couple of those bidders who need to be avoided as far as employers go.
As another post has said,lets see how the OTP works now as these contracted ground handling outfits work out firstly how to get experienced employees & then try & pay them the lowest possible rate.
So many long serving decent people been thrown on the scrap heap by self serving corporate greed,disgusting behaviour.

[Tubman601]

Great, give more money to the Chinese owned ground service providers instead of our own families, way to go Australia.

[blubak]

The Qantas media release claims the TWU bids were not up to snuff, despite the TWU being given several extensions, and also comes out swinging against a number of reported TWU claims.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/update-on-proposed-outsourcing-of-qantas-australian-airports-ground-handling-services/
Standard response,written many months ago.

[machtuk]

Are we really all that surprised at the SkyGods little head grub? Remember his job is to get the best return for the share holders no matter what it takes, oh and stuff his pockets with as much cash as possible as the 'thing' still knows the general public think he's doing a wonderful job of Australia's Airline (term used loosely!)

Employes haven't got a chance in this weak nation of ours in any industry!

[blow.n.gasket]

Is it me or does the modus operandi of Alan’s management team appears to be “You stand up to us , we will cut you down !” ?
ALEA Engineers ,eviserated.
TWU , as good as excised .
Both Unions featuring prominently, slow baking Qantas during the EA negotiation period .
Who’s next ?
Pilots and AIPA , to a lesser extent AFAP , particularly JetStar and subsidiary constituents?
ASU and office staff ?
Who will remain ?
How much of Qantas can you subcontract out before it’s no longer culturally Qantas ?
Does the Qantas Sale Act play any part here ?
When is restructuring just an excuse to circumvent transmission of business ?

[Blitzkrieger]

Is it me or does the modus operandi of Alan’s management team appears to be “You stand up to us , we will cut you down !” ?
ALEA Engineers ,eviserated.
TWU , as good as excised .
Both Unions featuring prominently, slow baking Qantas during the EA negotiation period .
Who’s next ?
Pilots and AIPA , to a lesser extent AFAP , particularly JetStar and subsidiary constituents?
ASU and office staff ?
Who will remain ?
How much of Qantas can you subcontract out before it’s no longer culturally Qantas ?
Does the Qantas Sale Act play any part here ?
When is restructuring just an excuse to circumvent transmission of business ?

Cobham 717 made HUGE gains in their last EBA, purchased by QF and brought into the fold, no longer outsourced.

I do agree that QF are dedicated to the destruction of an organised work force though.

[George Glass]

Is it me or does the modus operandi of Alan’s management team appears to be “You stand up to us , we will cut you down !” ?
ALEA Engineers ,eviserated.
TWU , as good as excised .
Both Unions featuring prominently, slow baking Qantas during the EA negotiation period .
Who’s next ?
Pilots and AIPA , to a lesser extent AFAP , particularly JetStar and subsidiary constituents?
ASU and office staff ?
Who will remain ?
How much of Qantas can you subcontract out before it’s no longer culturally Qantas ?
Does the Qantas Sale Act play any part here ?
When is restructuring just an excuse to circumvent transmission of business ?

Correct.
This goes way back to the shutdown in 2011.
Forward bookings over Christmas that year crashed when the ALEA and TWU threatened to slow-bake the airline.
Hence the shutdown.
AJ has a long memory and has been nursing his wrath to keep it warm ever since.
Now is the perfect opportunity.
AIPA might be safe but thats about it.
Surprised it took him so long really.

[Paragraph377]

Joyce had plans to outsource ground handling back when he took over in 2008. In fact, he had discussions with Dixon back when Dixon was Chief Excrement Officiator at QF during AJ’s early Jetstar days. The idea was to have EGH or someone similar do the ground handling on both JQ and QF aircraft. Some of us who have ‘consulted’ with these airlines have seen many a publicly unseen paper/proposal that confirms this. But the timing wasn’t right as there was a lack of appetite for a war with the unions. However today is now the perfect environment for the little parasite to celebrate his 12th year as QF CEO (last weekend) and outsource the ground crew. Naturally, it all falls under the ‘COVID mantra’ and financial difficulties the airline faces due to these ‘unprecedented times’. The white shoe brigade like Joyce and Hrdlicka will always see to capitalise on a ****ty situation so as to benefit their personal pockets at the expense of other human beings. That is not a sticking point for a CEO, the hurt done to innocent parties/employees/third party providers because CEO’s are sociopaths and have no heart, just a big dark empty cavern.

And Joyce’s move will flow down to Qantas engineering who will have less GSE to service, and there will be no more aircraft Engineers walking the aircraft out during pushback anymore, it will be Swissport type third parties. More pain to come.

[CamelSquadron]

It was one of the stupidest industrial campaigns of modern times that has led to the loss of thousands of jobs.

Its very unfortunate for the many individuals who are losing their jobs.

[blubak]

It was one of the stupidest industrial campaigns of modern times that has led to the loss of thousands of jobs.

Its very unfortunate for the many individuals who are losing their jobs.
We will see what the customers think about luggage not turning up after paying a premium to fly on the spirit of australia.

[getaway]

It was one of the stupidest industrial campaigns of modern times that has led to the loss of thousands of jobs.

Its very unfortunate for the many individuals who are losing their jobs.
many will get jobs with contractors, but at much lower pay.

$100m saving a year is massive for 2,000 former employees. If same numbers that $50,000 saving per person, but suspect contractors will use less people to do same job.

[dr dre]

We will see what the customers think about luggage not turning up after paying a premium to fly on the spirit of australia.

We’ll see how brainwashed the Union is if they think Fair Work is going to allow that kind of industrial action at such a critical time in the current economic climate.

[Ken Borough]

A dedicated service provider such as Swissport can be more viable and flexible as it can obtain better utilisation and therefore productivity from its workforce. Their bag chuckers can go from one customer’s aircraft to another and then to another with little or no gaps. This is how costs are held down - you don’t requires as many people. On the other hand, if the same people worked for one carrier, they may well be idle for sometime between tasks, depending in that carrier's schedules.

The gravy train has stopped for the TWU. And not before time!

[Going Nowhere]

That’s exactly what Swissport do at many ports QLink service now.

same crew service several QF group aircraft and Alliance all at the same time at MKY.

QF was never going to beat that flexibility.

[blubak]

A dedicated service provider such as Swissport can be more viable and flexible as it can obtain better utilisation and therefore productivity from its workforce. Their bag chuckers can go from one customer’s aircraft to another and then to another with little or no gaps. This is how costs are held down - you don’t requires as many people. On the other hand, if the same people worked for one carrier, they may well be idle for sometime between tasks, depending in that carrier's schedules.

The gravy train has stopped for the TWU. And not before time!
Dedicated service provider! Are u serious??
They dont even have their own chocks so how dedicated is that.
Not long ago they were the company highlighted that had their employees working split shifts & sleeping in locker room aisle ways.
A casualised work force is just what the fed govt want,look at the security industry & how they find employees.
What about the casualised aged care sector,oh yeh thats right,lets forget about employees rights,you really need a reality check but im sure u are ok jack.

[blubak]

We’ll see how brainwashed the Union is if they think Fair Work is going to allow that kind of industrial action at such a critical time in the current economic climate.
Its not industrial action,nothing to do with it.
Its the contracted company now doing the job of long serving airline employees with a lot less staff employed at lower pay levels & not really caring whose bag gets on the right aircraft or not.
& why would they,casual wages,no guarantee of hours or wages each week.

[Ken Borough]

blublak,

If you have one, perhaps you should consult your dictionary for the meaning of 'dedicated'. :ugh::ugh:

[griffin one]

A dedicated service provider such as Swissport can be more viable and flexible as it can obtain better utilisation and therefore productivity from its workforce. Their bag chuckers can go from one customer’s aircraft to another and then to another with little or no gaps. This is how costs are held down - you don’t requires as many people. On the other hand, if the same people worked for one carrier, they may well be idle for sometime between tasks, depending in that carrier's schedules.

The gravy train has stopped for the TWU. And not before time!

what a narcissistic comment.
in the 80,S and 90,S Qantas handled just about every international operator through Sydney.they kept costs down by having multiple contracts.
Management decided to terminate contracts and this has the flow on effect of higher overheads.
I wish all staff effected by this decision the very best outcome.

[Ken Borough]

No, my comments aren't narcissistic.

Here a a couple of reasons why QF lost its ground handling contracts:
1. QF had outpriced the market as the third party providers were seriously competitive and able to offer lower rates because of their efficiency gains..
2. The TWU was always at war with QF, often on strike and also sought their brothers to support them. If they weren't on strike, they often applied bans of some kind. As a result, QF became an unreliable service provider.

The TWU is now enjoying its just desserts. While it's impossible to have sympathy for the union as a body corporate, the same doesn't generally apply to its rank and file who were, or are, led along by the nose.

[AEROMEDIC]

Well, the TWU won the case against Qantas. So what next? Will anything be changed?
Both parties have to sit down and discuss where to go from here, but I don’t think it will be a reversal of terminations, re-employment, compensation or any other reversionary action. So, it will be interesting as Qantas will be very angry that they have not shown that they were right to act the way they did.
Breaching the Fair Work Australia Act carries penalties.

[ebt]

Well, the TWU won the case against Qantas. So what next? Will anything be changed?
Both parties have to sit down and discuss where to go from here, but I don’t think it will be a reversal of terminations, re-employment, compensation or any other reversionary action. So, it will be interesting as Qantas will be very angry that they have not shown that they were right to act the way they did.
Breaching the Fair Work Australia Act carries penalties.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for negotiations to start. Qantas will appeal this one all the way up to the Full Bench of the High Court if they have to, as this is their one shot to get out of the groundhanding business altogether. This decision doesn't appear to be a full victory for the TWU, so it is likely that Qantas will grourp and mount some better arguments about how dire the industry is and why the airline can justify outsourcing it, or at least find a way to get around the technicalities raised in this judgement. They will argue that it has wider ramifications on how a business can respond during an unprecedented crisis. Given the lockdowns continue to throw schedules and ops into a state of flux, it is helping to make the case for why it is better to pay a contractor than it is having lots of employees hanging around.

[AEROMEDIC]

The decision was that Qantas breached the Fair Work Australia Act. I’m of the opinion that further arguments in a higher court does not change that. Why they did might be the argument, but you’d think that would have been put forward and justification with it, but after the decision was made, the weight of the argument seems lost.

[blubak]

The decision was that Qantas breached the Fair Work Australia Act. I’m of the opinion that further arguments in a higher court does not change that. Why they did might be the argument, but you’d think that would have been put forward and justification with it, but after the decision was made, the weight of the argument seems lost.
They are 'right fighters' & always have been,keep spending money on high flying legal eagles just to prove its their way or no way.
The umpire is their friend when the decision suits them but when it doesnt of course everyone is wrong except them,doesnt matter whether its employees,customers,government or in fact anyone who dares to challenge them.

[CamelSquadron]

Pointless outcome.

Workers have been laid off, redundancy payments have been made, redundancy tax concessions claimed and everyone has moved on in their lives except for those few involved in the case. Qantas will appeal and keep this in the courts for even longer and the only real winners are the lawyers getting paid the big bucks to fight this.

[MelbourneFlyer]

Qantas has already said that IF it loses its appeal and IF those workers get their jobs back, they will of course have to pay back their redundancy payouts. Very clever for QF to put this on the table because I reckon every former baggage handler and rampie has spent their redundancy payout on something like giving the money to the kids to help them with housing, paying off the remains of their own mortgage, maybe buying a holiday home or something else. None of them will be in a position to pay back their redundancy or even be willing to pay it back if they can somehow land their hands on the capital. Qantas will win this one way or another.

[No Idea Either]

But if they were illegally terminated, then shouldn’t they be back paid……..the equivalent of the redundancy, probably more by now so perhaps QF actually owes money………..

[Wingspar]

If they were found to have breached the FWA then a penalty will apply and that will go to the individual.
I don’t know what the amount is nowadays but it’s nothing to sneeze at.

[ScepticalOptomist]

But if they were illegally terminated, then shouldn’t they be back paid……..the equivalent of the redundancy, probably more by now so perhaps QF actually owes money………..

Yep, they will be owed money - the notion of paying back a redundancy is farcical.

[blubak]

Yep, they will be owed money - the notion of paying back a redundancy is farcical.
Well as long as they get whatever is owed to them,thats the main thing.
Maybe the high flying legal eagles who provided the advice that the action the company was taking was legal(but have now been proven wrong) need to sit down with the right fighters they represent & negotiate a refund of the fees paid to them,isnt that what qf would do if the decision had gone the other way.

[cattletruck]

Have QF appealed? They have 21 days.

https://www.fwc.gov.au/general-protections-benchbook/appeals

If I understood the above link correctly, an appeal can be lodged and heard by the Fair Work Full Bench or similar, if still no joy then the aggrieved is then free to take it to a Federal court. Sounds like at best it will be at least another year or two before the last available option is fully exercised.

[MickG0105]

Have QF appealed? They have 21 days.

https://www.fwc.gov.au/general-protections-benchbook/appeals

If I understood the above link correctly, an appeal can be lodged and heard by the Fair Work Full Bench or similar, if still no joy then the aggrieved is then free to take it to a Federal court. Sounds like at best it will be at least another year or two before the last available option is fully exercised.
Wrong court. This wasn't a decision made by the Fair Work Commission, it was made by the Federal Court.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/appeals/from-courts/appellate-jurisdiction

So, 28 days to appeal but given that the court is set to reconvene on Monday to rule on declaratory relief Qantas will likely have served a notice of appeal before then requesting that that be delayed until such time as the appeal is heard. Qantas will almost certainly seek an expedited hearing of their appeal.

[Arthur D]

Judgement makes for interesting reading……. The use of the word obdurate perhaps best sums its up.

[CamelSquadron]

Big headache for individuals. Not sure they fully understand the mess they are getting themselves into.

If the ruling is confirmed, then it is no longer a bona fide redundancy and the ATO will be chasing the individuals with a very significant tax bill. That will be a personal exposure of every individual who has accepted a redundancy payment. Its just the tax rules.

If I was a TWU member who was retired or had happily moved on to another job then I would not be very happy about having to pay the ATO.

[ScepticalOptomist]

Big headache for individuals. Not sure they fully understand the mess they are getting themselves into.

If the ruling is confirmed, then it is no longer a bona fide redundancy and the ATO will be chasing the individuals with a very significant tax bill. That will be a personal exposure of every individual who has accepted a redundancy payment. Its just the tax rules.

If I was a TWU member who was retired or had happily moved on to another job then I would not be very happy about having to pay the ATO.

Not how the law works - AT THE TIME it was a bona fide redundancy. Individuals would be fine. Can’t be made to pay back any payments made to them. At least that’s the opinion of the tax law individual I spoke with.

[blubak]

Big headache for individuals. Not sure they fully understand the mess they are getting themselves into.

If the ruling is confirmed, then it is no longer a bona fide redundancy and the ATO will be chasing the individuals with a very significant tax bill. That will be a personal exposure of every individual who has accepted a redundancy payment. Its just the tax rules.

If I was a TWU member who was retired or had happily moved on to another job then I would not be very happy about having to pay the ATO.
It is not the individuals who havent complied with the law here,the court have found the company contravened the fair work act so if there is action to be taken im sure the way forward will be clearly laid down by the court.
The company did & got what it wanted,the employees were terminated & they had no choice.
As far as the company is concerned,it is their mess & up to them to sort it out,i would be guessing they wont forget this 1 very quickly if the appeal is not successful.

[AerialPerspective]

Its not industrial action,nothing to do with it.
Its the contracted company now doing the job of long serving airline employees with a lot less staff employed at lower pay levels & not really caring whose bag gets on the right aircraft or not.
& why would they,casual wages,no guarantee of hours or wages each week.

Oh, come off it, seriously. The entire industry, despite there being some good people, has watched for decades as these people played cards in the lunch room between flights, sometimes for hours on end, slept on the job, milked the rosters for every ounce of 50% penalties and overtime, featherbedded every job to the point where they had more people doing the same work than the providers that are now taking over.

Qantas has used 'contractors' at every port outside Australia for decades. The Ramp and Baggage are going because, just like overseas, in places like San Francisco where Qantas used to have its own staff, it became economically insane to employ people full time to do a job that you could pay a marginal rate for to be done by a service provider who utilised those staff outside the Qantas operation.

Once upon a time when there were no independent ground handlers in Australia and airlines provided the ground handling, with even TAA and Ansett doing international handling, it made sense. Ever since independent handlers were brought in and were able to cross-utilise resources over a number of client airlines, the 'airline' based handling operations became unsustainable. This has been coming for decades, it's amazing it's taken this long. Anybody who denies that this lot have been milking the cow for decades is either too close to the group themselves or walking around blind.

Everybody knows from decades of experience how this particular group and their union has at times gone to bat for people who stole, fought and lazed their way to a wage. There have been some great people work in those areas but unfortunately they have had to wear the reputation of the worst elements and it appears as though the union was never interested in the employees but political power, dragging them out onto the grass over the most trivial matters.

Some of us are old enough to remember, to give one example, the Rower's Club near SIT being colloquially referred to as the "TWU Lunchroom" and other such epithets. None of those type of things were ever levelled or justified against the upstairs/customer service operation, they were nowhere near as militant or manipulative.

Well, eventually the gravy train stops and the consumers of the gravy get offloaded. Like others have said, this is no surprise, the only surprise is it's taken this long.

[AerialPerspective]

what a narcissistic comment.
in the 80,S and 90,S Qantas handled just about every international operator through Sydney.they kept costs down by having multiple contracts.
Management decided to terminate contracts and this has the flow on effect of higher overheads.
I wish all staff effected by this decision the very best outcome.

Firstly, it's 'affected' not 'effected' and secondly, that monopoly that Qantas had (well, not really, you have chosen not to mention Ansett and TAA/Australian who also had handling operations so Qantas didn't handle every carrier) was broken when independent ground handlers were allowed to start operating at major airports (like every other airport overseas for decades). The marginal cost that Qantas was able to charge, in exchange for a quid-pro-quo at the handled airlines' main base overseas ceased to exist. From that point, the writing was on the wall and below the wing airline ground handling was doomed.

It is simply, today, when there are multiple independent handlers, economically unviable for a company like Qantas to pay for full time employees, pay super and provide staff travel, pay payroll tax and work cover premiums, etc. for a smaller and smaller group of people when they can pay a set rate for a turnaround service that is amortised across many clients.

Qantas has been handled by contractors overseas for decades, either subsidiaries of airline businesses such as was the case in London for a time (BACH) or more frequently, by independent ground handling companies. There was no appreciable increase in mishandled baggage and the like, the load controllers were all certified by Qantas and trained by Qantas, why do you think that is, that it's able to work overseas but not here?? Do American baggage handlers and European baggage handlers have more arms and legs or extra dexterity that enables them to deliver a sometimes better service than in house staff in Australia or is it just that this 'in house' argument has been used for decades while the union has screwed the company WAY beyond what is reasonable. For goodness sake, I've heard from people still there that the union was so exploitative it'd have people paid for taking a crap at the end of their shift if they could get away with it (yes, this was actually raised at one point).

Some of these ground handlers have won awards from the likes of Singapore Airlines, et al for their level of service. The statistics that are usually quoted show less aircraft damage by ground handlers than by in house staff and certainly FAR less featherbedding and milking of penalties and bloated resource requirements.

[AerialPerspective]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for negotiations to start. Qantas will appeal this one all the way up to the Full Bench of the High Court if they have to, as this is their one shot to get out of the groundhanding business altogether. This decision doesn't appear to be a full victory for the TWU, so it is likely that Qantas will grourp and mount some better arguments about how dire the industry is and why the airline can justify outsourcing it, or at least find a way to get around the technicalities raised in this judgement. They will argue that it has wider ramifications on how a business can respond during an unprecedented crisis. Given the lockdowns continue to throw schedules and ops into a state of flux, it is helping to make the case for why it is better to pay a contractor than it is having lots of employees hanging around.

Yes, I wouldn't be crowing about this 'victory' if I were the TWU. Any judge in any court on the same day could have seen it differently. That's why there is an appeal process and as you say, it will enable Qantas to refine their argument and I don't expect this to go beyond the first appeal, I reckon it will be overturned on appeal.

Lots of people on here expressing their opinion and I'm sure they believe they're right but when they can't even get the name of the Act of Parliament right, it's the "Fair Work Act", the body that administers it is "Fair Work Australia", via the "Fair Work Commission" and this decision was made in Federal Circuit Court, not before the Fair Work Commission.

[MickG0105]

Yes, I wouldn't be crowing about this 'victory' if I were the TWU. Any judge in any court on the same day could have seen it differently. That's why there is an appeal process and as you say, it will enable Qantas to refine their argument and I don't expect this to go beyond the first appeal, I reckon it will be overturned on appeal.

Yes, there's certainly reasonable grounds for an appeal.

The appeal will likely turn on the Court's interpretation of the phrase 'substantial and operative factor/reason' as in did the fact that the ground handling function heavily unionised form a substantial and operative part of Qantas's reasoning in determining to outsource it? There's some case law around the phrase and its application but there's a fairly rudimentary test for determining if something is 'substantial and operative'; if that element was not present (that is, if ground handling wasn't heavily unionised) and all other factors remained the same (the commercial/financial factors) would the same decision be reached? Form your own view on that.

[StudentInDebt]

Yes, there's certainly reasonable grounds for an appeal.

The appeal will likely turn on the Court's interpretation of the phrase 'substantial and operative factor/reason' as in did the fact that the ground handling function heavily unionised form a substantial and operative part of Qantas's reasoning in determining to outsource it? There's some case law around the phrase and its application but there's a fairly rudimentary test for determining if something is 'substantial and operative'; if that element was not present (that is, if ground handling wasn't heavily unionised) and all other factors remained the same (the commercial/financial factors) would the same decision be reached? Form your own view on that.Not questioning your explanation, but it seems a bit of a paradox. If it wasn’t unionised the commercial/economic factors to outsource it would probably not have been present as, without unionisation, the staff would more than likely be on lower T&Cs. Makes Back to the Future look like elementary meta-physics!

[MickG0105]

Not questioning your explanation, but it seems a bit of a paradox. If it wasn’t unionised the commercial/economic factors to outsource it would probably not have been present as, without unionisation, the staff would more than likely be on lower T&Cs. Makes Back to the Future look like elementary meta-physics!
Generally you take the facts as they are, not as they might have been but doubtless the Unions might look to advance that argument.

[AerialPerspective]

Not questioning your explanation, but it seems a bit of a paradox. If it wasn’t unionised the commercial/economic factors to outsource it would probably not have been present as, without unionisation, the staff would more than likely be on lower T&Cs. Makes Back to the Future look like elementary meta-physics!

No appeal can ignore the capital cost of the equipment. A ground handler (I know some of them use older equipment but not all) can purchase the capital equipment (that equipment is not required in passenger handling, which is why it's not a target for outsourcing which is what I thought was one of the principal reasons for offloading the work) and amortize its cost across many clients/airlines, Qantas cannot. It's like a small garage that services cars, it can't afford sophisticated emissions testing equipment, for example or it would take 100 years to pay it off based on throughput of business/income, so it contracts that component out to someone who specializes in that and can afford the equipment because it is amortized over hundreds of clients.

Because of the introduction of independent ground handlers, who eventually became much cheaper than Qantas once they garnered large numbers of clients, the critical mass that once existed is now no longer present. It's a no brainer really. I know there's a lot of emotion around the decision and I understand having been in a position made redundant several times, but that is emotion, not fact and the fact is it's not sustainable.

[MelbourneFlyer]

AerialPerspective, thanks for bringing some real-world insight and undeniable fact, rather than hyperbole and emotion, into this.

[MickG0105]

No appeal can ignore the capital cost of the equipment. ...
For better or for worse, the respective cost bases - capital and operating - won't get much of a look in. The Court is not concerned with the commercial bona fides of the outsourcing rather it will limit itself to determining whether the fact that the ground handling function was heavily unionised formed a substantial and operative part of Qantas's reasoning in determining to outsource it.

[AerialPerspective]

For better or for worse, the respective cost bases - capital and operating - won't get much of a look in. The Court is not concerned with the commercial bona fides of the outsourcing rather it will limit itself to determining whether the fact that the ground handling function was heavily unionised formed a substantial and operative part of Qantas's reasoning in determining to outsource it.

You're probably right, but on the surface at least, Qantas provided the opportunity for the group affected to submit a proposal which was competitive to the contracted alternatives, they couldn't. They cited the cost of the equipment, it is unsustainable. I see nothing overt in Qantas' decision to contract out the work that suggests it was because it was highly unionised. I'm not saying that's not how the court will see it, just that if it comes down to that, then I think Qantas would have a reasonable grounds to be very angry about that sort of result. There are literally thousands of businesses in this country that have contracted out parts of their workforce, including ones that are highly unionised.

I'm all for protection of workers rights and decent wages, etc. and in many cases, a number of unions have made a hash of their role in the system and union membership has dropped off as a result, I don't think that's a good thing, but do we really want to have a system where a company goes broke in preference to contracting out part of its workforce, where there is a clear economic benefit to do so and facts that support it??

Not that I think Qantas is going to go broke but translate this scenario to a smaller company such as VA, where the equivalent workforce in this area may represent a much higher proportion of overall in-house resource costs and where it might very well be the difference between stopping short of the cliff edge and going over it.

I would consider that a regrettable precedent. I understand the merits of the case have turned on that particular aspect (the unionised workforce element) but if this were replicated elsewhere, the result could be disastrous.

[MickG0105]

You're probably right, but on the surface at least, Qantas provided the opportunity for the group affected to submit a proposal which was competitive to the contracted alternatives, they couldn't. They cited the cost of the equipment, it is unsustainable. I see nothing overt in Qantas' decision to contract out the work that suggests it was because it was highly unionised. I'm not saying that's not how the court will see it, just that if it comes down to that, then I think Qantas would have a reasonable grounds to be very angry about that sort of result. There are literally thousands of businesses in this country that have contracted out parts of their workforce, including ones that are highly unionised.

I'm all for protection of workers rights and decent wages, etc. and in many cases, a number of unions have made a hash of their role in the system and union membership has dropped off as a result, I don't think that's a good thing, but do we really want to have a system where a company goes broke in preference to contracting out part of its workforce, where there is a clear economic benefit to do so and facts that support it??

Not that I think Qantas is going to go broke but translate this scenario to a smaller company such as VA, where the equivalent workforce in this area may represent a much higher proportion of overall in-house resource costs and where it might very well be the difference between stopping short of the cliff edge and going over it.

I would consider that a regrettable precedent. I understand the merits of the case have turned on that particular aspect (the unionised workforce element) but if this were replicated elsewhere, the result could be disastrous.
Yes, whether the Court likes it or not, they are essentially ruling on whether a company can outsource any element their business that has high levels of union membership regardless of whether there would have been a valid commercial reason for doing so.

[JBE]

Yes, whether the Court likes it or not, they are essentially ruling on whether a company can outsource any element their business that has high levels of union membership regardless of whether there would have been a valid commercial reason for doing so.

What a load of ignorant junk. You clearly have zero understanding of the law or just waste your free time manipulating others that have little understanding of the law.

The Justice ruled based on law as its written and was intended. The fact that it doesn’t suit the company narrative or the commercial reasons for the decision are irrelevant.

Australian companies can outsource elements of their business as long as they follow the law and don’t attempt to manipulate and mislead the court. Judges do not like that

[blubak]

What a load of ignorant junk. You clearly have zero understanding of the law or just waste your free time manipulating others that have little understanding of the law.

The Justice ruled based on law as its written and was intended. The fact that it doesn’t suit the company narrative or the commercial reasons for the decision are irrelevant.

Australian companies can outsource elements of their business as long as they follow the law and don’t attempt to manipulate and mislead the court. Judges do not like that
Correct,the law is there to be followed as written & intended,it is not a piece of legislation to be torn apart & then use the bits you like.
If the company have been found to manipulate the law or mislead the court as it seems they have it looks like they have a problem on their hands & if the decision had gone with them they would not have been shy at promoting how right they were.
Pretty sure theres a saying along the lines of 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

[MickG0105]

What a load of ignorant junk. You clearly have zero understanding of the law or just waste your free time manipulating others that have little understanding of the law.

The Justice ruled based on law as its written and was intended. The fact that it doesn’t suit the company narrative or the commercial reasons for the decision are irrelevant.

Australian companies can outsource elements of their business as long as they follow the law and don’t attempt to manipulate and mislead the court. Judges do not like that
Well, as the Zen Master was fond of saying, "We'll see."

[KRviator]

So Qantas appealed and lost the appeal, according to the ABC this morning (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-04/qantas-loses-appeal-outsourcing-case-with-compensation-penalties/101036724). EAD AJ - even the legal fraternity, with their overly complex weasel words - saw straight through what you did. Here's hoping each and every employee gets a significant payout...

Qantas has lost its appeal against a Federal Court decision that found the outsourcing of about 2,000 ground crew workers was illegal.

Last year, in one of the largest reinstatement cases ever heard, the Federal Court found in favour of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) against Qantas (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-30/qantas-twu-ground-staff-federal-court-judgment/100336418) in challenging the outsourcing of about 2,000 jobs by the airline. It found Qantas' decision to outsource the baggage-handling and cleaning jobs was in breach of the Fair Work Act. Qantas appealed that decision, but the Full Federal Court on Wednesday dismissed the airline's attempt to overturn a ruling that it sacked workers illegally.

Further remedy hearings will now take place to determine the compensation Qantas should pay to workers, as well as the penalties for the illegal sackings. In December, the Federal Court rejected TWU's application for reinstatement of workers' jobs (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-17/qantas-twu-ground-crew-outsourcing-legal-federal-court-decision/100709612). The TWU is now calling for a substantial compensation package for workers.

It also has called on the Qantas board to sack its chief executive, Alan Joyce, and the key decision-maker in the outsourcing case, domestic and international chief executive Andrew David. "Through unity, resilience and determination, Qantas workers have achieved a huge victory," TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said. After a horror 18-months having lifelong careers savagely and illegally ripped away from them, workers stood tall and took on one of the harshest and most powerful companies in the country. "Today those workers have been heard, vindicated, and celebrated for their courage.

"Qantas executives deliberately targeted and attacked workers and broke the law in sacking them to prevent them exercising their rights."

More to come.

[Angle of Attack]

Surprise Surprise, we all knew it was wrong and now the outsourcing has been deemed illegal.
with the current ground handling disaster show and the Compensation and Fines that saving of several million
dollars Qantas was crapping on about during the event now looks like chicken feed, Heads need to roll and lots of them,
they don’t even have decent legal advice as it was wrong.

[Icarus2001]

Qantas lost but still got their way, at a cost to be determined, sounds like they won.

[blubak]

Surprise Surprise, we all knew it was wrong and now the outsourcing has been deemed illegal.
with the current ground handling disaster show and the Compensation and Fines that saving of several million
dollars Qantas was crapping on about during the event now looks like chicken feed, Heads need to roll and lots of them,
they don’t even have decent legal advice as it was wrong.
1 perfect reason never to invest a $ in this company,it is run by people who care for nobody except themselves.
They need to be hung out to dry over this litany of lies & the money they have wasted should be repaid out of their personal bank accounts.
They were on a union busting mission,nothing to do with saving money or any of the other excuses they could think up.

[Uplinker]

A dedicated service provider such as Swissport can be more viable and flexible as it can obtain better utilisation and therefore productivity from its workforce. Their bag chuckers can go from one customer’s aircraft to another and then to another with little or no gaps. This is how costs are held down - you don’t requires as many people. On the other hand, if the same people worked for one carrier, they may well be idle for sometime between tasks, depending in that carrier's schedules.............!

It doesn't work; been there, seen that many times, (UK large and medium airports).

Outsourced handling companies give their staff very poor terms and conditions. Many are on zero hours contracts - they are only paid if they turn up to work. During busy times, after taxiing in, you sometimes have to wait ages even for steps, let alone getting your passenger's luggage unloaded. And if you need a wheelchair for one of your passengers, you will typically wait 40+ minutes. Been there, suffered that (too) many times.

Sometimes, there is nobody to even turn on the stand guidance, so you can't even turn onto your stand. At weekends, or when there is a significant sporting event on the telly, there is a mysteriously high sickness rate amongst the handling staff.

It's a crock of ****. You cannot reliably run an airline if you outsource your ground handling, because you lose control over your ground handling. Ditto engineering.


PS, the bosses who caused all this do not care a damn. They will make another million or so each and then move on to the next company.

[blubak]

It doesn't work; been there, seen that many times, (UK large and medium airports).

Outsourced handling companies give their staff very poor terms and conditions. Many are on zero hours contracts - they are only paid if they turn up to work. During busy times, you sometimes have to wait ages even for steps, let alone getting your passenger's luggage unloaded. And if you need a wheelchair for one of your passengers, you will typically wait 40+ minutes. Been there, seen that (too) many times.

Sometimes, there is nobody to even turn on the stand guidance, so you can't even turn onto your stand. At weekends, or when there is a significant sporting event on the telly, there is a mysteriously high sickness rate amongst the handling staff.

It's a crock of ****. You cannot reliably run an airline if you outsource your ground handling, because you lose control over your ground handling. Ditto engineering.
Swissport cant get people to work for them,they pay peanuts & as you say a significant sporting event or a sunny day will send the sickie rate sky high.
Of course,the morons at the top who dont give 2 fu..s about anyone except themselves will continue to dream up excuses to make themselves look good.

[AerialPerspective]

Surprise Surprise, we all knew it was wrong and now the outsourcing has been deemed illegal.
with the current ground handling disaster show and the Compensation and Fines that saving of several million
dollars Qantas was crapping on about during the event now looks like chicken feed, Heads need to roll and lots of them,
they don’t even have decent legal advice as it was wrong.

And yet, last time I looked, one of the three branches of government in the Commonwealth of Australia is the Judiciary, at the pinnacle of which resides the High Court (being the 'Federal Supreme Court' as it is described in the Constitution).

Qantas will appeal this to the High Court. This is not over yet, by a long shot.

The High Court will take the entire Constitutional aspect of this into consideration, in terms of commerce and trade and other commercial factors. I would be surprised if they don't overturn the lower courts but stand to be surprised if they don't - at stake here is a principle that a business should have the right to determine how work is performed and by whom.

The TWU weren't so concerned about the workers and the propriety of how things were being conducted when every opportunity to screw the company was taken advantage of for decades. No thought was given to the fact that one day, this might just become a bit too expensive to continue.

I don't buy the nonsense about contractors being universally incapable of the same level of service as in-house, Qantas has employed contractors everywhere outside Australia for it's entire international presence - over decades - and many places in Australia too. This notion that all contractors are incapable belies companies like SkyStar (now owned by Menzies) who were higher quality than most in house operations or HallMark in the USA which is partly owned by Qantas in fact and is the ground hander of choice, certainly at LAX and SFO and a number of other airports on the West Coast.

I don't see shareholders doing a runner from QAN, they seem to be pretty happy with the way the company is being run and the rise in the price of their shares. I'm guessing they're happier than the former VAH shareholders who walked away with nothing.

[Australopithecus]

Handling agents aren’t universally incapable of anything. But they certainly are incapable here because of their poor wages/split shifts/shallow pool of willing serfs.

Those of us who have to operate in the current system are all too aware that customers are being treated poorly. More importantly, the customers know too, and they have choices.