Qantas Court Loss

[ampclamp]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-04/qantas-loses-appeal-outsourcing-case-with-compensation-penalties/101036724

This could cost them a few bucks.

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 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.

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.

[Jet Jockey]

Great news hopefully they be reinstated and we can all get our bags within 10mins of landing not like the 30 plus minutes now if at all.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

QF are taking it to the high court, apparently the federal court judges weren’t sympathetic enough to the cause.

[Icarus2001]

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.

They will put it down to the cost of "reform". Pay the fines, pay some compensation then carry on with a lower cost base which will recover the cost of the fines in five years.

[neville_nobody]

Are the High Court Judges in the Chairman's Lounge? If so then that is a serious issue.

[tossbag]

hopefully they be reinstated

The courts found against re-instatement, best they can hope for is a significant payout amount.

[Bootstrap1]

So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots

[neville_nobody]

So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots

It's ideological not rational.

Not to mention that there is probably some psychology at play. Alan likes to throw his weight around the big end of town show them all who is boss.

[blubak]

So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots
They never admit to being wrong,they only like decisions which favour them & people who agree with them.
Maybe his initials should be changed to JC because thats what he thinks he is & his little puppy dog ass licking ex kiwi farmer is no better.
Idiots is a very generous term for them,they are an insult to the airline that was once looked upon as an icon & the only spirit left is the 'mean' spirit they both excel at.

[Peter Fanelli]

So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots

Seriously?

accepting not excepting, their meanings are completely opposite.

[Paragraph377]

They will put it down to the cost of "reform". Pay the fines, pay some compensation then carry on with a lower cost base which will recover the cost of the fines in five years.
Bingo! You got it in one. The leprechaun is thinking ahead, beyond today. Shaft the rampies and use COVID as the cover for it. Then get fined in court and pay compensation. Nothing will change as those rampies won’t be returning. Use cheap outsourced ground handlers who will be cheaper in the long turn.

[thunderbird five]

Hello, Qantas? I'd like a ticket to Sydney, but I want my bags sent to Darwin.
"Sorry - we can't do that sir!
Well, you managed to do it last time.

[StudentInDebt]

Bingo! You got it in one. The leprechaun is thinking ahead, beyond today. Shaft the rampies and use COVID as the cover for it. Then get fined in court and pay compensation. Nothing will change as those rampies won’t be returning. Use cheap outsourced ground handlers who will be cheaper in the long turn.Perhaps an appropriate penalty would be to pay the salaries of the sacked rampies including annual leave and other benefits until their nominal retirement date adjusted for inflation. Ought to stop them doing it again. Or they could get a slap on the wrist.

[Icarus2001]

https://www.fwc.gov.au/unfair-dismissal

I am not sure that this is what will apply but as a guide in the case of unfair dismissal the MAXIMUM compensation is SIX months wages to a maximum of $79,250.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Perhaps an appropriate penalty would be to pay the salaries of the sacked rampies including annual leave and other benefits until their nominal retirement date adjusted for inflation. Ought to stop them doing it again. Or they could get a slap on the wrist.

I’ve always said the penalty should be 10 times the benefit where a deliberate act has been proven.

[KRviator]

Begs the question of (Assuming QF lose the High Court appeal too) whether the ramp rats will have a civil claim against Qantas in addition to any legal penalty. I dunno what the TWU has put forward in their statement of claim nor do I know what the average salary would've been but if you're (for example) 30, on a good roster, have good performance reports and pretty good salary, there's no reason to assume you'd leave the job so that's 35 years ahead of you that you've lost that pay & conditions.

[Icarus2001]

but if you're (for example) 30, on a good roster, have good performance reports and pretty good salary, there's no reason to assume you'd leave the job so that's 35 years ahead of you that you've lost that pay & conditions.

How many 64 year old ramp staff have you seen lately?

How many ramp staff over fifty do you see?

[plainmaker]

https://www.fwc.gov.au/unfair-dismissal

I am not sure that this is what will apply but as a guide in the case of unfair dismissal the MAXIMUM compensation is SIX months wages to a maximum of $79,250.


While that may be the precedent for the amount payable to each displaced worker, the Court can award punitive damages for each and every infraction and - at the Court's discretion (and who would begrudge the Court for hammering them in their attempt(s) to overturn the verdict) that could be substantial.

Assuming of course that there are not some hurried Chairman's Lounge renewals hurried through. No, never.

[RampDog]

How many 64 year old ramp staff have you seen lately?

At SYD SIT (T1) there were plenty, prior to QF deciding that the business was in such bad shape that they needed to punt the lot!!

How many ramp staff over fifty do you see?

We don't need to look to hard to see that on both sides of SYD, i.e. DOM & INTL precincts, there are plenty of over fifties working for all ground handlers.
Please do not assume that SYD Ground Service Providers (GSPs as they are described in 2022) have been over-run with fresh young staff during the COVID-19, there were lots of "old" desperates also wanting a start.
None of them happy about the diminished pay rates, but there are lots of shifts to fill and some reasonable money on doing big hours. Oh, they get to sniff JET A1 and hang around aeroplanes.
Anyone working anywhere in this industry knows that it's a race to the bottom!!

[blubak]

How many 64 year old ramp staff have you seen lately?

How many ramp staff over fifty do you see?
There probably werent any or many 64yr olds but there were lots in their 50's who had lots of experience & the 'knowhow' to identify & fix a problem quickly.
Right now there is none of that & even if some of these guys are working for a contractor their job now is just to turn up,load or unload the baggage & leave the problem solving to somebody else thus its not hard to work out why baggage is often either not going or going somewhere it was never intended to go.

[lc_461]

There probably werent any or many 64yr olds but there were lots in their 50's who had lots of experience & the 'knowhow' to identify & fix a problem quickly.
Right now there is none of that & even if some of these guys are working for a contractor their job now is just to turn up,load or unload the baggage & leave the problem solving to somebody else thus its not hard to work out why baggage is often either not going or going somewhere it was never intended to go.

This is the issue with all forms of outsourcing. Much easier to say 'not my problem', with little regard or pride for the company itself.
The same thing happens in retail - "I don't work for Myer"

[Capt Fathom]

Qantas was all about it’s people. They made the airline what it was, an highly regarded international ambassador recognised by all.

Recent CEO’s and Board Members are going out of their way to get rid of those people. Before too long, there will be no one employed by Qantas Airways LTD.

:(

[Roj approved]

Qantas was all about it’s people. They made the airline what it was, an highly regarded international ambassador recognised by all.

Recent CEO’s and Board Members are going out of their way to get rid of those people. Before too long, there will be no one employed by Qantas Airways LTD.

:(

Shh🤫 you’ll give them ideas how to get around the pesky Qantas Sales Act😂

[Vref+5]

How about the TWU attack each board member separately, under the Corporation’s Act? The board must have known AJ’s actions would be borderline illegal but they didn’t act? Therefore breaching their duties? Then they each face fines, disqualification? Divide and conquer Just a thought.

[blubak]

How about the TWU attack each board member separately, under the Corporation’s Act? The board must have known AJ’s actions would be borderline illegal but they didn’t act? Therefore breaching their duties? Then they each face fines, disqualification? Divide and conquer Just a thought.
Arent they all in bed together!!
They all tell each other how good they are & how hard they work.
U are correct though,they would have known & are as guilty as AJ & co.

[LAME2]

Maybe AJ woke up one Saturday morning with this “master plan”. Has a familiar ring to it.

[KRviator]

So after losing the initial Federal court case, then the appeal to that case, Qaint-arse is now taking their argument to the High Court. Here's hoping they get their arses handed to them again to prove their dog act was illegal.
Qantas given green light to appeal court ruling that outsourcing baggage handlers was illegal

Qantas has been given the green light to fight a court ruling that its outsourcing of about 1700 ground crew workers during the Covid-19 pandemic was unlawful.

The High Court granted the national carrier special leave to appeal against two earlier Federal Court rulings in a hearing on Friday.

Qantas earlier this year vowed to take its case to the High Court after losing its appeal against a 2021 ruling that the outsourcing was unlawful.

The Federal Court found the airline’s decision was partially motivated by many of the sacked workers being union members with stronger bargaining capability. The full bench of the Federal Court in May unanimously rejected Qantas’ first appeal against the decision.

The Transport Workers’ Union says it will “mount the strongest possible case” in the High Court following the outcome of Friday’s hearing.

Qantas has struggled with a shortage of baggage handlers since it outsourced its own ground crews and replaced many of them with staff contracted from labour hire companies.

[blubak]

So after losing the initial Federal court case, then the appeal to that case, Qaint-arse is now taking their argument to the High Court. Here's hoping they get their arses handed to them again to prove their dog act was illegal.
In reality,is this surprising?
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else.

[AerialPerspective]

In reality,is this surprising?
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else.

I said months ago, without any dog in the fight personally, that this is not over until it is heard in the High Court. Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.

Good luck to both sides.

Anyone denigrating either side and suggesting (albeit in a veiled manner) as appears in some of the comments on this thread, that Qantas is somehow doing something illegal by pursuing its right to appeal, would be saying exactly the opposite if they'd been convicted of something and were exercising all their rights to appeal. Whether Qantas did the wrong thing or not is for the courts to decide.

I am happy to be proven wrong but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was the TWU, I find it hard to believe that the High Court will uphold any decision that removes the right of a company to determine who it employs to perform certain work, even if we don't agree with contracting out.

Certainly if Qantas win in the High Court, then that's the end of the matter. Unless Tony Abbott worms his way back into power and decides, a la his stupid 'Knights and Dames' decision, to re-introduce appeals to the Privy Council LOL (although I don't think that is possible constitutionally now due to the Australia Acts).

[CaptCloudbuster]

Good luck to both sides.

You’ve obviously never worked in the QF Group:rolleyes:

[Lead Balloon]

Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.Actually, it is “illegal” unless and until the higher court overturns the lower court’s decision. What do you think the position would have been if the High Court had refused Qantas leave to appeal? The majority of judicial decisions are not appealed to any higher court and the great majority of applications for leave to appeal a decision to the High Court are refused. (Some stats on applications to the: High Court (https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2021/june/appeals-to-the-high-court-the-statistics-a-guide-to-the-process-and-some-practical-tips).)

A higher court can effectively delay the operation of a lower court decision, pending the outcome of an appeal, but I think that’s a matter of discretion in most if not all cases. Are you aware of any authority for the proposition that the grant of leave to appeal to the High Court ‘automatically’ stays the effect of the decision appealed against? I may have missed something.

But, as you say, the High Court could ultimately find that the Federal Court got it wrong.

[Eclan]

I said months ago, without any dog in the fight personally, that this is not over until it is heard in the High Court. Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.
Well, the court doesn't decide if something is illegal or not, that's already set out by the law. The court decides if the accused is guilty of the illegal act.

Good luck to both sides.
How can both sides have good luck in this matter?

Anyone denigrating either side and suggesting (albeit in a veiled manner) as appears in some of the comments on this thread, that Qantas is somehow doing something illegal by pursuing its right to appeal
I don’t see anyone denigrating either side or making such suggestions although to be fair my drivel filter is on.

[Lead Balloon]

Well, the court doesn't decide if something is illegal or not, that's already set out by the law. The court decides if the accused is guilty of the illegal act. Oh dear.

In this case the High Court won’t decide whether an “accused” is “guilty” or “not guilty”. The High Court will decide what “already set out by the law” means.

At least your misconceptions help to explain your weird statements in the thread about Romeo areas.

[Angle of Attack]

Either way sick leave is going gangbusters! Take the freebies! Lol

[43Inches]

I am happy to be proven wrong but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was the TWU, I find it hard to believe that the High Court will uphold any decision that removes the right of a company to determine who it employs to perform certain work, even if we don't agree with contracting out.

Pretty sure this is not about who they choose to employ, rather the process and manner in which a large section were dismissed and under what pretence. The court is deciding on whether the dismissals were conducted in an appropriate manner, and if not, what penalties/compensation is warranted. If it was about whether they have the right to dismiss them or not then there would be an argument for reinstatement.

[AerialPerspective]

Actually, it is “illegal” unless and until the higher court overturns the lower court’s decision. What do you think the position would have been if the High Court had refused Qantas leave to appeal? The majority of judicial decisions are not appealed to any higher court and the great majority of applications for leave to appeal a decision to the High Court are refused. (Some stats on applications to the: High Court (https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2021/june/appeals-to-the-high-court-the-statistics-a-guide-to-the-process-and-some-practical-tips).)

A higher court can effectively delay the operation of a lower court decision, pending the outcome of an appeal, but I think that’s a matter of discretion in most if not all cases. Are you aware of any authority for the proposition that the grant of leave to appeal to the High Court ‘automatically’ stays the effect of the decision appealed against? I may have missed something.

But, as you say, the High Court could ultimately find that the Federal Court got it wrong.

Yes, you are correct, I was a little sloppy in my wording. Of course, the High Court decision will render it 'legal' or it will stay 'illegal' depending on their decision. What I was trying to say I guess is that it's not settled until the final decision now it has been accepted to be heard by the High Court.

[AerialPerspective]

Oh dear.

In this case the High Court won’t decide whether an “accused” is “guilty” or “not guilty”. The High Court will decide what “already set out by the law” means.

At least your misconceptions help to explain your weird statements in the thread about Romeo areas.

Actually, the Court CAN decide whether something is legal or not. The High Court can and has struck down laws which have been used to prosecute a case on the basis they are unconstitutional. Not saying that is at play here, but the High Court can very much determine something that is 'illegal' to be 'legal' or otherwise. Australian Capital Television vs the Commonwealth is one such example. The Commonwealth sought to restrict political advertising, essentially making it 'illegal' to say certain things. The High Court struck the entire law down as unconstitutional because it breached an implied right to freedom of political thought and association in the Constitution. BTW, it wasn't just some esoteric legal argument as I understand, based on the Judges opinions of what the law should be, it was based on the character of the constitution, a la the entrenchment of popular sovereignty and ".... the people of the Commonwealth..." electing parliaments characterising the polity as a political democracy, which can't exist without said freedom. The only difference here is that no one was charged with breaching the law, it was rather appealed as a law.

LB. I've come to respect your opinion so I'm sure you can put what I'm trying to say less clumsily in a legal sense than I have.

[Lead Balloon]

I think we're in heated agreement, but using different words, AP! You are of course correct. The High Court's 'main' job is to decide whether 'something' is lawful or not (or, in layperson's language, "legal" or "illegal") contrary to Eclan's ridiculous assertion.

In this case, the High Court will decide whether the Full Court of the Federal Court's judgment contains errors of a kind that would justify allowing Qantas's appeal. That process necessarily entails the High Court first deciding what the applicable law is and means.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I think we're in heated agreement, but using different words, AP! You are of course correct. The High Court's 'main' job is to decide whether 'something' is lawful or not (or, in layperson's language, "legal" or "illegal") contrary to Eclan's ridiculous assertion.

In this case, the High Court will decide whether the Full Court of the Federal Court's judgment contains errors of a kind that would justify allowing Qantas's appeal. That process necessarily entails the High Court first deciding what the applicable law is and means.

Are we to assume that the law itself will be applied lawfully?

[Lead Balloon]

That, by definition, is what the High Court does. What it pronounces to be the law, is the law in relation to the circumstances of the case, unless the High Court subsequently pronounces the law to be something different (or the Parliament passes a valid law making the law different).