Right to disconnect laws.

[Icarus2001]

The new law may make evening phone calls with a morning roster change tricky.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-09/ir-laws-employers-could-face-criminal-penalties/103445984

[Pastor of Muppets]

The companies will argue and the unions will support that pilots are “special” they are “managers” “unique”: These laws don’t apply to pilots.
Just like the public holiday legislation….

[Ascend Charlie]

It only gets serious when the employee applies to a court to have the boss "cease and desist" after continued out-of-hours harassment. Otherwise, carry on as usual.

[dr dre]

The Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke said on Tuesday that it was more likely that employees and employers would negotiate more formal arrangements for out of hours contact through workplace agreements and conditions for award workers would be updated by the Fair Work Commission.

While I don’t think this legislation means aircrew will be totally free of contractibility requirements at home, it should mean there’ll have to be specific contact requirements negotiated into EAs which specify when a company can contact a pilot and when they are required to respond.

[C441]

The new law may make evening phone calls with a morning roster change tricky.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-09/ir-laws-employers-could-face-criminal-penalties/103445984
Maybe.
Most pilot agreements are just that; "agreements"….... although I have been known to mutter that the A in EA/EBA within the Qantas Group be replaced with a U for ultimatum.

Anyway, I haven't read the text of the actual legislation but I suspect that where an employee agrees to be contactable at certain times, this will be considered an exception to the law.

Hence an "Agreement" between an employee and employer will include such provisions as many do now.

[Icarus2001]

Of course, C441 but it does make the negotiation of an allowance much easier as it is based on a variation to IR law.

[AerocatS2A]

The new law may make evening phone calls with a morning roster change tricky.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-09/ir-laws-employers-could-face-criminal-penalties/103445984
Surely you are free to not answer your phone?

[Lead Balloon]

You're free to do anything you like. Whether the exercise of that freedom results in e.g. a breach of a contract of employment is a related but different question that depends on (in this case) what the IR laws and your contract of employment say.

[AerocatS2A]

What I mean is, are there aviation companies in Australia that require you to be contactable during your rest period? Crewing can call me if they like, but I don’t have to answer if I don’t want to.

[directsosij]

Read your enterprise agreement. Every airline I have been employed by states very clearly in the contract or enterprise agreement what the requirements are around being contactable.

[Icarus2001]

states very clearly in the contract or enterprise agreement what the requirements are around being contactable. I think you are missing the subtle point here.

Those agreements you knew of were written BEFORE this legislation existed. It is not hard to imagine writing that in an EBA post the gazetting of the legislation would be incompatible with FWC conditions or even the NES. Which would mean that to insert such a clause would require some monetary consideration.

[brokenagain]

2) An employee is not required to monitor, read or respond to emails, telephone calls or any other kind of communication from an employer outside of the employee's hours of work (including during periods of leave) unless the employee is in receipt of an availability allowance for the period during which the communication is made.



3) In this section:

availability allowance, for a period, means an allowance for being rostered, or otherwise directed by an employer, to remain available to perform work during the period.


So where’s my availability allowance for being on a 12 hour standby but not being used, and currently being unpaid for it? I’ll take a full 12 hour credit please.

[ShandywithSugar]

Yes please.

[Lead Balloon]

So where’s my availability allowance for being on a 12 hour standby but not being used, and currently being unpaid for it? I’ll take a full 12 hour credit please.Why are you asking us?

Is the text you quoted contained in the terms of your current employment? If yes, have you asked your employer to pay you the availability allowance for the twelve hours you were on standby? If not, why not? Maybe they've arranged things such that being on standby counts as being inside your hours of work.

[Swept-Wing]

Read your enterprise agreement. Every airline I have been employed by states very clearly in the contract or enterprise agreement what the requirements are around being contactable.

Clearly haven’t worked for EFA

[DROPS]

The irony.
Everyone connected to their tiny screens 24/7.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Read your enterprise agreement. Every airline I have been employed by states very clearly in the contract or enterprise agreement what the requirements are around being contactable.

If an agreement requires you to be available to take calls/read emails/reply to texts etc. when you’re not on duty, it could and should be challenged. Either you’re on duty (reserve/standby being included) or not, they can’t have it both ways. I would also add that given the propensity for rostering departments to use FRMS as a target for ‘efficiency’ purposes it is irresponsible to be doing anything work related as you’re not complying with the function of rest periods.

[clark y]

This seems to be a bit like the working on public holidays thread from a year or so ago.
Has Anyone’s working conditions really changed since that came in?

[hillbillybob]

This seems to be a bit like the working on public holidays thread from a year or so ago.
Has Anyone’s working conditions really changed since that came in?

I was able to drop the hammer (at least a little), requested ANZAC day off, didn't get it. filled the form in and under the pressing reason they wanted replied with "because I'm a veteran" and was magically fixed. rather than playing the find someone to swap game

[cloudsurfng]

I was able to drop the hammer (at least a little), requested ANZAC day off, didn't get it. filled the form in and under the pressing reason they wanted replied with "because I'm a veteran" and was magically fixed. rather than playing the find someone to swap game

I’ll be doing the same this year. My daughter has reached the age where it’s time to learn all about it, and what various members of her family and other people in the community have done. I will work if needed, however the dawn service is a non negotiable this year. Couldn’t care less what the employer says.

[MalcolmReynolds]

No need for these right to disconnect laws. When I’m not at work I’m not available at all. End of story. Especially when on unassigned days RDOs and Annual Leave. We all already have this right.

[dr dre]

No need for these right to disconnect laws. When I’m not at work I’m not available at all. End of story. Especially when on unassigned days RDOs and Annual Leave. We all already have this right.

It wasn’t a right until last week to not face punishment from your employer for not taking calls outside work hours. This legislation changed that.

[Chronic Snoozer]

What was the punishment for not taking a call or responding to a text on your RDO or annual leave?

[dr dre]

What was the punishment for not taking a call or responding to a text on your RDO or annual leave?

Some EAs have contact obligations and protections set in stone, others are vague, leaving them open to abuse. What this new legislation does is prevent adverse action against an employee for not being contactable outside of agreed hours.

The practical effect is that pilot workgroups that don’t have specific contact requirements written into their EAs will need them, which can only be a good thing.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Some EAs have contact obligations and protections set in stone, others are vague, leaving them open to abuse. What this new legislation does is prevent adverse action against an employee for not being contactable outside of agreed hours.

The practical effect is that pilot workgroups that don’t have specific contact requirements written into their EAs will need them, which can only be a good thing.

So, again, what was the punishment for not taking a call or responding to a text on your RDO or annual leave?

[dr dre]

So, again, what was the punishment for not taking a call or responding to a text on your RDO or annual leave?

Whatever sanction an unscrupulous boss chose to enact against an employee who didn’t respond outside of work hours.

I’ve been lucky to spend the majority of my working career under contracts with well defined contractibility protocols but not everyone is as lucky. Therefore this legislation will benefit a lot of workers.

[MalcolmReynolds]

Ah no I don't have to answer my phone to anyone. Even the Police.

[De_flieger]

Ah no I don't have to answer my phone to anyone. Even the Police.

Well, that’s great that you are financially secure enough or in a reasonable job so that you’re able to say that, so you’re really not who the laws are written for, and their introduction shouldn’t change anything at all for you. They’re aimed at protecting the office worker who is unreasonably expected to be constantly answering trivial emails while on annual leave and at night, or risk poor performance reviews as “not a dedicated employee”, or the casual retail worker who doesnt get any more shifts because they dont reply to text messages at any hour of the day or night. They’re not aimed at a pilot on reserve or eg an on-call emergency worker who is clearly expected to be contactable during certain periods, and who almost certainly has - or should have - an EBA that lists contactability provisions.

Ultimately these laws would protect you, though, because they prevent an unscrupulous manager from being allowed to punish you for not answering your phone on days off or outside reasonable times. They dont stop a manager from texting someone to say “there’s a shift available”, or legitimate emergency communications, they are aimed at stopping employees from being punished for not answering at all hours of the day or night, particularly those with a regular shifts eg, 9-5, Monday to Friday job who should reasonably expect their nights and weekends, or other days off, to be free.

[Ladloy]

Dutton already promising to remove the laws once in power.

[MalcolmReynolds]

De_Flieger,

it’s not about being financially secure. I doubt many of us including myself would consider that to be the case.

My point is it is not a crime to not answer your phone.
Never has been. During lockdown I didn’t answer my phone while on rest. Then I answered a call from a no caller id number and it was the Police checking self quarantine. I said I don’t normally answer no call id calls. I was told you have to answer we are the Police. I told them “no I f#cking don’t and how the hell am I supposed to know who you are before I do or don’t answer?” You want me? Come and knock on the door. Never heard from them again.

So if the Police can get f#cked then my company can too. Not available on RDO’s, Non Assigned days nor Annual Leave. You want me on standby? Roster it then! I have no problem with that.

[morno]

De_Flieger,

it’s not about being financially secure. I doubt many of us including myself would consider that to be the case.

My point is it is not a crime to not answer your phone.
Never has been. During lockdown I didn’t answer my phone while on rest. Then I answered a call from a no caller id number and it was the Police checking self quarantine. I said I don’t normally answer no call id calls. I was told you have to answer we are the Police. I told them “no I f#cking don’t and how the hell am I supposed to know who you are before I do or don’t answer?” You want me? Come and knock on the door. Never heard from them again.

So if the Police can get f#cked then my company can too. Not available on RDO’s, Non Assigned days nor Annual Leave. You want me on standby? Roster it then! I have no problem with that.

You ****. The laws aren't designed for people like you. :ugh:

[De_flieger]

My point is it is not a crime to not answer your phone.
Never has been.

Then you’re completely missing the point of the new laws and why they’re being introduced. I never said it was a crime not to answer your phone. The laws aren’t aimed at people in your situation. They’re not aimed at people who are able to ignore calls from work on their RDOs or nights without any consequences. They’re aimed at managers or employers who take advantage of people who aren’t in that situation, people who are in precarious casual work or low-paid or vulnerable workers, or are being otherwise unreasonably treated.

I’m glad you’re in a position that you can ignore calls, these laws are for people who are mistreated by their employers and can’t ignore calls and emails because of that. The justification for having the laws is the same as a workplace safety law…good employers will do the right thing anyway, bad ones are the reasons we need the laws.

[dr dre]

Dutton already promising to remove the laws once in power.

Well lucky for Australia’s workers the possibility of that happening is quite remote! I’m not sure how convincing people to vote for you with a “we want to make it legal for a boss to punish you for not answering calls on your day off” policy will work…….

[Ladloy]

Well lucky for Australia’s workers the possibility of that happening is quite remote! I’m not sure how convincing people to vote for you with a “we want to make it legal for a boss to punish you for not answering calls on your day off” policy will work…….
We have a strong history of voting for leaders who want to take an axe to IR laws.
To say it is quite remote for him to be leader next election is naive. He is good at scare campaigns and distraction. Just look at the voice to parliament, the language he used about Albanese and tax changes or even this week with Barnaby falling over..

[Mr Proach]

What I mean is, are there aviation companies in Australia that require you to be contactable during your rest period? Crewing can call me if they like, but I don’t have to answer if I don’t want to.
Yes, and facilitated by the CASA.

[Mr Proach]

Perhaps it might be owing to the manner in which the media reported this matter however, I was somewhat flummoxed that any employee was required to respond to an employers request outside of their working hours. During the weekend, Jack & Jill, who don't work on the weekends, go camping on the top of the hill which does not have any communication services. When Jack returns to work on Monday he is subject to punitive measures because he failed to respond to a voicemail from the employer. By the media reports, it infers that Jack is required to be contactable by, and respond to the employer, over the weekends. I expected Jack's fundamental right would be the complete opposite of that.
Is it just a coincidence that situations like this are becoming more common along with declining living standards, low wages, poor working conditions and employer abuse, at a time when union membership is at it's lowest level since unions began? I don't, I think there is a direct relationship between the two..... I only hope the younger generation will see the truth and unite. When you look at the majority of impoverished countries around the world, there is a common element that exists amongst them and that is, no workers' unions.

[Mr Proach]

I've heard (unverified) that in some European countries these "disconnect" laws include that an employer must not engage in any form of communication with an employee outside of their working hours e.g. irrespective of what the subject matter is, management can not send a work related email to Gertie's account outside of her working hours.

[dr dre]

I've heard (unverified) that in some European countries these "disconnect" laws include that an employer must not engage in any form of communication with an employee outside of their working hours e.g. irrespective of what the subject matter is, management can not send a work related email to Gertie's account outside of her working hours.

That was proposed in discussion on the Australian law but was watered down in the final form. Employers can contact you outside of work, you have to right to respond but the key is now an employer cannot take punitive action against you for not answering message or performing tasks outside of agreed work hours.

[maggotdriver]

Maybe I should wait until 60 mins before my flight to read NOTAMs as if they were handed to me like the old days. CASA could mandate that they aren’t sent out electronically until sign on. I could see s… hitting the fan, hard! I get the laws, there is just more and more being expected without pay. It would be good if a union could lead the fight on this front.

[ddrwk]

Maybe I should wait until 60 mins before my flight to read NOTAMs as if they were handed to me like the old days. CASA could mandate that they aren’t sent out electronically until sign on. I could see s… hitting the fan, hard! I get the laws, there is just more and more being expected without pay. It would be good if a union could lead the fight on this front.

Why are you currently reading them more than 60 mins prior to departure?

If your EA sign on obligation is -60, don’t sign on until -60. Your union has already got that in the EA.

[morno]

Why are you currently reading them more than 60 mins prior to departure?

If your EA sign on obligation is -60, don’t sign on until -60. Your union has already got that in the EA.

I do it more because I want to spend time getting coffee when I get there.

[ddrwk]

I do it more because I want to spend time getting coffee when I get there.

And that’s fine if it works for you. I’ve no problem with that, but this guy was complaining about the company sending him a flight plan early and somehow he has NO choice BUT to look at it, regardless of whether or not he has actually signed on.

He then also claims that it’s the unions fault that he decides to start work early.

Unions derive their power from their members. And if members aren’t willing to ensure compliance with their own EA, what hope is there for any further advancement?

Unsurprisingly, it is generally these members who are the first to criticise the union for ‘not doing enough’.

[maggotdriver]

Sometimes it is the coffee, sometimes it is to make space for myself, after all, being a captain is about controlling the pace. However, I never derided any union. Individuals have the right to push back and maybe it wasn’t myself I was referring to but others who are less willing to rock the boat. Say for example, a new to the job First Officer trying to do the right thing. If 60 minutes is all that you require to read 448 NOTAMs, clear customs and security twice and do a preflight then good luck to you. I suspect though, that the company knows this is not really feasible and gets some free time by sending them out early. I also infer that this is the exact sort of thing the legislation was designed for, wouldn’t you think?

[MalcolmReynolds]

Sign on at exactly -60 as rostered then take your time. If you leave late so be it. If the company whinges quote safety until they go away.

[C441]

The scheduled time of departure is just that.

Yep, I'd strive to achieve that but pre-flight is a dynamic environment. If we were a couple of minutes late through ensuring that we were as well prepared as possible then so be it. Rush a briefing….not happening. Spend a minute checking the late returned tech-log….so be it. Rushing to maintain schedule will very rarely make the operation better or safer but it could well do the opposite.

Whilst I was occasionally asked "why the delay", I do not recall ever being sanctioned over the same.