ALAEA defeated by its own members.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALAEA defeated by its own members.
In a ground breaking decision by the AIRC Senior Deputy President Lloyd, 100 members of the union have ended the ALAEA plans to link the LAMEless tarmac issue with the current EBA negotiations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR955440
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.136 - members of organisation for secret ballot
Members of The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association
(AG2005/2996)
Airline operations
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LLOYD MELBOURNE, 2 FEBRUARY 2005
Request for a secret ballot.
RECOMMENDATION
[1] The Commission makes the following recommendations in order to resolve the matter:
1. The status quo of pre-flight inspections and certification of the Qantas domestic fleet will continue to apply. The status quo is the inspections and certification procedures as undertaken on 31 January 2005. This will continue while the processes in paragraphs 3 and 6 are being followed and the protected industrial action is withdrawn as per paragraph 2.
2. The ALAEA will recommend to its Federal Executive meeting on 9 February 2005 that the protected action commenced on 1 February 2005 be withdrawn. The ALAEA will advise members by way of notice of the outcome of the Federal Executive deliberations on 9 February 2005.
3. A thorough process of consultation on the proposal from Qantas to introduce new pre-flight inspections and certification procedures on its domestic fleet will be undertaken. Meetings of Qantas and ALAEA are to be scheduled as soon as possible.
4. In the period up to 9 February 2005:
a. Qantas will not take action against employees adhering to the 31 January 2005 status quo; and
b. The ALAEA will not take action against an employee who chooses to strictly adhere to the procedures manuals.
5. Qantas will advise staff of this recommendation and its acceptance by the parties on 2 February 2005.
6. The assistance of the AIRC can be availed of at anytime if issues emerge concerning the implementation of the Recommendation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melbourne members who initiated the action said the move might dampen some of the rumours about them being nothing but a bunch of troublemakers. The members want the wage agreement and the preflight issues separated claiming that it was a serious error by the ALAEA linking wage claims with what is essentially a safety issue.
The Melbourne boys knew the day would be won when they heard who the ALAEA was sending to the Commision to prevent the outcome. One of the signatories of the petition said - "We thought we'd give them a chance and decided that none of us even needed to attend the hearing. The 3 bumbling Senior ALAEA officials weren't even capable of defeating an empty chair. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR955440
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.136 - members of organisation for secret ballot
Members of The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association
(AG2005/2996)
Airline operations
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT LLOYD MELBOURNE, 2 FEBRUARY 2005
Request for a secret ballot.
RECOMMENDATION
[1] The Commission makes the following recommendations in order to resolve the matter:
1. The status quo of pre-flight inspections and certification of the Qantas domestic fleet will continue to apply. The status quo is the inspections and certification procedures as undertaken on 31 January 2005. This will continue while the processes in paragraphs 3 and 6 are being followed and the protected industrial action is withdrawn as per paragraph 2.
2. The ALAEA will recommend to its Federal Executive meeting on 9 February 2005 that the protected action commenced on 1 February 2005 be withdrawn. The ALAEA will advise members by way of notice of the outcome of the Federal Executive deliberations on 9 February 2005.
3. A thorough process of consultation on the proposal from Qantas to introduce new pre-flight inspections and certification procedures on its domestic fleet will be undertaken. Meetings of Qantas and ALAEA are to be scheduled as soon as possible.
4. In the period up to 9 February 2005:
a. Qantas will not take action against employees adhering to the 31 January 2005 status quo; and
b. The ALAEA will not take action against an employee who chooses to strictly adhere to the procedures manuals.
5. Qantas will advise staff of this recommendation and its acceptance by the parties on 2 February 2005.
6. The assistance of the AIRC can be availed of at anytime if issues emerge concerning the implementation of the Recommendation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melbourne members who initiated the action said the move might dampen some of the rumours about them being nothing but a bunch of troublemakers. The members want the wage agreement and the preflight issues separated claiming that it was a serious error by the ALAEA linking wage claims with what is essentially a safety issue.
The Melbourne boys knew the day would be won when they heard who the ALAEA was sending to the Commision to prevent the outcome. One of the signatories of the petition said - "We thought we'd give them a chance and decided that none of us even needed to attend the hearing. The 3 bumbling Senior ALAEA officials weren't even capable of defeating an empty chair. "
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see that 100 votes can actually be productive when used the right way, unlike the last time 100 votes were used to pervert justice and ended costing the members many, many dollars.
Congratulations to the new breed of union leaders who obviously know their way around, contrary to the 'lame' leadership we have had in the past.
Congratulations to the new breed of union leaders who obviously know their way around, contrary to the 'lame' leadership we have had in the past.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Harbour City
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never thought the day would come when the Mexicans would turn into a flock of chikens. The first time we ever suport them and they tuck tale and run. When will they ever learn that the alaea are there to suport us and as long as we sick by them we can climb mountains.
I just want to now how 100 members can overturn the decision to take the action in the first place. This decision made by the executive that was voted in by 4000 members. How can that happen and in such an underhanded maner. Were they to afraid to send there names to the office in Bexley. To chiken to state there names and stand up openly. If they went about it in an open way the alaea would have answered and addresed the concerns like they always do.
No wonder we keep going bakwards with idiots like the Mexicans. Surely its about time we started looking at having a Northern and Southern division of the alaea.
I just want to now how 100 members can overturn the decision to take the action in the first place. This decision made by the executive that was voted in by 4000 members. How can that happen and in such an underhanded maner. Were they to afraid to send there names to the office in Bexley. To chiken to state there names and stand up openly. If they went about it in an open way the alaea would have answered and addresed the concerns like they always do.
No wonder we keep going bakwards with idiots like the Mexicans. Surely its about time we started looking at having a Northern and Southern division of the alaea.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: House
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This goose is obviously a company plant. Either oldmeadow or his lapdog farrough (the bloke who cannot look you in the eye when he shakes your hand).
Stay the course lads!
Then again he may be and obviously is a bloke who is desperate to feed his kids and pay the mortgage. If that is the case then he should be acknowledged as a "freeloader humanitarian self assessor". It's about my family! Where did we hear that excuse before?
Stay the course lads!
Then again he may be and obviously is a bloke who is desperate to feed his kids and pay the mortgage. If that is the case then he should be acknowledged as a "freeloader humanitarian self assessor". It's about my family! Where did we hear that excuse before?
"chiken"? "mexicans"? "suport"? "bakwards"?
I suggest that Mr Qantas is a mentally deficient troll. I cannot believe that even Qantas would allow anyone with his intellect or attitudes to work on aircraft or manage other people.
I think guys you should watch it and be very careful what you say under provocation of Mr Qantas (especially make no threats please) to avoid giving Qantas the legal basis to find the URL'S of some of you.
I suggest that Mr Qantas is a mentally deficient troll. I cannot believe that even Qantas would allow anyone with his intellect or attitudes to work on aircraft or manage other people.
I think guys you should watch it and be very careful what you say under provocation of Mr Qantas (especially make no threats please) to avoid giving Qantas the legal basis to find the URL'S of some of you.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that seems like a masterful stroke of genius.
Lodge an application in the AIRC and then don't turn up to defend it or even to argue your case.
Why?
Because the brave petitioners were more intent on remaining hidden than supporting the view they sought to put.
It would be interesting to subpeona some (or even all) of them and find out EXACTLY what they were told when they signed the document and by whom.
This too may yet come to pass.
Now you have a Commissioner, a Senior Deputy President no less, arbitrating an issue in the short term instead of a protracted negotiation between the parties in the long term.
What's the prime rule in all this?
Never have an inquiry that you don't already know the outcome of.
Lets hope that the domestic engineers don't end up paying for that stroke of genius the hard way given that all the evidence seems to support the views of the manufactures and the employers.
This system, or variants of it are used in many other countries without incident and you now seek to argue that it is unsafe.
Present your evidence, where is the data to support this claim?
Then again perhaps and arbitrated outcome would be a just result.
Oh and one final thing, the Commissioners recommendation didn't seperate this issue from the Log but it does prevent you taking any action in support of the issue.
Great snooker lads, well done, where too now?
Lodge an application in the AIRC and then don't turn up to defend it or even to argue your case.
Why?
Because the brave petitioners were more intent on remaining hidden than supporting the view they sought to put.
It would be interesting to subpeona some (or even all) of them and find out EXACTLY what they were told when they signed the document and by whom.
This too may yet come to pass.
Now you have a Commissioner, a Senior Deputy President no less, arbitrating an issue in the short term instead of a protracted negotiation between the parties in the long term.
What's the prime rule in all this?
Never have an inquiry that you don't already know the outcome of.
Lets hope that the domestic engineers don't end up paying for that stroke of genius the hard way given that all the evidence seems to support the views of the manufactures and the employers.
This system, or variants of it are used in many other countries without incident and you now seek to argue that it is unsafe.
Present your evidence, where is the data to support this claim?
Then again perhaps and arbitrated outcome would be a just result.
Oh and one final thing, the Commissioners recommendation didn't seperate this issue from the Log but it does prevent you taking any action in support of the issue.
Great snooker lads, well done, where too now?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MELBOURNE
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the commissioners words were ' Status Quo ' so Qantas don't get there way either. Stand Off, we live to fight another day, you can't fight a war while you are lying dead in the trenches.. Our union leaders were all set to through in the towel but the members took control of THEIR union.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: aus
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No SAR No Details,
Well,well. Good ole ALAEA exec finally speaks up. I think we are a little upset that the members have acheived what you should have done months ago( no sorry-you had a grand plan and couldn't spill the beans!).
So lets see the 'stroke of genius' our exec had in store, lets roll over a bona fide safety issue into the EBA log of claims, Then invoke a bargaining period to take industrial action over the issue-GENIUS.
So now the issue is related to remuneration and not a stand alone safety issue.
NSND of course we as a membership can decide to take action if required as long as you put it to a vote of the membership, I realise, this is a new concept but lets give it a go.
On the issue of WHO signed the document why do you so desperately want to know?? I'm stil trying to find out who the GUTLESS 100 were who signed the petition that let our last EBA slide?? Any ideas??
Anyway food for thought.
BV
PS As far as the applicants no being present, it just goes to show that they didn't HAVE to turn up. The exec members who WERE there couldn't even defeat an empty chair! You go boys.
Well,well. Good ole ALAEA exec finally speaks up. I think we are a little upset that the members have acheived what you should have done months ago( no sorry-you had a grand plan and couldn't spill the beans!).
So lets see the 'stroke of genius' our exec had in store, lets roll over a bona fide safety issue into the EBA log of claims, Then invoke a bargaining period to take industrial action over the issue-GENIUS.
So now the issue is related to remuneration and not a stand alone safety issue.
NSND of course we as a membership can decide to take action if required as long as you put it to a vote of the membership, I realise, this is a new concept but lets give it a go.
On the issue of WHO signed the document why do you so desperately want to know?? I'm stil trying to find out who the GUTLESS 100 were who signed the petition that let our last EBA slide?? Any ideas??
Anyway food for thought.
BV
PS As far as the applicants no being present, it just goes to show that they didn't HAVE to turn up. The exec members who WERE there couldn't even defeat an empty chair! You go boys.
Pardon me, but what sort of bunch of geniuses would allow an apparently genuine SAFETY issue be rolled into an EBA?
I thought SAFETY was non Negotiable?
EBA's are about pay and conditions, not SAFETY.
I thought SAFETY was non Negotiable?
EBA's are about pay and conditions, not SAFETY.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight...
The ALAEA and QANTAS had to go to the AIRC to defend THEMSELVES against 100 members. How cosey are these guys? Did they stand before the Senoir Deputy President hand in hand? Wonder if they went out for a few wines afterwards. Did they fly DK from MEL to SYD and then back to MEL for the hearing and put him up overnight in the Hilton on expenses?
Surely this must be a win for Engineers and the flying public. Now all we have to do is continue 'A thorough process of consultation on the proposal' with management like they have with us on the annualised salary issue.
'We'll try to make it to the meeting but in the mean time we'll just continue to carry out pre flight inspections on your aircraft and ontinue our O/T bans while you pay us to do it!' Oops I mean reluctance to work on my own time!
Instead of becoming angry about this, ALAEA executive members should be using this to their advantage. Unfortunately, I think we all know where the ALAEA is controlled from.
The ALAEA and QANTAS had to go to the AIRC to defend THEMSELVES against 100 members. How cosey are these guys? Did they stand before the Senoir Deputy President hand in hand? Wonder if they went out for a few wines afterwards. Did they fly DK from MEL to SYD and then back to MEL for the hearing and put him up overnight in the Hilton on expenses?
Surely this must be a win for Engineers and the flying public. Now all we have to do is continue 'A thorough process of consultation on the proposal' with management like they have with us on the annualised salary issue.
'We'll try to make it to the meeting but in the mean time we'll just continue to carry out pre flight inspections on your aircraft and ontinue our O/T bans while you pay us to do it!' Oops I mean reluctance to work on my own time!
Instead of becoming angry about this, ALAEA executive members should be using this to their advantage. Unfortunately, I think we all know where the ALAEA is controlled from.
Last edited by The Fremantle Doctor; 3rd Feb 2005 at 05:59.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit it doesnt look good, but thats all I'll admit.
This has been a stalling of the inevitable. QF will continue to plug away at the guys until they get what they want.
Bruce has promised upper management results. He wont be seen to lose.
You won the battle but the war is still on. Dont go celebrating too early.
This has been a stalling of the inevitable. QF will continue to plug away at the guys until they get what they want.
Bruce has promised upper management results. He wont be seen to lose.
You won the battle but the war is still on. Dont go celebrating too early.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Screws its employees.
Once again Qantas has won without really trying, they have successfully muddied the waters about Pre-Flights at the same time when the EBA is being thrashed out.
We must remember that Qantas has only one objective at the moment and that is to keep wages down which they have being very succesfully doing for the last few years. And the ALAEA has only one objective and that is to keep QF Managment happy so that they can continue to live the quite life with all the brown envelopes passed under tables.
However the workers who actually keep the airline moving and keep the profits coming in have still to pay the mortages and clothe the kids and they can't do that on 3% pay increase a year especially when there isn't any brown envelopes.
So what happens now, well there is a big effort at the moment by the AWU to recruit members from the ALAEA and I give it my full support. The ALAEA has proven itself to be badly tainted and to close to QF Managment and unable to get a fair result for its members (3% is not fair in todays climate). So I hope all QF AlAEA members consider leaving it and joining the AWU which can serve you better and get you a more fair pay increase.
We must remember that Qantas has only one objective at the moment and that is to keep wages down which they have being very succesfully doing for the last few years. And the ALAEA has only one objective and that is to keep QF Managment happy so that they can continue to live the quite life with all the brown envelopes passed under tables.
However the workers who actually keep the airline moving and keep the profits coming in have still to pay the mortages and clothe the kids and they can't do that on 3% pay increase a year especially when there isn't any brown envelopes.
So what happens now, well there is a big effort at the moment by the AWU to recruit members from the ALAEA and I give it my full support. The ALAEA has proven itself to be badly tainted and to close to QF Managment and unable to get a fair result for its members (3% is not fair in todays climate). So I hope all QF AlAEA members consider leaving it and joining the AWU which can serve you better and get you a more fair pay increase.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: House
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the pay rise that the AWU got for their members was...........
3%
Same as everyone else.
Their jobs are under threat of being outsourced etc etc.
Licenced Engineers look after Licenced Engineers. Don't belittle your qualifications and experience by having workers further down the rung determine your futures. They would drop you like a hot potato.
If the ALAEA is as bad as everyone says, and I don't believe it is, then get off your collective asses and present solid, well thought out motions for change.
Taking your union membership elsewhere during an EBA (to a party that is not a respondant to your Certified Agreement) substantially weakens your position.
Have your internal fight, get the **** off your livers and unite to save your jobs from being exported and your profession devalued.
Remember, a group of very determined individuals took on the Airlines in that year, and the contractor overseeing the demise of Qantas as a brand was a major protagonist in that dispute.
3%
Same as everyone else.
Their jobs are under threat of being outsourced etc etc.
Licenced Engineers look after Licenced Engineers. Don't belittle your qualifications and experience by having workers further down the rung determine your futures. They would drop you like a hot potato.
If the ALAEA is as bad as everyone says, and I don't believe it is, then get off your collective asses and present solid, well thought out motions for change.
Taking your union membership elsewhere during an EBA (to a party that is not a respondant to your Certified Agreement) substantially weakens your position.
Have your internal fight, get the **** off your livers and unite to save your jobs from being exported and your profession devalued.
Remember, a group of very determined individuals took on the Airlines in that year, and the contractor overseeing the demise of Qantas as a brand was a major protagonist in that dispute.
Last edited by Agent Mulder; 4th Feb 2005 at 02:56.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wise man once said.....
" I have two options. I can work with the players I have, and try to achieve more with them, or I can start from scratch and get a whole new team....the choice is yours."
That, I believe, is where we are at the moment with the ALAEA executive. The members have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can stand united on the big issues, and all this without any ALAEA directive.
Bruce has been madly shafting any manager that will listen in the last 48 hours over the increasing hold items and deferred work on all QF aircraft, but in particular the A330, and the number of engineering delays being incurred by Line Maintenance.
The conduct of the ALAEA executive in the next few months will be very telling for all.
Can anyone please explain to me, in laymans terms, why our executive would try to have the 'No Engineer Transit' issue bundled in with our EBA. Why is this to be considered a trade off for pay and conditions when it is such a huge safety issue.
I am at a loss, other than jumping to any more conclusions. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated
" I have two options. I can work with the players I have, and try to achieve more with them, or I can start from scratch and get a whole new team....the choice is yours."
That, I believe, is where we are at the moment with the ALAEA executive. The members have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can stand united on the big issues, and all this without any ALAEA directive.
Bruce has been madly shafting any manager that will listen in the last 48 hours over the increasing hold items and deferred work on all QF aircraft, but in particular the A330, and the number of engineering delays being incurred by Line Maintenance.
The conduct of the ALAEA executive in the next few months will be very telling for all.
Can anyone please explain to me, in laymans terms, why our executive would try to have the 'No Engineer Transit' issue bundled in with our EBA. Why is this to be considered a trade off for pay and conditions when it is such a huge safety issue.
I am at a loss, other than jumping to any more conclusions. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated
Last edited by Son of Brake Boy; 4th Feb 2005 at 02:53.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because the cupboard is bare, they have given everything else away over the years and the only way they can get their lousy 3% is to give the only thing we have left.
I would rather give up a 3% increase than to reduce safety. The union movement need to get back to their roots and stop trading away all their entitlements that our Founders faught so hard to achieve. Stop looking to the short term rewards and think of the future. When the cupboard is bare there will be nothing left than to sell our integrity.
Not going to happen on my watch, if profit is what motivates big business then hit them where it hurts, and believe me it wouldn't be too hard.
I would rather give up a 3% increase than to reduce safety. The union movement need to get back to their roots and stop trading away all their entitlements that our Founders faught so hard to achieve. Stop looking to the short term rewards and think of the future. When the cupboard is bare there will be nothing left than to sell our integrity.
Not going to happen on my watch, if profit is what motivates big business then hit them where it hurts, and believe me it wouldn't be too hard.
Last edited by vortsa; 4th Feb 2005 at 03:36.
"Stop looking to the short term rewards and think of the future. When the cupboard is bare there will be nothing left than to sell our integrity."
Very well said. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading some coronial inquest reports recently, regarding marine (yachting) safety.
Some QF managers might like to try it some time to appreciate the risks they are running if they play with safety., and what will happen to them and the company.
I would like to suggest that tying safety issues to an EBA is not very smart.
Even seemingley smart individuals look like blithering idiots under the innocent examination by the coroner, and after that of course, comes the deluge of victims lawyers. The story goes that the hair on the head of the component overhaul manager at AN went white in a month after the Viscount went in.
Very well said. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading some coronial inquest reports recently, regarding marine (yachting) safety.
Some QF managers might like to try it some time to appreciate the risks they are running if they play with safety., and what will happen to them and the company.
I would like to suggest that tying safety issues to an EBA is not very smart.
Even seemingley smart individuals look like blithering idiots under the innocent examination by the coroner, and after that of course, comes the deluge of victims lawyers. The story goes that the hair on the head of the component overhaul manager at AN went white in a month after the Viscount went in.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to rumours about our lunchroom, Melbourne International Engineers were today told that they had been unsuccessful in obtaining A Lauda/Austrian contract due to the workers conveniently having other things to do when asked to extend on their normal shift.
Talking to SP, we've been told that the spirits of the men are high. They were told that Bruce had said no further employment oppurtunities would be made available at the International terminal, and so any contracts would have to be covered by O/T.
The reluctance of people to extend had had a major impact on negotiations for the work, and had proven to be detrimental to the cause in the end.
People were said to be relieved, given that the amount of work through MIT cant be covered with O/T as it is, but were disappointed to see a chance to provide further engineering service work go wanting.
They were told not to be surprised should further contract work be lost due to the lack of manpower situation. The threat of removing people from courses to cover managements lack of forsight in manpower levels was also made.
Effecting less than half a dozen people, the guys were concerned for their comrades, but steeled in their resolve to maintain the rage and not be pressured by management threats.
Talking to SP, we've been told that the spirits of the men are high. They were told that Bruce had said no further employment oppurtunities would be made available at the International terminal, and so any contracts would have to be covered by O/T.
The reluctance of people to extend had had a major impact on negotiations for the work, and had proven to be detrimental to the cause in the end.
People were said to be relieved, given that the amount of work through MIT cant be covered with O/T as it is, but were disappointed to see a chance to provide further engineering service work go wanting.
They were told not to be surprised should further contract work be lost due to the lack of manpower situation. The threat of removing people from courses to cover managements lack of forsight in manpower levels was also made.
Effecting less than half a dozen people, the guys were concerned for their comrades, but steeled in their resolve to maintain the rage and not be pressured by management threats.
