OWS launches duress case against major transport operator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully the first of several cases that will make certain management types wake up and smell the roses.
Now only if they took the 33k out of the management bonus’ …….nahhhh never happen.
Now only if they took the 33k out of the management bonus’ …….nahhhh never happen.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how a current employee can't be coerced into signing a new AWA, but yet can never return to an EBA with that employer.
What happens when the AWA expires and you don't like the new one?
What was your mate offered? Sorry he's not allowed to tell you.
What about a new employee? They have to accept whatever is offered. Why is this not coercion?
HR Manager "Sorry your crewing company A has just been wound up... but we have an excellent opportunity in crewing company B, sign here please"
Just a few things to think about on election day.
What happens when the AWA expires and you don't like the new one?
What was your mate offered? Sorry he's not allowed to tell you.
What about a new employee? They have to accept whatever is offered. Why is this not coercion?
HR Manager "Sorry your crewing company A has just been wound up... but we have an excellent opportunity in crewing company B, sign here please"
Just a few things to think about on election day.
Last edited by freddyKrueger; 27th May 2007 at 08:09.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In just over one year as an independent agency, OWS has recovered over $11.4 million for more than 7400 employees across Australia."
It is indeed very regrettable major employers in the airline industry appear intent upon exploiting staff. In the short term, supply and demand for experienced aircrew may dictate terms and conditions, as it should be.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hot'n'spicy
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nat Jet on ABC
Print Email
Last Update: Sunday, May 27, 2007. 7:01pm (AEST)
Firm charged over forced AWAs
A major aviation company has been charged with forcing three of its pilots to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).
It is alleged National Jet Systems withheld pay rises the pilots were entitled to under their existing AWAs to pressure them into signing new agreements.
The Office of Workplace Services (OWS) says the Perth-based company rejected numerous opportunities to rectify the alleged underpayments.
More than 800 people work for National Jet Systems, which provides airline charter, freight and passenger services.
The OWS is seeking penalties in the Federal Magistrates Court in Perth for the duress and the alleged underpayments.
The office also wants an order ensuring any other underpayments by the company are rectified.
Last Update: Sunday, May 27, 2007. 7:01pm (AEST)
Firm charged over forced AWAs
A major aviation company has been charged with forcing three of its pilots to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).
It is alleged National Jet Systems withheld pay rises the pilots were entitled to under their existing AWAs to pressure them into signing new agreements.
The Office of Workplace Services (OWS) says the Perth-based company rejected numerous opportunities to rectify the alleged underpayments.
More than 800 people work for National Jet Systems, which provides airline charter, freight and passenger services.
The OWS is seeking penalties in the Federal Magistrates Court in Perth for the duress and the alleged underpayments.
The office also wants an order ensuring any other underpayments by the company are rectified.
Air Ace,
With respect, you write of utopia. Workers don't have awards or join unions because they want to, they are forced into it by their employers. This appears to be a classic case in point. It seems NJS are doing this ONLY because the current laws allow them to.
There are hundreds of fine employees at NJS, and it seems weird that all of a sudden they (NJS) are hell-bent on sticking it up them.
Anybody who says AWAs are the way to go for a large aviation organisation, where the pilots hardly ever see the boss, let alone have him actually seeing them doing their job, just doesn't understand (or is a non-team backstabber willing to crawl over others to get into the left seat).
With respect, you write of utopia. Workers don't have awards or join unions because they want to, they are forced into it by their employers. This appears to be a classic case in point. It seems NJS are doing this ONLY because the current laws allow them to.
There are hundreds of fine employees at NJS, and it seems weird that all of a sudden they (NJS) are hell-bent on sticking it up them.
Anybody who says AWAs are the way to go for a large aviation organisation, where the pilots hardly ever see the boss, let alone have him actually seeing them doing their job, just doesn't understand (or is a non-team backstabber willing to crawl over others to get into the left seat).
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused
Air Ace
You are assuming the people who control your employment contract don't have their own interests at heart.
Performance pay systems distort.
Workchoices is about giving the employer the edge.
As an individual, unless my skill is dearly needed, I have no bargaining power. I have to accept what is offered. That is the problem with Workchoices. The only way I can ensure a resonable deal is to work within the EBA system.
If an employer is confrontational then there is a problem for the employee.
You are assuming the people who control your employment contract don't have their own interests at heart.
Performance pay systems distort.
Workchoices is about giving the employer the edge.
As an individual, unless my skill is dearly needed, I have no bargaining power. I have to accept what is offered. That is the problem with Workchoices. The only way I can ensure a resonable deal is to work within the EBA system.
If an employer is confrontational then there is a problem for the employee.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It seems NJS are doing this ONLY because the current laws allow them to.
Last edited by Howard Hughes; 27th May 2007 at 22:38.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a closet conspiracy theorist 
did anyone else notice that very conveniently, NO QF tails where shown? ironically, at least one of the chaps getting shafted is a 717/Qlink driver, being shafted ( indirectly ) by QF via NJS IMHO.
Hey Bloggsy, if you recommend me for a job on the Surv. Dash, I'll split the 5K with ya
did anyone else notice that very conveniently, NO QF tails where shown? ironically, at least one of the chaps getting shafted is a 717/Qlink driver, being shafted ( indirectly ) by QF via NJS IMHO.Hey Bloggsy, if you recommend me for a job on the Surv. Dash, I'll split the 5K with ya
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Someone mentioned '89???
Which party was in POWER when INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS were "introduced" in that time in history???
Which UNION stood up and said it was NO GOOD??
What unions did nothing, "it won't happen to us!!!"
A lot of people need to revisit history.
Which party was in POWER when INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS were "introduced" in that time in history???
Which UNION stood up and said it was NO GOOD??
What unions did nothing, "it won't happen to us!!!"
A lot of people need to revisit history.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know the answer to the first question Mr Beard, now please enlighten me and others about the rest...
Work Choice AWA's = "Betwixt and Between"
Greybeard i agree entirely about your comments re : 89 ; but the problem some of us face is these new AWA's are even "more sinister".
the "fairness test" will not apply to "our" eba when it finishes/terminates and has to be "transferred" in 18 months time.
a mate of mine in National J?? was explaining in great detail what they are trying to do to pilots their.
work choice awa's are a recipe for abuse !!!!
cheers
dijon moutard
the "fairness test" will not apply to "our" eba when it finishes/terminates and has to be "transferred" in 18 months time.
a mate of mine in National J?? was explaining in great detail what they are trying to do to pilots their.
work choice awa's are a recipe for abuse !!!!
cheers
dijon moutard
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I understand that there are many folk out there who are still bitter about the 89 dispute. Just as there are many who are still bitter about the SEQEB dispute in 85 in Qld. But the important point is that those two disputes have nothing in common with the current workplace laws at all.
In the 89 dispute a union (on behalf of its members) made claims upon employers which the employer (and the government of the day) deemed to be unreasonable. Both the employer and government put a lot of dollars into winning the dispute (at a huge personal and financial cost to many pilots and other airline staff).
The current workplace laws however are designed to ensure that no organisation or group of employees can make ANY claims upon their employers at all. By introducing AWA's and removing the ability for unions to recruit members and then negotiate on behalf of members the potential for an employee to make any meaningful improvement to their terms and conditions is nullified.
The anti-coercion laws are little more than a cosmetic assurance that all employees will be treated fairly. It is absolutely true that AWA's can be compulsory for new staff and it is also true that existing staff can be advised that the only access they will have to future pay increases is by virtue of an AWA. If an existing employee refuses to sign an AWA an employer is well within their rights to offer no further wage increases until the employees wage is equal to the minimum wage or Australian Pay and Classification Scale for their role.
When this position is maintained and any attempts to commence collective bargaining are resisted by the employer (very easy nowdays), all employees will eventually end up being covered by an AWA. Of course all AWA's will have different expirey dates so that they never line up and give the employees the opportunity to negotiate collectively again.
I haven't seen any instances where the implementation of an AWA has meant an improvement of standards for the employee concerned.
In the 89 dispute a union (on behalf of its members) made claims upon employers which the employer (and the government of the day) deemed to be unreasonable. Both the employer and government put a lot of dollars into winning the dispute (at a huge personal and financial cost to many pilots and other airline staff).
The current workplace laws however are designed to ensure that no organisation or group of employees can make ANY claims upon their employers at all. By introducing AWA's and removing the ability for unions to recruit members and then negotiate on behalf of members the potential for an employee to make any meaningful improvement to their terms and conditions is nullified.
The anti-coercion laws are little more than a cosmetic assurance that all employees will be treated fairly. It is absolutely true that AWA's can be compulsory for new staff and it is also true that existing staff can be advised that the only access they will have to future pay increases is by virtue of an AWA. If an existing employee refuses to sign an AWA an employer is well within their rights to offer no further wage increases until the employees wage is equal to the minimum wage or Australian Pay and Classification Scale for their role.
When this position is maintained and any attempts to commence collective bargaining are resisted by the employer (very easy nowdays), all employees will eventually end up being covered by an AWA. Of course all AWA's will have different expirey dates so that they never line up and give the employees the opportunity to negotiate collectively again.
I haven't seen any instances where the implementation of an AWA has meant an improvement of standards for the employee concerned.
If an existing employee refuses to sign an AWA an employer is well within their rights to offer no further wage increases until the employees wage is equal to the minimum wage or Australian Pay and Classification Scale for their role.
This is different from the more draconian Workchoices AWAs, where the words are "until replaced or terminated". "terminated" can be by unilateral action by the employer (or employee for that matter) with 90 days notice and no recourse.
I haven't seen any instances where the implementation of an AWA has meant an improvement of standards for the employee concerned.
