Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011]
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: GOLD COAST
Age: 44
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great result, congratulations L.M. It really takes a spine and a lot courage to stand up for yourself.
I think there could be a storm further north where the cyclone hit.
The two Dmm's and certain seniors should take note because they employ the same tactics that have been exposed here.
If anyone decided to take action, the outcome would be the same.
I think there could be a storm further north where the cyclone hit.
The two Dmm's and certain seniors should take note because they employ the same tactics that have been exposed here.
If anyone decided to take action, the outcome would be the same.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who want to read the decision
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 58 (11 February 2011)
Cheers
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 58 (11 February 2011)
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunnysville
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without trying to get personal, which everyone else seems happy do do in slagging off PC, those that know will know the litigious history of this fellow and may well alter their opinion if they knew the trouble he has caused for many a fellow worker over the years.
As for the ALAEA's involvement, not the first time money has been wasted on a frivolous claim but if a member, genuine or not, approaches the asn with a grievance, what can they say? Pull your head in, i know what you're entitled to but is it really worth spending tens of thousands of dollars? This is clear when the case proceeded even though the entitlement issue had been settled.
In reading the transcript it was clear from day one he was setting this up for litigation, as his history would dictate. He has also ensured that he dragged as many people in on the issue as he could. this is a standard MO for person's of a litigious nature.
We all know that trips are about swings and roundabouts, sometimes its a tough one, the hours aren't real good, the a/c is a bucket and the beer's warm. Other times you come home thinking how good is this, and feel guilty putting in your expense claim.
If I wanted to nit pick, then I'd put in WTMB (work through meal break) for about a 200 days for my time at the SIT. But being a fair and reasonable person, I'd remember the days when I'd sit on my arse waiting 4 hours for a late aircraft, or do 4 hrs OT for a bay 22 737 transit. Yeah sure, I know what I'm entitled to, and if i asked for it there would be some grumbling and groaning from my DMM but could you blame him?
People are picked for trips based on whether they get the job done without fuss and deal with non-standard issues/defects efficiently. If you come home from a trip and tie up a manager's time for a month with petty sh!t, don't complain when you get overlooked for the next one.
Before you slag me off as a management stooge, I was a LAME for 17 years and proud member of the asn.
As for PC, he was an excellent LAME/Snr LAME at SIT and very well respected by his peers, from memory he may have also been a union rep at some stage (AMWU).
To the moderators, I'd be dissapointed if this thread was locked now only after someone is defending PC but I do understand your position.
As for the ALAEA's involvement, not the first time money has been wasted on a frivolous claim but if a member, genuine or not, approaches the asn with a grievance, what can they say? Pull your head in, i know what you're entitled to but is it really worth spending tens of thousands of dollars? This is clear when the case proceeded even though the entitlement issue had been settled.
In reading the transcript it was clear from day one he was setting this up for litigation, as his history would dictate. He has also ensured that he dragged as many people in on the issue as he could. this is a standard MO for person's of a litigious nature.
We all know that trips are about swings and roundabouts, sometimes its a tough one, the hours aren't real good, the a/c is a bucket and the beer's warm. Other times you come home thinking how good is this, and feel guilty putting in your expense claim.
If I wanted to nit pick, then I'd put in WTMB (work through meal break) for about a 200 days for my time at the SIT. But being a fair and reasonable person, I'd remember the days when I'd sit on my arse waiting 4 hours for a late aircraft, or do 4 hrs OT for a bay 22 737 transit. Yeah sure, I know what I'm entitled to, and if i asked for it there would be some grumbling and groaning from my DMM but could you blame him?
People are picked for trips based on whether they get the job done without fuss and deal with non-standard issues/defects efficiently. If you come home from a trip and tie up a manager's time for a month with petty sh!t, don't complain when you get overlooked for the next one.
Before you slag me off as a management stooge, I was a LAME for 17 years and proud member of the asn.
As for PC, he was an excellent LAME/Snr LAME at SIT and very well respected by his peers, from memory he may have also been a union rep at some stage (AMWU).
To the moderators, I'd be dissapointed if this thread was locked now only after someone is defending PC but I do understand your position.
Maybe Magoo, but those four hours you could have been home with the family. So you should be paid overtime.
As for working through your meals, if you don't claim them, you are setting precedent. It then becomes unofficial policy to not claim them. When more junior guys put in a claim, management will say "Magoo" doesn't claim these, are you sure you want to? These fellas then could be labelled troublemakers and given the work no one else wants to do. Sooner or later they'll fall into line when they are sick of working the red eye.
Fair enough, there is a little give and take in any relationship. These days however it's all give and no take from a faceless corporation like Qantas.
Get what you're entitled too, give a fair days work, and get a fair days pay for doing it.
As for working through your meals, if you don't claim them, you are setting precedent. It then becomes unofficial policy to not claim them. When more junior guys put in a claim, management will say "Magoo" doesn't claim these, are you sure you want to? These fellas then could be labelled troublemakers and given the work no one else wants to do. Sooner or later they'll fall into line when they are sick of working the red eye.
Fair enough, there is a little give and take in any relationship. These days however it's all give and no take from a faceless corporation like Qantas.
Get what you're entitled too, give a fair days work, and get a fair days pay for doing it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's obviously a long time since you've worked at QF Magoo. The days of goodwill from the company are long gone cobber. Doing things like working 6hrs+ without a meal break isn't going to get you a pat on the back or an early home time or any kind of goodwill from the company these days. On the contrary, you'll get nothing but buggery and disrespect from all levels of management.
I'm not here to knock PC either. I worked with him years ago and never had a problem with him. But I've also worked with Licka and I can tell you that all that bullsh!t you just said about him is exactly that.
It's about time the matey club of can-do men in line maint was broken up and every deserving LAME had an equal opportunity to the jollies.
I'm not here to knock PC either. I worked with him years ago and never had a problem with him. But I've also worked with Licka and I can tell you that all that bullsh!t you just said about him is exactly that.
It's about time the matey club of can-do men in line maint was broken up and every deserving LAME had an equal opportunity to the jollies.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunnysville
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing against a fair days work for a fair days pay. Some people need to get out in the real world, do you honestly believe that Qantas is any different or more special in the way it screws employees. All you can hope for is a balanced screwing, it was like that when I was there and it hasn't changed, sometimes just more obvious with a different pair of hands on your shoulders.
And as for Licka..... I've just deleted what i wrote in this post due to the fact that the people on the receiving end know exactly the sort of person he is....
Jet-A-one, "Jollies", was that a Freudian slip? Are you admitting that trips aren't that hard? Exactly what i was getting at. For example, spending 2 hours on a transit, 8 hours sightseeing, 2 hours on a transit then back to the hotel for 2 days.... then claiming the whole day as "working". That's the sort of sh!t I'm getting at. And you wonder why a Manager rolls their eyes when you put in the expense claim, they're not stupid (most of the time).
I don't want to get in to a tit for tat slanging match, my opinion is that the employer/employee relationship needs to be balanced and flexible. Some LAME's see their job as getting as much as they can out of the company cause the company's intention is to screw them at every turn.
Some people need to give up the conspiracy complex and just get on with the job.
Certainly not going to help your case with the EBA negotiations.
And as for Licka..... I've just deleted what i wrote in this post due to the fact that the people on the receiving end know exactly the sort of person he is....
Jet-A-one, "Jollies", was that a Freudian slip? Are you admitting that trips aren't that hard? Exactly what i was getting at. For example, spending 2 hours on a transit, 8 hours sightseeing, 2 hours on a transit then back to the hotel for 2 days.... then claiming the whole day as "working". That's the sort of sh!t I'm getting at. And you wonder why a Manager rolls their eyes when you put in the expense claim, they're not stupid (most of the time).
I don't want to get in to a tit for tat slanging match, my opinion is that the employer/employee relationship needs to be balanced and flexible. Some LAME's see their job as getting as much as they can out of the company cause the company's intention is to screw them at every turn.
Some people need to give up the conspiracy complex and just get on with the job.
Certainly not going to help your case with the EBA negotiations.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magoo ,
I knew PC when he was an apprentice in the Engine shop , a staunch Union man when a tradesman and Union delegate of a Union not an Association . Top bloke , who I have kept in touch with over many years two sides to every story and I would like to hear PC before casting judgement .
I knew PC when he was an apprentice in the Engine shop , a staunch Union man when a tradesman and Union delegate of a Union not an Association . Top bloke , who I have kept in touch with over many years two sides to every story and I would like to hear PC before casting judgement .
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
I dont know either of them so I can only go on what I read in the judgement and 2nd hand experience with Narita.
Not sure if you have been there of late but it is not a cushy gig.Far from it from what I am told.Some are cushy, some not.There are agreed conditions and should not be undercut.If it is a cruisy deal that is not the engineers problem.If the posting involves lots of nil tens, long hours the award deals with that clearly.
The courts will deal with the facts from the case in front of it.The past means jack shyte.It matters not what you or anyone else thinks of them from past dealings.
Not sure if you have been there of late but it is not a cushy gig.Far from it from what I am told.Some are cushy, some not.There are agreed conditions and should not be undercut.If it is a cruisy deal that is not the engineers problem.If the posting involves lots of nil tens, long hours the award deals with that clearly.
The courts will deal with the facts from the case in front of it.The past means jack shyte.It matters not what you or anyone else thinks of them from past dealings.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know the manager either but what he was in a former role is completely irrelevant to what he is today. If he was a Rep as an AME does that make it ok to threaten LAMEs when they try and claim a legitimate entitlement? If he has some friends or people who like him is that a green light to turn around to a bunch of others and say that they will not be given offerings of posting because one of their mates wanted to get paid correctly?
This manager has won the title as being the first manager in Australia in any company to be found guilty of illegal coercion against an employee under section 343 of the FWA. He has broken countless Qantas policies in the process when he is meant to lead by example.
Do you two supporters think this is ok because you know or remember him as a good bloke?
This manager has won the title as being the first manager in Australia in any company to be found guilty of illegal coercion against an employee under section 343 of the FWA. He has broken countless Qantas policies in the process when he is meant to lead by example.
Do you two supporters think this is ok because you know or remember him as a good bloke?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunnysville
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A manager who became frustrated with an unreasonable employee is nothing new. Unfortunately PC was set up from the beginning.
Courts deal with paper facts.
Not with personalities and past known behaviours. Glad it's not my money you're wasting.
Courts deal with paper facts.
Not with personalities and past known behaviours. Glad it's not my money you're wasting.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering if you can answer the questions at all. There are three and here they are-
If he was a Rep as an AME does that make it ok to threaten LAMEs when they try and claim a legitimate entitlement?
If he has some friends or people who like him is that a green light to turn around to a bunch of others and say that they will not be given offerings of posting because one of their mates wanted to get paid correctly?
Do you two supporters think this is ok because you know or remember him as a good bloke?
If he was a Rep as an AME does that make it ok to threaten LAMEs when they try and claim a legitimate entitlement?
If he has some friends or people who like him is that a green light to turn around to a bunch of others and say that they will not be given offerings of posting because one of their mates wanted to get paid correctly?
Do you two supporters think this is ok because you know or remember him as a good bloke?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wanted to point out one thing for those reading this. There are plenty of good members who have been offered these postings from time to time and they themselves are not mates and may not even know Cawthorne or the other managers who make the selections.
It is the system that is flawed. It has an underlying or unsaid rule that those who buck the system do not fit and should not be part of it. This case has exposed the system that allows for discrimination because a manager said and put in writing the unsaid laws that regulate overseas postings.
Since our notice of last week, two members have contacted us to say that they had tried to make similar claims in the past. They were told to get knicked and removed from the list of persons who could be selected for overseas work. This is absolutely unfair to these blokes.
The ALAEA will be supporting any member who comes forward to claim money they are entitled to. We don't want those guys excluded or put on an unofficial blacklist becasue of this. For this reason it is imperative that everyone claim the unpaid money so we are all in the same boat and nobody can be excluded.
As union members we do not fight for wage Agreements only to have management dishonour the terms because they can. The only reason they get away with it is becasue some members allow them to.
It is the system that is flawed. It has an underlying or unsaid rule that those who buck the system do not fit and should not be part of it. This case has exposed the system that allows for discrimination because a manager said and put in writing the unsaid laws that regulate overseas postings.
Since our notice of last week, two members have contacted us to say that they had tried to make similar claims in the past. They were told to get knicked and removed from the list of persons who could be selected for overseas work. This is absolutely unfair to these blokes.
The ALAEA will be supporting any member who comes forward to claim money they are entitled to. We don't want those guys excluded or put on an unofficial blacklist becasue of this. For this reason it is imperative that everyone claim the unpaid money so we are all in the same boat and nobody can be excluded.
As union members we do not fight for wage Agreements only to have management dishonour the terms because they can. The only reason they get away with it is becasue some members allow them to.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said fed sec and well done to the team for a great result....I was going to reply to the post from "magoon" yesterday but was too angry after reading it and would let the other posters attack him,cannot see how PC was set up from the start ???...for some that dont know there are several requirements you have to have before you can do these "jollies" and that makes the numbers small to start,but do agree that some are kept in a boys club....rim