Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011]
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also play these "Smartest guys in the room" back with their own rules.
They can't legally wriggle out then.
Have a look at Qantas' "Standards of Conduct Policy manual ", downloadable from the company website.
Have a look at the following sections for example
s2.2 Key principles underpinning the qantas group's Standards of Conduct Policy are building and fostering a culture in which diversity is valued and seeking to provide a workplace that is free from Discrimination, Harassment, threats, intimidation and humiliation
s5.1 particularly "Managers also have responsibilites as employees."
s6.1 Standards of personal Behaviour.
(a) Acting with honesty and integrity
(ii) never misuse any privilege, authority or status.
s9.4 Unlawful Discrimination ...... In Australia, unlawful grounds include, but not limited to:
(k) trade union membership/industrial activity.
s10 Harassment
s10.1........ Harassment can take many forms. it may be verbal, phisical, written or pictorial. Harassment is usually a pattern of behaviour but one act may constitute Harassment if it is serious.
s10.2 ties in with section 9.4
s16.26 failure to comply with any company or applicable qantas Group policy
s17.1 When the conduct of an Employee (includes Management s5.1) does not meet the standard od conduct required by the Company, appropriate corrective action WILL be taken, which may include termination of employment.
s17.6 reports/Complaints
(c) Staff should be aware that it is possible for an individual to be sued or prosecuted separately from the Company in respect of complaints of workplace Harassment, discrimination and Bullying and that they may be personally liable for any penalties imposed by a court breach of legislation.
s17.18 Procedural fairness..... In any investigation
(a) allegations should be provided to the Respondent ,generally in writing
(b) the respondent is entitled to know the substance of any allegations or complaint(s) against them;
(e) the Company MUST consider the response of the respondent;
(f) correct and thorough documentation must be maintained, so far as reasonably practicable;
This section is important. Qantas Management have a habit of keeping these type of incidences on the quiet, rarely any written paper trail. Keep the bastards honest!
s17.19 The investigation process guidelines
s17.21 (a) iv whether the investigation process guidelines set out in this Policy has generally been followed.
s19 Compliance
19.1 Managers and People representatives of each Entity/Business Unit are resposible for monitoring and enforcing compliance of this policy.
19.2 any identified breaches of this Policy should be reported to the relevant Entity/ Business Unit People representative.
Just a quick precis, but I've found if you use "their" own rules against them it then limits "their" lawyers wriggle room.
They can't legally wriggle out then.
Have a look at Qantas' "Standards of Conduct Policy manual ", downloadable from the company website.
Have a look at the following sections for example
s2.2 Key principles underpinning the qantas group's Standards of Conduct Policy are building and fostering a culture in which diversity is valued and seeking to provide a workplace that is free from Discrimination, Harassment, threats, intimidation and humiliation
s5.1 particularly "Managers also have responsibilites as employees."
s6.1 Standards of personal Behaviour.
(a) Acting with honesty and integrity
(ii) never misuse any privilege, authority or status.
s9.4 Unlawful Discrimination ...... In Australia, unlawful grounds include, but not limited to:
(k) trade union membership/industrial activity.
s10 Harassment
s10.1........ Harassment can take many forms. it may be verbal, phisical, written or pictorial. Harassment is usually a pattern of behaviour but one act may constitute Harassment if it is serious.
s10.2 ties in with section 9.4
s16.26 failure to comply with any company or applicable qantas Group policy
s17.1 When the conduct of an Employee (includes Management s5.1) does not meet the standard od conduct required by the Company, appropriate corrective action WILL be taken, which may include termination of employment.
s17.6 reports/Complaints
(c) Staff should be aware that it is possible for an individual to be sued or prosecuted separately from the Company in respect of complaints of workplace Harassment, discrimination and Bullying and that they may be personally liable for any penalties imposed by a court breach of legislation.
s17.18 Procedural fairness..... In any investigation
(a) allegations should be provided to the Respondent ,generally in writing
(b) the respondent is entitled to know the substance of any allegations or complaint(s) against them;
(e) the Company MUST consider the response of the respondent;
(f) correct and thorough documentation must be maintained, so far as reasonably practicable;
This section is important. Qantas Management have a habit of keeping these type of incidences on the quiet, rarely any written paper trail. Keep the bastards honest!
s17.19 The investigation process guidelines
s17.21 (a) iv whether the investigation process guidelines set out in this Policy has generally been followed.
s19 Compliance
19.1 Managers and People representatives of each Entity/Business Unit are resposible for monitoring and enforcing compliance of this policy.
19.2 any identified breaches of this Policy should be reported to the relevant Entity/ Business Unit People representative.
Just a quick precis, but I've found if you use "their" own rules against them it then limits "their" lawyers wriggle room.
Last edited by blow.n.gasket; 9th May 2012 at 02:08.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that the ALAEA will be publicly calling for the manager concerned to be removed from his employment once the penalties are handed down in court?
How can the Senior Qantas management and other employees have confidence in the Qantas system if he is not appropriately penalized for his actions.
He, and Qantas as an organisation, have been found guilty under Australian law, and not some company doctrine. He deserves to lose his employment, as this is serious.
Will Qantas want to be seen as the defenders of workplace bullying?
I would bet that if this occurred at VAH, he would be stood down awaiting the final court decision. Yet at Qantas, he is allowed to continue face to face contact with employees.
How can the Senior Qantas management and other employees have confidence in the Qantas system if he is not appropriately penalized for his actions.
He, and Qantas as an organisation, have been found guilty under Australian law, and not some company doctrine. He deserves to lose his employment, as this is serious.
Will Qantas want to be seen as the defenders of workplace bullying?
I would bet that if this occurred at VAH, he would be stood down awaiting the final court decision. Yet at Qantas, he is allowed to continue face to face contact with employees.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
bug a lugs.The manager concerned is clearly due for promotion.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is already supported by upper management as they made the call to appeal the first decision, in other words they thought he (the manager)had done no wrong and were prepared to waste thousands of dollars defending him in the misguideded belief that the worker should work for free if he works longer than 38 hours while he's on secondment(and if you don't carry out overtime for free you won't be selected for an overseas secondment.) After all, managers don't get paid extra for working more than 38 hours why should he?
Jealousy and KPIs are a bitch ain't they. ( if your a manager)
Jealousy and KPIs are a bitch ain't they. ( if your a manager)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ha, they made a morally bankrupt decision and now it has bitten them on the arse. (not so much by the fine, more from exposing themselve as the bastards they have been)Got to question Senior management judgement to pursue this to this extent. More money wasted needlessly. Prob still wont admit they were wrong though.So much for the work place ethics training they get their staff to do. They dont practice what they preach.Hippocracy at its finest.
The financial penalties were just a joke.
Over a hundred thousand bucks in legal fees and a miniscule penalty outcome.
Over a hundred thousand bucks in legal fees and a miniscule penalty outcome.
Last edited by Arnold E; 16th Aug 2012 at 07:40.
Qantas fined
ABC News reports:
In a decision lawyers describe as a warning to bullies, Qantas and one of its managers have been fined for mistreating an employee who complained about his conditions.
The aircraft engineer made a claim for entitlements arising from an overseas posting.
The company retaliated by suspending further postings.
The Federal Magistrates Court fined the company and a manager a total of $15,500.
And for the first time under the Fair Work Act, the Court found the employee was subjected to unlawful coercion to withdraw his complaint.
Read the full news report here
Qantas fined $15,500 for mistreating worker - Yahoo!7 Finance Australia
In a decision lawyers describe as a warning to bullies, Qantas and one of its managers have been fined for mistreating an employee who complained about his conditions.
The aircraft engineer made a claim for entitlements arising from an overseas posting.
The company retaliated by suspending further postings.
The Federal Magistrates Court fined the company and a manager a total of $15,500.
And for the first time under the Fair Work Act, the Court found the employee was subjected to unlawful coercion to withdraw his complaint.
Read the full news report here
Qantas fined $15,500 for mistreating worker - Yahoo!7 Finance Australia
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is refreshing to see the managers being held personally responsible and fined rather than simply the corporate penalty hopefully it will make some think twice before they simply toe the company line.
A little disappointed with the values of the fine though and does not really send out an effective warning to other as a token fine could just be re-imbursed through a small enhancement at bonus time when they all pat themselves on the back for achieving bean-counting KPI's.
Nonetheless the decision is an important one.
More to Follow
The Kelpie
A little disappointed with the values of the fine though and does not really send out an effective warning to other as a token fine could just be re-imbursed through a small enhancement at bonus time when they all pat themselves on the back for achieving bean-counting KPI's.
Nonetheless the decision is an important one.
More to Follow
The Kelpie
Last edited by The Kelpie; 16th Aug 2012 at 00:23.
What a shame it came to that, a court case that had or will have minimal impact on the company at fault, QF. It's somewhat obvious to us laypersons that our judicial system is sadly lacking in strength to make an impact for any future cases.
But I guess we are talking about QF here, a protected species albeit a dieing one.
A very sad indictment on what was once a great Aussie icon, now just a company that's rotting within.
I hope the engineer in question here can at least get some peace of mind.
I also don't think this thread will last too long,we can't have yet another QF bagging thread now can we?
Wmk2
But I guess we are talking about QF here, a protected species albeit a dieing one.
A very sad indictment on what was once a great Aussie icon, now just a company that's rotting within.
I hope the engineer in question here can at least get some peace of mind.
I also don't think this thread will last too long,we can't have yet another QF bagging thread now can we?
Wmk2
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At QF, for a Manager that is a good thing. No doubt he was promoted?
Last edited by gobbledock; 16th Aug 2012 at 06:14.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I should just put a bit more clarity to this. The entire case was run on a no costs jurisdiction. That means neither party can "win" costs off the other regardless of the result.
The ALAEA spent about 100k to run this. I estimate (from the trolleys they wheeled into the courtroom) that Qf would have spent between half to one million defending their actions. You could add that figure to he 15k they were eventually hit with. Still nothing however compared to the freight fines they agreed to.
I suspect it would really hurt them to have to pay these fines to the ALAEA, for us this is a heartening result. The fines were higher than our legal team thought may be handed down. Speaking to Luke when the whole case kicked off, we both agreed that a $1 fine would be enough to bring a smile to our faces.
Qantas are one of the first companies to be found guilty of breaching the adverse action sections of the FWA. Fines were mid range but should they be caught again (and we have already commenced another case at Sunstate), the first offence goes against them and the next fines will increase. The Sunstate case is for 6 breaches so fines could be based higher and times by 6. It would also set a solid base for a major class action for a large group of employees to each hit them should they do something like ground their airline for an incorrect purpose such as pressuring the govt to bail them out. Now there is a project we could all look into.
The Manager who was found guilty has already been moved. I suspect it has something to do with this case but not sure. He is the first manager in this country to be found guilty of illegal coercion under the FWA. It sends a clear message to others that there are consequences for treating people poorly.
Thnx to Luke for supporting this case and following ALAEA advice from the outset. What he has done will not help him with his QF career but will go some way to helping each and every one of us. If you ever pass through Bne International and bump into LAME Luke Murray shake his hand or buy him beer, he is a loyal supporter of our industry.
The ALAEA spent about 100k to run this. I estimate (from the trolleys they wheeled into the courtroom) that Qf would have spent between half to one million defending their actions. You could add that figure to he 15k they were eventually hit with. Still nothing however compared to the freight fines they agreed to.
I suspect it would really hurt them to have to pay these fines to the ALAEA, for us this is a heartening result. The fines were higher than our legal team thought may be handed down. Speaking to Luke when the whole case kicked off, we both agreed that a $1 fine would be enough to bring a smile to our faces.
Qantas are one of the first companies to be found guilty of breaching the adverse action sections of the FWA. Fines were mid range but should they be caught again (and we have already commenced another case at Sunstate), the first offence goes against them and the next fines will increase. The Sunstate case is for 6 breaches so fines could be based higher and times by 6. It would also set a solid base for a major class action for a large group of employees to each hit them should they do something like ground their airline for an incorrect purpose such as pressuring the govt to bail them out. Now there is a project we could all look into.
The Manager who was found guilty has already been moved. I suspect it has something to do with this case but not sure. He is the first manager in this country to be found guilty of illegal coercion under the FWA. It sends a clear message to others that there are consequences for treating people poorly.
Thnx to Luke for supporting this case and following ALAEA advice from the outset. What he has done will not help him with his QF career but will go some way to helping each and every one of us. If you ever pass through Bne International and bump into LAME Luke Murray shake his hand or buy him beer, he is a loyal supporter of our industry.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like ground their airline for an incorrect purpose such as pressuring the govt to bail them out.
What if the chief of the Water Board, an Energy Supplier or even a Bank had, to further their industrial agenda, turned off the taps, power grid or closed it's branch doors and shut down it's online site?
But it appeared shutting down the airline was OK? Hooroo!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the chief of the Water Board, an Energy Supplier or even a Bank had, to further their industrial agenda, turned off the taps, power grid or closed its branch doors and shut down its online site?
Who run Barter Town?
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 18th Aug 2012 at 11:38.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if critical infastructure/utilities were still government/taxpayer owned would it be costing us more than it is now?
Me thinks we are truely being taken to the cleaners (also in corporate hands)
Me thinks we are truely being taken to the cleaners (also in corporate hands)
