Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

"Qantas Group" PIA... one for the lawyers

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

"Qantas Group" PIA... one for the lawyers

Old 12th May 2011, 08:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
"Qantas Group" PIA... one for the lawyers

Jetstar, Qantaslink and Jetconnect staff aren't allowed to participate in Qantas PIA as they are employed by separate legal entities.
These entities are however identified as subsidiary companies of Qantas Airways Limited and form part of the "Qantas Group".
Question:
Is it possible to have companies within the "Qantas Group" identified as a single entity in the eyes of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission? (Especially as staff perform the same functions across all subsidiaries)
Could a precedent be set and legal unity achieved for the participants of those companies within the group?

I want the legal right to support my peers performing the same role within the same group and industry.
L8ngtkite is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 08:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 952
In a word...

No.

Briefly, to legally participate in PIA you must be a member of the union conducting the PIA AND you must have been a member of that union working for the company in question when the ballot was done (i.e. eligible to vote on the PIA in question).

Both the AFAP and AIPA conducted PIA ballots during the recent Eastern EBA negotiations.

In the above case, if AIPA had conducted PIA, only the AIPA members who were eligible to participate in the ballot could legally take PIA. Any AIPA members joining after the ballot would not be eligible, neither would any Eastern AFAP members nor would any AIPA members who were flying for Sunstate.

DIVOSH!

(P.S. Neither the AFAP or AIPA conducted PIA)

Last edited by Di_Vosh; 12th May 2011 at 09:08.
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 13:25
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 27
Also, you have to be working under an award that is being negotiated, ie long haul award in this case. So Q 737 drivers wont be able to participate in any PIA...
carbonneutral is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 14:57
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 259
That is how our free society works!! Protests must be approved!
flyingfox is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 15:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 201
No, they don't have to be approved. But if they aren't you won't be "protected".
HF3000 is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 15:48
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Thanks for explaining the situation. I'm not alone in struggling to find a meaningful way to support the pilots, engineers, cabin crew and ground support staff who actually do the work. Letters of complaint to local Federal members of Parliament have been written. Institutional shareholders have been petitioned. Feet have been stamped. All to no avail.
In the face of a silent government and opposition perhaps it's time to rouse the electorate by way of media campaign sponsored by a coalition of unions explaining that a negative result in FWA may well have harmful and lasting ramifications for the wider Australian workforce and community. The Resource sector in particular. Our last great hope.

(It worked for "Twiggy" and the mining magnates when opposing the Resource Super Profits Tax)
L8ngtkite is offline  
Old 12th May 2011, 22:45
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Yeah just be very careful. If you're not in Qantas mainline then you won't be covered by the PIA, so theoretically they can hang you out to dry if you get caught doing anything which could be construed as industrial action. This can basically be anything which is different from your "normal" routine.

However non-AIPA members who are in Qantas mainline are covered by the PIA, as long as they individually notify the company of their intent to participate.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 01:25
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 952
However non-AIPA members who are in Qantas mainline are covered by the PIA, as long as they individually notify the company of their intent to participate.
Dutchroll, Not saying that you're wrong, but if you were going to do that I think you'd want the relevant legislation in front of you. Otherwise...


DIVOSH!
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 04:10
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Fair Work Act, Section 410, Para (1) (b) (ii), pages 345-346.

You don't have to be an AIPA (or union) member. You have to be "an employee covered by the agreement". If you are covered by the Long Haul Award, authorised PIA is valid whether you're an AIPA member or not. BUT, you must comply with the notification requirements in Section 414. If you're an AIPA member, they do this on your behalf. If you're not, you'd have to do it yourself.

So yeah, tread carefully. But it can be done. Just sayin', ya know......
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 04:25
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Dutchroll you may want to refer to a few other sections of the Fair Work Act.....

At the end of the day you can take PIA if you are on the roll of a PIA secret ballot. Now you don't have to vote in it, you could even vote no and still take PIA. But you must be on that roll.

Not every employee is automatically put on that roll.
ACT Crusader is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 05:37
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 753
Yep yep yep yep. I said before and fully acknowledge again, tread carefully.

There is still nothing preventing a non-union member covered by the EBA taking part in PIA, any more than a union member taking part in it, providing the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed. That was the original point I made. It hasn't changed.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 06:55
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,319
(It worked for "Twiggy" and the mining magnates when opposing the Resource Super Profits Tax
Wrong analogy. The golden rule applies. He who has the gold makes the rules, or put another way, those with the chequebooks have a lot of say about the rules.

Twiggy and his mates have a lot of gold and awfully big cheque books.

AIPA and Australian pilots in comparison have...........
waren9 is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 07:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
I reckon the key thing there was that management and employees were on the same side, opposing the mining tax and presenting a united front to the media.

They must live in some kind of parallel universe ....
'holic is offline  
Old 13th May 2011, 09:08
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Imagine that... management & line staff pulling in the same direction. Novel idea, I like it.
How about neglect of fiduciary responsibilities. Can't we challenge Mr Joyce & the Board on this front given the price fixing scandals that have happened on their watch? Decisions made contrary to the CEO's charter which have negatively affected Shareholder value & interests.
L8ngtkite is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.