Snap Qantas strike costs union a packet
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snap Qantas strike costs union a packet
A good outcome for Qantas.
THE Transport Workers Union has been ordered to pay Qantas $727,000 in compensation for an illegal snap strike by baggage handlers that caused chaos at airports across the nation.
The Federal Court has also hit the union with a separate $20,000 fine, handed its national secretary, Tony Sheldon, a $5000 penalty and fined other senior officials amounts ranging from $4000 to $1500.
The snap strike took place in 2009. Qantas and the Fair Work Ombudsman launched the action - which was covered by the Howard Government's WorkChoices act of 1996 - two years ago.
The decision comes as Qantas navigates an industrial relations minefield, facing showdowns with pilots, licensed engineers and the TWU over stalled enterprise bargaining agreements.
Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford yesterday hit out at the state of industrial relations under the Gillard Government, saying the conditions had almost reverted to the days before enterprise bargaining in the 1960s.
Speaking at a Melbourne business lunch, he said it was "ridiculous" that "peripheral issues" were plaguing negotiations.
"We've got to make sure we're productive and creative," he said.
Qantas long-haul pilots are this weekend due to begin limited industrial action, approved by Fair Work Australia, involving announcements to passengers about their concerns over job security.
Yesterday's decision by Federal Court Justice Michael Moore concerns a strike on March 29, 2009.
The Federal Court has also hit the union with a separate $20,000 fine, handed its national secretary, Tony Sheldon, a $5000 penalty and fined other senior officials amounts ranging from $4000 to $1500.
The snap strike took place in 2009. Qantas and the Fair Work Ombudsman launched the action - which was covered by the Howard Government's WorkChoices act of 1996 - two years ago.
The decision comes as Qantas navigates an industrial relations minefield, facing showdowns with pilots, licensed engineers and the TWU over stalled enterprise bargaining agreements.
Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford yesterday hit out at the state of industrial relations under the Gillard Government, saying the conditions had almost reverted to the days before enterprise bargaining in the 1960s.
Speaking at a Melbourne business lunch, he said it was "ridiculous" that "peripheral issues" were plaguing negotiations.
"We've got to make sure we're productive and creative," he said.
Qantas long-haul pilots are this weekend due to begin limited industrial action, approved by Fair Work Australia, involving announcements to passengers about their concerns over job security.
Yesterday's decision by Federal Court Justice Michael Moore concerns a strike on March 29, 2009.
Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford yesterday hit out at the state of industrial relations under the Gillard Government, saying the conditions had almost reverted to the days before enterprise bargaining in the 1960s.
This guy is clearly a nut case.I would like to see a return to the old days, but sadly I cant see that happening for various reasons.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas isn't allowed to "take action" against individuals who take protected action. So why should the airline not be allowed to protect itself when action undertaken by individuals is illegal. Isn't that why we have laws in the first place?
You have to look at it from a "companies" perspective as well. Although views are quite one-sided here.
You have to look at it from a "companies" perspective as well. Although views are quite one-sided here.
The TWU said it was reviewing the judgment but claimed Qantas had spent up to $5m of shareholders' money prosecuting the case.
"Qantas's decision to pursue this case must be questioned when one considers the amount of time, effort and money spent by the company, which must be several million dollars, balanced against the result it achieved," the union's lawyer, Michael Doherty, said.
"Qantas's decision to pursue this case must be questioned when one considers the amount of time, effort and money spent by the company, which must be several million dollars, balanced against the result it achieved," the union's lawyer, Michael Doherty, said.
Spending dollars to save cents.. Good use of someone elses money, boss.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: here
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to look at it from a "companies" perspective as well.
And why is that exactly? We have a vested interest in seeing Qantas prosper yet our own management undermines us, continually spreading lies to further their own greedy agenda. So, why should we look at things from a "companies" perspective??
Although views are quite one-sided here.
Too bl00dy right!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is the case. When a company purposely attacks the credibility and value and contribution of its employees then this has the effect of galvanising anti-management sentiment and reinforcing the "us vs them" mentality. This is a situation developed purely of the company's making. They chose to see us as the enemy and fight us tooth and nail rather than taking a concilliatory approach and working with us.
At the risk of being Harpooned here, T-Vasis has a point, and he has shown everyone here a valuable lesson. Don't take illegal industrial action against the Q as you can expect them to hit back. In the same way that if the Q did something illegal to the union then you would expect them to do the same. Every union who represents employees in the group should know better than to do anything that provides the Q with leverage, the TWU are no exception.
On a side note, you now know what the Qantas counter move is to that strategy...
Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you should go after the original poster with a pitchfork and noose. T-Vasis has just the same right to post here as everyone else, if you don't like what he is saying then combat it with a credible argument. Calling someone a troll or a tool is not an argument, all that does is undermine your credibility.
On a side note, you now know what the Qantas counter move is to that strategy...
Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you should go after the original poster with a pitchfork and noose. T-Vasis has just the same right to post here as everyone else, if you don't like what he is saying then combat it with a credible argument. Calling someone a troll or a tool is not an argument, all that does is undermine your credibility.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: here
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rmcdonal, with all due respect, given the current industrial climate at Qantas and the way the management group has and is conducting themselves, for T-Vasis to come on here and post an opening line "A good outcome for Qantas" is just plain silly. If you stick your chin out you are bound to get smacked. His post was inflammatory at best and he should be more measured if he wishes to engage discussion constructively without being the subject of ire.
At the risk of being Harpooned here, T-Vasis has a point, and he has shown everyone here a valuable lesson. Don't take illegal industrial action against the Q as you can expect them to hit back. In the same way that if the Q did something illegal to the union then you would expect them to do the same. Every union who represents employees in the group should know better than to do anything that provides the Q with leverage, the TWU are no exception.
In the right industrial climate it seems some would rather satisfy their ego then dare have the mere plebs who make the airline work be perceived to get one up.
I really look forward to the Sunstate ruling currently pending. I really do.
Boy talking about killing the messenger!
I 100% support the QF pilots and wish them well but to win they will have to work within the confines of the rules that are in place.
The TWU did not and it paid the price.
Some people have to lighten up here and see the big picture.
Post an item that does not agree with 'your' agenda and the poster is a "Troll'.
Anybody who tries to speak up is howled down.
Anybody that publishes an alternative opinion is a company stooge.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
You do your argument no favours at all with the spite and venom.
I 100% support the QF pilots and wish them well but to win they will have to work within the confines of the rules that are in place.
The TWU did not and it paid the price.
Some people have to lighten up here and see the big picture.
Post an item that does not agree with 'your' agenda and the poster is a "Troll'.
Anybody who tries to speak up is howled down.
Anybody that publishes an alternative opinion is a company stooge.
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
You do your argument no favours at all with the spite and venom.
So how do you explain Qantas docking staff 4 hours pay each day an aircraft was not flying at Sunstate for finding a defect with and engine?
I really look forward to the Sunstate ruling currently pending.
Moderator
...and post an opening line "A good outcome for Qantas" is just plain silly.
This is a valid thread and should provide many here of the consequences of acting outside our present industrial relations framework.
Qantas will be litigious if it chooses in achieving it's management objectives - even PPRuNe is not exempt - and QF staff need to rationally, reasonably and carefully consider their options before taking unapproved industrial relations action.
And rationally, reasonably and carefully consider their post on PPRuNe before hitting the enter button.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't support illegal activity. I am a shareholder and any illegal activity that unnecessary damages the company I invest in, bothers me.
Whilst I'd always want to see jobs stay in Australia and I understand the pilots and engineers perspectives, there's the reality.
It should be the government you voice your concerns with. It's government policy that's damaging the Australian aviation landscape.
There are a number of policy changes the government must change to ensure Qantas can continue to compete fairly.
Whilst I'd always want to see jobs stay in Australia and I understand the pilots and engineers perspectives, there's the reality.
It should be the government you voice your concerns with. It's government policy that's damaging the Australian aviation landscape.
There are a number of policy changes the government must change to ensure Qantas can continue to compete fairly.
Post an item that does not agree with 'your' agenda and the poster is a "Troll'.
Anybody who tries to speak up is howled down.
Anybody that publishes an alternative opinion is a company stooge.
Anybody who tries to speak up is howled down.
Anybody that publishes an alternative opinion is a company stooge.
There are at least two sides to any dispute.
In this case Qantas obviously did have a 'good outcome' from their perspective.
Was it good for the TWU? No.
I would suggest the poster was about as clear as he could be.
Perspective is a wonderful thing.
In this case Qantas obviously did have a 'good outcome' from their perspective.
Was it good for the TWU? No.
I would suggest the poster was about as clear as he could be.
Perspective is a wonderful thing.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't support illegal activity either. This is why I was quite angry at the cargo price-fixing cartel Qantas was involved in, which senior company executives had "no idea" was happening.
Nor do I support acts of bastardry and grotesque money-wasting which are not technically illegal, but are still bastardry and cost multi-millions of dollars all the same. Qantas is certainly familiar with these (and how to carry them out). Like during the last engineering dispute.
It still perplexes me why QF shareholders never really bother holding QF executives to account for all of this. I guess money just talks, while you're making profit.
But the original point is valid despite all of the above. Don't bust the law with industrial action or you might pay dearly for it, courtesy of a company with very deep legal pockets.
Nor do I support acts of bastardry and grotesque money-wasting which are not technically illegal, but are still bastardry and cost multi-millions of dollars all the same. Qantas is certainly familiar with these (and how to carry them out). Like during the last engineering dispute.
It still perplexes me why QF shareholders never really bother holding QF executives to account for all of this. I guess money just talks, while you're making profit.
But the original point is valid despite all of the above. Don't bust the law with industrial action or you might pay dearly for it, courtesy of a company with very deep legal pockets.
Moderator
It still perplexes me why QF shareholders never really bother holding QF executives to account for all of this. I guess money just talks, while you're making profit.
1. J P Morgan Nominees Australia 534,766,228 shares 23.61%
2. HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 452,305,144 shares 19.97%
3. National Nominees Limited 376,628,160 shares 16.63%
4. Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 225,458,109 shares 9.95%
5. ANZ Nominees Limited 65,690,854 shares 2.90%
6. Cogent Nominees Pty Limited 64,525,437 shares 2.85%
7. AMP Life Limited 33,248,291 shares 1.47%
8. Australian Reward Investment Alliance 21,516,040 shares 0.95%
9. Bond Street Custodians Limited 15,095,659 shares 0.67%
10. Queensland Investment Corporation 12,973,006 shares 0.57%
No dividends for two years and their investment is probably now worth less than they paid for it? Surprising they are not demanding a return on their investment or a change in the decision makers?
The Qantas Annual Report makes interesting bed time reading.....
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: here
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail wheel, T-Vasis et al, let me make one thing clear.. I don't support illegal union activity either. Laws are there for a reason and actions must be conducted iaw those laws.
The thing is that Q cannot take the moral high ground. They have engaged in both illegal and ethically questionable behaviour and have been found guilty of such by the courts.. This is undisputable.
Many posters here have dedicated their working lives to this company, proud of what they do and what they have achieved to make the company great. They see what is happening; how management is systematically dismembering parts of the business that were once world leaders. And then there are the public attacks on the integrity and professionalism of staff by AJ and his cohorts. It's no wonder emotions come into play and perspectives may be biased. This is inevitable and unavoidable.
So perhaps the original post was factual.. OK.. perhaps it was but perhaps there are ways of presenting the "facts" without alienating the target audience. Or maybe that was the point..
The thing is that Q cannot take the moral high ground. They have engaged in both illegal and ethically questionable behaviour and have been found guilty of such by the courts.. This is undisputable.
Many posters here have dedicated their working lives to this company, proud of what they do and what they have achieved to make the company great. They see what is happening; how management is systematically dismembering parts of the business that were once world leaders. And then there are the public attacks on the integrity and professionalism of staff by AJ and his cohorts. It's no wonder emotions come into play and perspectives may be biased. This is inevitable and unavoidable.
So perhaps the original post was factual.. OK.. perhaps it was but perhaps there are ways of presenting the "facts" without alienating the target audience. Or maybe that was the point..
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: here
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T-Vasis you raise some interesting points..
Me too. What about when it is the company engaging in illegal activity?
Do you? Really..? What is this reality you speak of?
Namely??
Such as?
I don't support illegal activity. I am a shareholder and any illegal activity that unnecessary damages the company I invest in, bothers me.
Me too. What about when it is the company engaging in illegal activity?
Whilst I'd always want to see jobs stay in Australia and I understand the pilots and engineers perspectives, there's the reality.
It should be the government you voice your concerns with. It's government policy that's damaging the Australian aviation landscape.
There are a number of policy changes the government must change to ensure Qantas can continue to compete fairly.
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
A good outcome for Qantas.
Fact is this, industrial action today is different to what it was in the 70's and 80's. Workers do not initiate such action at the drop of a hat, contrary to what Howardists (new word for Wikipedia) may think. This 'alleged' win against the TWU cost Qantas millions to undertake, so, dear shareholder, you do not win in the long term, far from it. This 'alleged win' only proves that the relationship between management and the workforce is now more fractured than ever, this in turn will have long term effects detrimental to QF's fiscal desires.
The continued mistreatment of decent workers by Nazi like management will simply keep chipping away at your precious profits one cent at a time with more 'industrial action' to follow. How foolish for the shareholder to expect that QF will continue to be bathed in the goodwill of pilots, engineers, ground handlers and the list goes on.
Sorry folks, we have a technical issue with one of our old aircraft and the engineers will not work overtime and the tech crew won't extend their duty time - negative cost to company on this occasion $130 000. See, simple really, no industrial action taken and ultimately in the long term the shareholder loses. And why should the tech crew and engineers exert themselves ?
Sadly the likes of AJ, Clifford and others fail to realise that particularly with Qantas it is the general workforce that make the airline the success it is (or was), destroy the workforce financially, morally or ethically and the end game is this - all over QF. Stick that down as your f*king proxy vote.