Last on First off.

[SpannerTwister]

IMHO it would be a brave manager who would stand up before FWA and "complain" that an employee followed the companies procedures !!

"Yes, your Honour, we do allege that this employee was taking "unprotected" industrial action.........

"And what was this employee doing"

"Your Honour, he was following our written procedures"

"And do you have a policy about your policies"

"Yes your Honour, we require that ALL of our employees follow ALL of our procedures ALL of the time"

"And are your employees aware of the requirement to follow procedures ?"

"Yes your Honour, we frequently have "read & signs" reminding them of this, we have posters up everywhere and it is one of our "Cardinal Rules" "

"So.....Let me understand this.........You have policies, you require that your employees follow these policies, you enforce these policies and you actively promote adherence to these policies ?

"Yes your Honour, now please find this employee "guilty" of "Following procedures"

"Are you sh!tt!ing me ?"

ST

[404 Titan]

Shed Dog Tosser

You’re quite correct and I should have mentioned that.

astroboy55

Whilst I agree with the above, the unfortunate fact is that any work to rule is Unprotected Industrial Action.

Only if it is organised.

As far as what is “normal”, your contract is “normal”. Anything above your contract is simply good will, which as we all know is earned and should never be implied.

In determining unprotected IA is occuring, FWA will first look to see if it is organised, i.e. a union directive. If there isn’t a union directive it will be very difficult to prove unprotected IA by the employer. If you think labour laws are tough in Australia you should see what they are like here in Hong Kong. Even here individual “Contract Compliance” is common. Simple things like not answering your phone on days off and refusing to work on days off are no brainers.

[FGD135]

As far as what is “normal”, your contract is “normal”. Anything above your contract is simply good will, which as we all know is earned and should never be implied.

Perfectly true in theory, but not in practice.

The legal precedent has been established, and reinforced many times, that "normal" means what a group of employees "generally" do - and has nothing to do with their contract.

Only if it is organised.

A mere post on PPRUNE describing actions that could be taken to "inconvenience" Qantas could be shown to be an act of "organisation" !

[Shed Dog Tosser]

A mere post on PPRUNE describing actions that could be taken to "inconvenience" Qantas could be shown to be an act of "organisation" !

So which legal entity would be taken to Court/FWA ?, pprune didn't organise it, the individuals involved are exactly that, individuals..............

[ernestkgann]

Crews 'generally' divert to a fuel alternate if they consider that they cannot comply with the legal minimums required to conclude the flight. A diversion like this can sometime cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Keg]

Yes, but if those 'individuals' are seen to be 'coordinating' via PPRUNE.......

[ernestkgann]

But Those individuals don't read prune.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Warning: pure speculation follows.

Or the shut-down of an engine inflight at the exact time your boss is being measured up at a Senate Enquiry for a brand new pineapple.

Speculation disengaged.

[ampclamp]

dog tosser.
IMHO correct re following procs and so called unprotected PIA.

I am sure the toe cutters within q would love to take someone to task for NOT following procedures.

I think the risk of being hung out to dry trying a "work around" to achieve an end is much higher and less defendable rather than strict adherence to the rules at the risk of increased costs or inconvenience and the accusation of unprotected PIA.

If you have a licence to fly or to fix you are obligated to do so.

In other words cover your @rse. It is your licence. They are hard to get

[404 Titan]

FGD135

The legal precedent has been established, and reinforced many times, that "normal" means what a group of employees "generally" do - and has nothing to do with their contract.

Would you mind quoting the exact court case that established this as a precedent? I find it very difficult to believe that a court would rule ones personal decision not to work on days off as unprotected industrial action. Even in Hong Kong which makes Australian labour laws look pro employee, individual contract compliance isn't regarded as industrial action. If I choose not to work on my days off because I consider doing so too fatiguing that is my business.

[Nudlaug]

Under Human Factors it is highly desirable to break "Norm" behaviour.

"We kept doing the wrong thing over and over again cause everyone did it".

According to mandatory Human Factors training every employee is required to break norm practices and establish correct ones as required by the procedures.
Any time is a good time to break with norm behaviour

[FGD135]

I find it very difficult to believe that a court would rule ones personal decision not to work on days off as unprotected industrial action.

This is where the distinction between normal behaviour and industrial action comes in.

It would be normal for the members of the pilot group to sometimes work on their days off. This pattern of behaviour would consist of individuals sometimes working, sometimes choosing not to. To the employer, it would be generally unpredictable as to whether a particular individual will work on his day off.

This is normal work practice and could not be construed as industrial action.

When "industrial action" is being taken however, this "normal" pattern is noticeably different. In the case of days off, it becomes much more predictable to the airline that an individual will not work.

The difference in behaviour is statistically very easy for the airline to demonstrate.

Would you mind quoting the exact court case that established this as a precedent?

Will try to dig up a few cases.

[Toruk Macto]

You serious , you truly believe you legally have to answer your phone on your day off.

[Tee Emm]

IMHO, as soft as a pensioners turd.

Charming.

[404 Titan]

FGD135

Will try to dig up a few cases.

The reason I asked you is that I can’t find a case that sets the precedent of an “individuals” decision not to work on his days off or be contactable is unprotected industrial action. If there isn’t a case, then in legal speak, there isn’t a precedent.

[Bright Spark]

Guys open your eye

Just open your eyes and look at what has happened with the sunnies gingerbeers, docked pay and suspensions for working to rule and writing up actual defects because management considered it unprotectected industrial action.
CASA wouldn't get involved because it might be industrial action and it took months before the boys got any joy out of FWA.
In the end redundancies and move the work elsewhere - too many end up leaving and now they're looking for staff - nasty management and alot of ill will.
Recently I asked my union rep directly - if I refused to do any more overtime could it be considered unprotected IA and he said yes if I went cold turkey - slowly reduce donot go cold turkey is the answer.
Bright

[unseen]

You would scream yourselves silly if you saw a bunch of lawyers talking about how to fly a jet,

but you are quite happy to sit here and pontificate about your interpretation of the law as if your are an expert,

Anyone who thinks that the legal system and the law about something like 'working to rule' can be described in a few sentences is fooling themselves.

Pilots - great at what they do, but think that that expertise extends to everything,

Stick with what you are good at..

[neville_nobody]

if I refused to do any more overtime could it be considered unprotected IA and he said yes if I went cold turkey

What if said it was affecting your family life? How can that be considered Industrial Action. There is no requirement to work overtime unless it is written in the contract.

[404 Titan]

Well it would appear the nurses in Vic who are members of the ANF that were ordered to stop industrial action by FWA have ignored both FWA and their union and are continuing IA. The Vic government and their lawyers are calling for FWA to order the individuals back to work but it would appear there isn’t anything FWA can do under the current legislation as it isn’t organised IA. Individuals have taken matters into their own hands.

[FGD135]

... I can’t find a case that sets the precedent of an “individuals” decision not to work on his days off or be contactable is unprotected industrial action.

Yes, I very much doubt this has ever happened in the case of an individual. But, to be considered "individual" he must have changed his behaviour at a time and in a way that could not be construed as part of a group action (or he could have been doing things that way since he commenced the employment).

It becomes IA when a group of employees start doing something differently - when that "something" is of detriment to the employer.

It is always obvious when this kind of industrial action is being taken. The employees help to make it obvious because they want the employer to know they are doing it. No point doing it if the management aren't aware!

And to make it more obvious is the fact that it tends to happen at times when there are negotiations or disputes already occurring.

What if said it was affecting your family life? How can that be considered Industrial Action. There is no requirement to work overtime unless it is written in the contract.

If a group of pilots, at around the same time, all stopped working overtime then this would be considered IA. Giving the reason "because it affects family life" would make no difference.

An individual doing this, however, and giving the same reason, would not be considered to be engaging in IA. It would be believed that his reason was indeed "for family reasons".

As I said above, it is always very obvious when this kind of action is being taken!