Last on First off.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Shire
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last on First off.
Word on the streets is Joyce will force AIPA to arbitration. One of their arguments will be to drop the last on first off clause in the EBA due to the large cost involved to the company in retraining.
If they win this(and they have won everything else) they will do redundancies across the fleets and ranks where the excesses are.
I should imagine Qantas Captains will go across to Jetstar as Captains in preference to centre link. Any bush lawyers care to comment?
If they win this(and they have won everything else) they will do redundancies across the fleets and ranks where the excesses are.
I should imagine Qantas Captains will go across to Jetstar as Captains in preference to centre link. Any bush lawyers care to comment?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBB.
I reckon you are right about the company wanting mass redundancies out of seniority order, as well as about the arbitration piece.
QF have not negotiated in good faith at all since the beginning of EBA negotiations, and that has all been about getting to this point.
Don't think you a right about QF Capt's displacing anyone else in the group however. Joyce has been pretty clear he wants the "rouge overpaid pollution living in cloud cuckoo land" out of the industry altogether.
With extreme prejudice and maximum personal financial and emotional damage to each and every QF pilot.
I reckon you are right about the company wanting mass redundancies out of seniority order, as well as about the arbitration piece.
QF have not negotiated in good faith at all since the beginning of EBA negotiations, and that has all been about getting to this point.
Don't think you a right about QF Capt's displacing anyone else in the group however. Joyce has been pretty clear he wants the "rouge overpaid pollution living in cloud cuckoo land" out of the industry altogether.
With extreme prejudice and maximum personal financial and emotional damage to each and every QF pilot.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any requirement for R in the EA? [EBAs long gone]
Common usage with other parts of the company may influence the amounts of any redundancy package.
For example: LOA 154 regarding FEO redundacies refers to 3 weeks pay/years of service up to 5 years and 4 weeks pay/years of service over 5 years.
Plus 6 months notice etc.
[EBAs long gone]Common usage with other parts of the company may influence the amounts of any redundancy package.
For example: LOA 154 regarding FEO redundacies refers to 3 weeks pay/years of service up to 5 years and 4 weeks pay/years of service over 5 years.
Plus 6 months notice etc.
How is it that an Award/Contract/Negotiation can include a Last ON, First OFF! clause, then all of a sudden, all bets are off!
Are there any protections for employees these days?
Are there any protections for employees these days?
I'm sure Team Bazza has everything under control. Official word from the Exec when quizzed on this topic from within COM (reportedly on numerous occasions during their tenure) is that the Award will be followed -
President Jackson was elected because of his affable demeanor and negotiating skill set, surely there is no need to get hysterical now; is there?
President Jackson was elected because of his affable demeanor and negotiating skill set, surely there is no need to get hysterical now; is there?
Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 18th Nov 2011 at 09:36. Reason: Spelling
As I understand it, this was an ambit claim from the company that was quickly dismissed by both parties early in negotiations. I'm sure the company would like to have it revisited along with a 20% pay cut, reduction in allowances, loss of pay protection etc etc.
This dispute was mostly about the job security clause and the company have made enough public statements to verify that was the sticking point. I think that's the central issue FWA will rule on. I very much doubt they will start stripping away existing entitlements, at least I hope not.
This dispute was mostly about the job security clause and the company have made enough public statements to verify that was the sticking point. I think that's the central issue FWA will rule on. I very much doubt they will start stripping away existing entitlements, at least I hope not.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, you lot are really jumping at shadows.
It's not 1989, stand together and do not resign from your job unless you've got a better one to go to.
You start using more fuel, pushing headwinds, not carrying defects, don't do call ins.
You might lose the occasional battle, make sure you win the war.
AJ is not some super strategist, his game plan is simple, we've all been bullied before, fight the smart fight, stand your ground, I will be.
I'd reckon he's the kind of guy that could not stand on his own.
IMHO, as soft as a pensioners turd.
It's not 1989, stand together and do not resign from your job unless you've got a better one to go to.
You start using more fuel, pushing headwinds, not carrying defects, don't do call ins.
You might lose the occasional battle, make sure you win the war.
AJ is not some super strategist, his game plan is simple, we've all been bullied before, fight the smart fight, stand your ground, I will be.
I'd reckon he's the kind of guy that could not stand on his own.
IMHO, as soft as a pensioners turd.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Doing a pre flight inspection
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed Dog pretty much has it spot on work to rule, follow all SOP's, find the head winds, dont shut the engines off quite as promptly when you pull into the gate, gas it up when taxing etc.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As an outsider looking in......think about this.
Your battle is not directly with AJ.
Study your enemy.....study real Damned hard...... It's L Clifford.
Do I make myself 100,000% clear.
This is LC all over. You can be blind to the Forrest due the trees if you like. I bet you all your houses and lives on it.
Sorry I am telling you the obvious if you already see it.
Your battle is not directly with AJ.
Study your enemy.....study real Damned hard...... It's L Clifford.
Do I make myself 100,000% clear.
This is LC all over. You can be blind to the Forrest due the trees if you like. I bet you all your houses and lives on it.
Sorry I am telling you the obvious if you already see it.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bangkok & Vegas
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep sheds on the money
This is just a bigger nastier version of any GA outfit. Intimidate and push the staff, see how far they go. When their back won't bend any further and they say enough is enough (fuel burns increase, OTP constantly crap and no more helping out the company) they stop and then come to an agreement.
But just like GA there will be those that jump ship early thinking the end of the world is nigh.
This is just a bigger nastier version of any GA outfit. Intimidate and push the staff, see how far they go. When their back won't bend any further and they say enough is enough (fuel burns increase, OTP constantly crap and no more helping out the company) they stop and then come to an agreement.
But just like GA there will be those that jump ship early thinking the end of the world is nigh.
astroboy55
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, industrial action is defined as to include the following actions:
• Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed. (In other words no “Go Slows” operating at higher than normal Mach No etc etc).
• Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work. (In other words no pickets, harassing of other employees etc).
• A ban, limitation or restriction by employees on performing or accepting work. (An example here would be baggage handlers refusing to lift any bags over 10 kgs).
• A failure or refusal by employees to attend for work or perform any work. (Striking).
• The lockout of employees from their employment by their employer. (What Qantas almost did a few weeks ago).
Work to rule or contract compliance isn’t industrial action. When an employee performs his job as described in his contract, he is complying with the contract he signed with his employer. If he does more than what is in his contract, this is good will. Industrial action occurs if he does less than what is in his contract.
Fair Work Ombudsman - Industrial Action
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, industrial action is defined as to include the following actions:
• Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed. (In other words no “Go Slows” operating at higher than normal Mach No etc etc).
• Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work. (In other words no pickets, harassing of other employees etc).
• A ban, limitation or restriction by employees on performing or accepting work. (An example here would be baggage handlers refusing to lift any bags over 10 kgs).
• A failure or refusal by employees to attend for work or perform any work. (Striking).
• The lockout of employees from their employment by their employer. (What Qantas almost did a few weeks ago).
Work to rule or contract compliance isn’t industrial action. When an employee performs his job as described in his contract, he is complying with the contract he signed with his employer. If he does more than what is in his contract, this is good will. Industrial action occurs if he does less than what is in his contract.
Fair Work Ombudsman - Industrial Action
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday Titan,
Whilst I agree with the above, the unfortunate fact is that any work to rule is Unprotected Industrial Action. The key here is
I agree, simply following your contract SHOULD NOT be classed as IA, but as for the last however many years everyone has showed up a few minutes early and done that little bit extra to get away on time etc, any change to those practices can constitute IA if the company want to play hardball. Our goodwill has set the precedent for 'how work is normally performed'. Now, we all know that if we showed up at briefing AT sign on, etc etc, every flight (particularly international out of SYD) would be running at least 20 or so mins behind schedule, costing a fortune. I don't believe showing up AT rather than BEFORE is work to rule, as this is just complying with duty limitations. Remember, a work to rule would involve plotting all of those 'restricted area' NOTAMS and other rubbish through India etc on maps, checking that the obstacles didn't infringe the takeoff splay, pulling the FCOM out and following step by step in every pre flight, pulling the FAM out and following it exactly for briefings etc etc.
The other key is
Working to rule would delay the performance of work.
I dont agree with it, but it would be a brave person who tried a work to rule campaign right now without protection. However, as pointed out,there are far more subtle ways one can get their message across without resorting to such tactics
Cheers
Whilst I agree with the above, the unfortunate fact is that any work to rule is Unprotected Industrial Action. The key here is
Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed.
The other key is
Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work
I dont agree with it, but it would be a brave person who tried a work to rule campaign right now without protection. However, as pointed out,there are far more subtle ways one can get their message across without resorting to such tactics
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe you'll find:
* Organised work to rule is unprotected,
* individuals choosing to work to rule, is a person meeting the bare minimums of their employment contract, can't get sacked for that.
In the same way, an individual choosing not to overtime or call ins, is quite within their rights.
* Organised work to rule is unprotected,
* individuals choosing to work to rule, is a person meeting the bare minimums of their employment contract, can't get sacked for that.
In the same way, an individual choosing not to overtime or call ins, is quite within their rights.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astro, while on the surface when someone "works to rule" the performance or output might be different, proving that in the Commission will be quite a task, when a Commissioner will just as easily turn around and ask the employer - "what is expected of the employee(s) under their agreement/contract".
An employer can't just come in and say "well this person usually works to this level which is above the terms of their contract etc etc" and think that would satisfy an unprotected IA claim.
Even if an employer has certain implied expectations of it's employees the contract is the contract.
An employer can't just come in and say "well this person usually works to this level which is above the terms of their contract etc etc" and think that would satisfy an unprotected IA claim.
Even if an employer has certain implied expectations of it's employees the contract is the contract.