AIPA vs FWA
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
They are happening now. Don't expect a ruling immediately the hearing is over but due to the fast-tracking of the hearing, it would not be too much to hope for an expeditious handing down of the ruling.
Nunc est bibendum
Judgement has been reserved. I haven't idea what that means in terms of time frames, etc.
I've spoken to a few experts in the field. None of them give us much hope. The only hope is that these things are yet to be tested and thus the interpretation of them is still a little more open then it would be in a few years time. That may assist us.
For my money, this is one of those shots that you take and if it comes off that's a bonus. If it doesn't, you're no worse off than where you are anyway.
I've spoken to a few experts in the field. None of them give us much hope. The only hope is that these things are yet to be tested and thus the interpretation of them is still a little more open then it would be in a few years time. That may assist us.
For my money, this is one of those shots that you take and if it comes off that's a bonus. If it doesn't, you're no worse off than where you are anyway.
Correct Iron Bar, any major company in Australia that can demonstrate their ability to damage the Australian economy by their own actions, will be able to successfully follow the qantas ir strategy and force closure upon any form of industrial action. Including the wearing of red ties.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However a loss for AIPA will set a fairly big legal precedent.
I thought "law" was based on common sense..
edited to include video at the time of the grounding and FWA decision... interesting what Abbott says in this clip
plus Joyce says in this clip "we will help the government" which for me is a bit rich..... We know now that Gillard is going along with Joyce, in my view....
.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 7th Mar 2012 at 04:06.
I've heard a lot of talk that AIPA won't be successful in this case, but can any one who has some knowledge of law explain exactly why? Why the grounding/lockout was a justified reaction to the wearing of ties/making pa's?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because whilst we were only wearing ties etc, we had the ability to conduct up to 48 hr stoppages. The fact we didn't/promise we won't is irrelevant. They will look at what we can do. Not what we did.
it pisses me off that the general view is that it was all because of us. They were the ones who took the industrial action that caused intervention...not us.
agree with Kegs comments.....
it pisses me off that the general view is that it was all because of us. They were the ones who took the industrial action that caused intervention...not us.
agree with Kegs comments.....
Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the Victorian Nurses Union book and take unprotected action if our case fails, ties on boys and girls and get those PAs out.
FWA is a joke if Qantas gets away with this, sure they can stand us down etc and try logging costs but this fight needs to escalate before we are all replaced with Iraqi pilots on 457visas.
FWA is a joke if Qantas gets away with this, sure they can stand us down etc and try logging costs but this fight needs to escalate before we are all replaced with Iraqi pilots on 457visas.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judgement has been reserved.
and
Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the Victorian Nurses Union book and take unprotected action if our case fails, ties on boys and girls and get those PAs out.
FWA is a joke if Qantas gets away with this, sure they can stand us down etc and try logging costs but this fight needs to escalate before we are all replaced with Iraqi pilots on 457visas.
FWA is a joke if Qantas gets away with this, sure they can stand us down etc and try logging costs but this fight needs to escalate before we are all replaced with Iraqi pilots on 457visas.
background, VIC Nurses clip
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because whilst we were only wearing ties etc, we had the ability to conduct up to 48 hr stoppages. The fact we didn't/promise we won't is irrelevant. They will look at what we can do. Not what we did.
This leads to the issue of whether the lockout by QF satisfies the definition of employer response action under the legislation and an argument about whether employer response action needs to be 'proprtional' and/or if it can be in response to just bargaining claims or only in response to industrial action, or can it be in response to either.
Then there is the issue of whether or not FWA was obliged to disaggregate the industrial actions of the various parties.
I would hold out no hope on this one.
Why?
Because most pilots involved in this one are "fortunate enough to earn over 80K". So therefore probably not Labor voters.
Look at the FWA track record in regards to investigating a particular member of that organisation. In contrast defence is required to generate 6 or more reports in 12 months investigating over 750 cases because the minister says so.
The nurses union on the other hand thumbs its nose at the FWA and all the Law Courts disregarding all orders. Do you think anything will happen to them in response to that from the FWA....time will tell. I bet you if AIPA had disregarded any rulings there would have been no doubt there would have been repercussions.
That quote by the way comes from Julia Gillard on the floor of parliament. So the next time you are enjoying your IRT renewal, just think how fortunate you are to have worked your backside off to earn a living.
To clarify she wasn't talking about pilots she was reffering to anyone earning over 80K who actually pays tax in this country,
Why?
Because most pilots involved in this one are "fortunate enough to earn over 80K". So therefore probably not Labor voters.
Look at the FWA track record in regards to investigating a particular member of that organisation. In contrast defence is required to generate 6 or more reports in 12 months investigating over 750 cases because the minister says so.
The nurses union on the other hand thumbs its nose at the FWA and all the Law Courts disregarding all orders. Do you think anything will happen to them in response to that from the FWA....time will tell. I bet you if AIPA had disregarded any rulings there would have been no doubt there would have been repercussions.
That quote by the way comes from Julia Gillard on the floor of parliament. So the next time you are enjoying your IRT renewal, just think how fortunate you are to have worked your backside off to earn a living.
To clarify she wasn't talking about pilots she was reffering to anyone earning over 80K who actually pays tax in this country,
There appears to be some gross misunderstanding of the Australian legal system in these posts. The court does not reserve a decision to gauge public opinion. Secondly, this decision is being made by the full bench of the Federal Court. It is not FWA.
The decision is reserved because there are several difficult administrative, constitutional and statutory interpretation law issues to resolve. These issues are accurately described by Tuner 2. The three judges need to consider the aural and written submissions by the various parties and determine how to apply the law. The decisions will then need to be drafted and published. This takes some time.
While the various judges may approach the problem from their own idealogical perspective when putting their mind to the issues, in the end they are assessing the facts, interpreting the law, and then applying the law to that fact situation. Any suggestion that they would be under pressure from the government or the public is misguided.
The decision is reserved because there are several difficult administrative, constitutional and statutory interpretation law issues to resolve. These issues are accurately described by Tuner 2. The three judges need to consider the aural and written submissions by the various parties and determine how to apply the law. The decisions will then need to be drafted and published. This takes some time.
While the various judges may approach the problem from their own idealogical perspective when putting their mind to the issues, in the end they are assessing the facts, interpreting the law, and then applying the law to that fact situation. Any suggestion that they would be under pressure from the government or the public is misguided.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the end they are assessing the facts, interpreting the law, and then applying the law to that fact situation.
It is also my view, both the government & opposition knew that Qantas would possibly opt for the lockout, they both simply didn't believe Joyce would go through with it.. In this clip Gillard demonstrates she didn't understand the legal aspects/ramifications of her own legislation, the FWA act itself....she was very vague indeed....
This leads to the issue of whether the lockout by QF satisfies the definition of employer response action under the legislation and an argument about whether employer response action needs to be 'proprtional' and/or if it can be in response to just bargaining claims or only in response to industrial action, or can it be in response to either.
Shorten confuses the issue even further in this clip.....
.
The role of the judicature is not to assess if the law is 'flawed', but to apply the law. If the practical outcome of the application of the law is against the intent of the legislature, then the legislature needs to amend the Act.
Above when I stated that the judicature is not under pressure from the public or government, that does not exclude the possibility of pressure being applied between the parties, the government and the public
Above when I stated that the judicature is not under pressure from the public or government, that does not exclude the possibility of pressure being applied between the parties, the government and the public
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industrial action was terminated under S424 of the fair work act, and it reads:
It is very clear that Fair Work can only terminate or suspend action that causes a threat to life, personal safety or health, welfare etc or significant damage to the Australian economy.
Fair Work openly stated that it was Qantas' action that threatened the economy not the unions (even the 3 in aggregate). Therefore Qantas should have been ordered to terminate or suspend the lock out, and the unions should have been left alone until they actually did something that would allow s424 to be used.
Someone put an article on Qrewroom written by a right wing lawyer arguing exactly this point, I'll try to find it and post it.
AIPA could be on a winner.....
FAIR WORK ACT 2009 (NO. 28, 2009) - SECT 424
FWA must suspend or terminate protected industrial action--endangering life etc.
Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
(1) FWA must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement that:
(a) is being engaged in; or
(b) is threatened, impending or probable;
if FWA is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is threatening, or would threaten:
(c) to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or
(d) to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.
FWA must suspend or terminate protected industrial action--endangering life etc.
Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
(1) FWA must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement that:
(a) is being engaged in; or
(b) is threatened, impending or probable;
if FWA is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is threatening, or would threaten:
(c) to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or
(d) to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.
Fair Work openly stated that it was Qantas' action that threatened the economy not the unions (even the 3 in aggregate). Therefore Qantas should have been ordered to terminate or suspend the lock out, and the unions should have been left alone until they actually did something that would allow s424 to be used.
Someone put an article on Qrewroom written by a right wing lawyer arguing exactly this point, I'll try to find it and post it.
AIPA could be on a winner.....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be so. But once the QF action is rightly terminated, do you then run into s413(7), which removes immunity for PIA to the other parties, and thus rendering the PIA useless?