Qantas Engineering redundances - Advice required!!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forstaff LOFO is the words of the agreement. It doesn't just say they will consider it. They are sidestepping it in part though by saying things like this -
Employees with PE licences are exempt
LAME employees with 767 licences are exempt
Employees with PE licences are exempt
LAME employees with 767 licences are exempt
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fed sec,
I didn't think that it could be side stepped. If it's defined as "last on, first off", it seems pretty clear how it operates.
You have taken this to FWA, so have they handed down a decision yet ?
Also, by ignoring this clause in the agreement, they should be subject to some sort of fine, are they not?
I believe what Forstaff /Qantas are trying to do is an action that is illegal for unions, and employers would be on FWA's doorstep with the appropriate documents if it were the other way around.
No matter what the needs of business, the LOFO makes no mention of being able to pick and choose by anybody. When LOFO is enacted, the employer takes whats left.
What action are you prepared to take at the moment?
I didn't think that it could be side stepped. If it's defined as "last on, first off", it seems pretty clear how it operates.
You have taken this to FWA, so have they handed down a decision yet ?
Also, by ignoring this clause in the agreement, they should be subject to some sort of fine, are they not?
I believe what Forstaff /Qantas are trying to do is an action that is illegal for unions, and employers would be on FWA's doorstep with the appropriate documents if it were the other way around.
No matter what the needs of business, the LOFO makes no mention of being able to pick and choose by anybody. When LOFO is enacted, the employer takes whats left.
What action are you prepared to take at the moment?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We took action in FWA last time they did this when they excluded 737 licences from the process. We got this rubbish ruling from FWA that nobody from either side can either understand. I suppose you could call it a non decision. We then proposed to use it as un unfair dismissal basis for the appeals but the ones tapped did not want to go down that path. I am not sure bt maybe they got jobs in Bne.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aeromedic
I didn't think that it could be side stepped. If it's defined as "last on, first off", it seems pretty clear how it operates.
Having defined that 737 licenced people are surplus to requirements then LOFO applies to that particular skill set. Management always retains the right to manage, that cannot be removed for the clear reason that if they don't need 737 people they cannot be required to make people with required skills redundant,that is clearly ridiculous.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having defined that 737 licenced people are surplus to requirements then LOFO applies to that particular skill set. Management always retains the right to manage, that cannot be removed for the clear reason that if they don't need 737 people they cannot be required to make people with required skills redundant,that is clearly ridiculous
The fact is, that it has never worked, and gets forgotten about in good times, and has only served to promote confrontation between the parties when the time comes to activate the clause as recent events show.
The nature of change in the aircraft industry requirements for aircraft type, licence coverage and maintenance procedures in running an airline plays it's part in the evolution of agreements. In general, this evolution in agreements has reasonably met the expectations of both sides. But, poor managers and even poorer consultants advising them deliberately creating confrontations with unions and employees means that sitting down and working the blurred view of LOFO was never going to work.
It also means the "right to manage" becomes a subject of ridicule instead of respect.
I would hope that in future agreements that appropriate wording can be inserted to ensure complete understanding by all parties
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bootstrap1
Hang on Romulus, you are using some common sense, this is a Qantas thread I am not sure if that is allowed.
2: I get fired a lot. Not sure if there is a connection.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aeromedic
The nature of change in the aircraft industry requirements for aircraft type, licence coverage and maintenance procedures in running an airline plays it's part in the evolution of agreements. In general, this evolution in agreements has reasonably met the expectations of both sides. But, poor managers and even poorer consultants advising them deliberately creating confrontations with unions and employees means that sitting down and working the blurred view of LOFO was never going to work.
Do that and 80% of Union issues go away. I believe my management team have far better things to do with their time than deal with the SPs or PCs or, God forbid, the LivLovers of the world. Get them out of my hair unless there's a major CF and let us focus on the business and getting effective and staying employed.
Whilst I believe Unions have a place they also need to learn that place. Management should manage, from the very first leading hand right up to the CEO and Chairman. I don't want Unions interfering with my site ad my operations. I only get that by being consistently fair myself and ensuring my people do the same. I expect the same from Union reps and, in the interests of being fair, when I was at JHAS we always got that.
There is a lot to dislike about the agreement at JHAS compared to more traditional Qantas and Ansett T's & C's, it surfaces here every so often, but the simple fact is that without a huge degree of flexibility the business would have gone under and everyone would have been in the same position as the poor buggers from various other facilities around Victoria. But I don't believe anyone who was there at the time I was could ever say we didn't put the message out there clearly and up front - if you can't commit to giving flexibility then you need to move somewhere else.
In return we got a huge amount of goodwill up front. I don't know what happened to it, I simply wasn't there. But one thing I know: people dislike bad news in their face but they hate bull****ters. That's the change that needs to be made.
Originally Posted by aeromedic
It also means the "right to manage" becomes a subject of ridicule instead of respect.
This is where the German model works well. Everyone raves about employees sitting on management committees and boards and how management in Australia won't respect that sort of input but the reverse is also true- it is all too rare to get genuine commitment from the workforce to pull shirkers and malcontents into line.
That's not to blame the workforce, it's to recognise that there are problems on both sides that are going to take a huge amount of trust building to overcome. I'm not talking some wanky "Pillars/Bridges of Trust" presentation, I'm talking about getting out in front of people and being brutally honest about what is planned and then talking and delivering on that plan. Because if that plan is communicated properly then people know where they stand and
what their future is and can plan accordingly.
Originally Posted by aeromedic
I would hope that in future agreements that appropriate wording can be inserted to ensure complete understanding by all parties
I agree with you Romulus, good points.
The problem at Qantas with any sort of performance management is that it has traditionally been used as a tool to manage people they consider troublemakers out of the job. MEDA's have been used to sack people - in one famous case the poor bloke was trying to do the right thing by the company and put in an impossible position when it hit the fan.
Put simply - the bridge of trust burnt down long ago. Well meaning managers may try to build it again, but sacking 204 then calling the condemned in to do overtime non stop is another example of how its set on fire again.
Because if that plan is communicated properly then people know where they stand and what their future is and can plan accordingly.
Put simply - the bridge of trust burnt down long ago. Well meaning managers may try to build it again, but sacking 204 then calling the condemned in to do overtime non stop is another example of how its set on fire again.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess if the people that are being shown the door come back in the next dispute to help Qantas out, the people left doing overtime at the moment really have nothing to complain about.The scene is set.Dog eat Dog.
Last edited by qf 1; 26th Feb 2013 at 02:08.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will they take responsibility and accountability
You may well be a good leader. You appear to have and demand principles. Unfortunately, for the past decade we have had to endure abhorrent management teams without an ounce of integrity.
You could not fathom how low some of these leaches crawl, hide and suck for their personal survival. How are we to yield to these bullsh#t strategies that have little to do with driving real change? But rather deliver an industrial agenda to crush those who do generally perform a decent days work.
If our management wanted to win over our hearts and minds they may well read and learn from your eloquently poised verse. Instead our weasals will bow to CN's ill informed direction that has done nothing to advance aviation maintenance in this country but rather attempt to annihilate a workforce already disengaged by over ten years of internal conflict.
Hence, we hold dear our Association. I'm proud that organisation has our professional standards, welfare and safety in mind, foremost.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Imp Shift
Romulus.
Flexibility and heavy maint. doesn't work. Heavy checks need stability in the workforce. JHAS demonstrated that to me on a practical level that you may have appreciated if you'd hung around longer.
Flexibility and heavy maint. doesn't work. Heavy checks need stability in the workforce. JHAS demonstrated that to me on a practical level that you may have appreciated if you'd hung around longer.
Not my choice to depart old chap, my thought patterns were deemed unnecessary.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In return we got a huge amount of goodwill up front. I don't know what happened to it, I simply wasn't there. But one thing I know: people dislike bad news in their face but they hate bull****ters. That's the change that needs to be made.
Everyone is glad to have a job and will do what it takes to keep it. There's plenty of co-operation on both sides and the will to make it a success is huge. Hourly rates are low, management know what targets to set and what it takes to get there. The goodwill is enormous. There's an agreement in place that all parties are happy about and everyone makes a dollar.....You beauty!!
So what comes undone to spoil the party? .....You're right,it's change.
Like most situations, people become disenchanted when a change does not advantage them. Some changes are good, but there is always someone or a group who feels aggrieved by a change. This usually doesn't come from the founding group , it comes from those who come in as expansion takes place.
The founders knew "how things worked", what to do, just "to get the job completed on time and sometimes without reward for their "can do" attitude.
The flexibility introduced from the outset gets resented by the later troops when they feel that management now use it unfairly, whether they do or not.
Management, on the other hand, tend to make promises they can't keep. This is not to say they are being dishonest, rather to say that change involves the client who isn't necessarily as considerate as the employer. Trying to be fair is the hardest part as the client can undermine managements best efforts.
The union (s) get involved because their members ask for help. Talks between the parties serve only to identify the separation for agreement between them.
That's the end of your goodwill.
You may have your divisive client to thank for that and perhaps the wishes of an undeserved few that ask for more than they are prepared to give.
Last edited by AEROMEDIC; 26th Feb 2013 at 08:49.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the guy's would have got together and would be unavailable for overtime while mates are being shown the door?
Last edited by Rotor n Wings; 28th Feb 2013 at 05:31.