When is the next cull at QF Engineering?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely these clowns must have a selection criteria.
When they announced Lame redundancies last year they seemed to have little idea about a criteria that would holdup under scrutiny, didn't they learn from the last time. Excuse me if I've missed something, am I missing something
When they announced Lame redundancies last year they seemed to have little idea about a criteria that would holdup under scrutiny, didn't they learn from the last time. Excuse me if I've missed something, am I missing something
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, they modify selection criteria to match the names they want gone.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Silverado
Romulus, whats your take on redundancies in a department thats actually increasing headcount?
Do you think it's legal to make someone redundant only to replace them with another?
Do you think it's legal to make someone redundant only to replace them with another?
Those roles CANNOT be refilled otherwise it is not a legitimate redundancy.
The roles must be clearly different eg Line LAME v Base LAME, 737 LAME v 767 LAME etc.
If you want to boost Line LAMEs by hiring more of them than you make Base LAMEs redundant then the dept could possibly grow (or you could hire more supervisors, managers etc) whilst also making people redundant.
Logically if you could redeploy people elsewhere that makes a lot of sense, but it is not mandatory to do so.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on the actual job being made redundant.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Workplace Determination states we are all employed as LAMEs. The only distinction made is the department you are in.
The legal advice I have received is that if the company terminates your employment as a LAME and replaces you with another LAME it is not considered a redundancy.
Can anyone feel a class action for unfair dismissal coming on?
There are also tax ramifications if the ATO don't consider it to be a "bona fide redundancy".
The legal advice I have received is that if the company terminates your employment as a LAME and replaces you with another LAME it is not considered a redundancy.
Can anyone feel a class action for unfair dismissal coming on?
There are also tax ramifications if the ATO don't consider it to be a "bona fide redundancy".
Join Date: May 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are not being replaced. 175 Lames are being removed from the Sydney business, they are redundant, gone forever.
SDO will lose Lames that have NG endorsements.
That's a fact
SDO will lose Lames that have NG endorsements.
That's a fact
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverado: If the Dept is taking on more LAMEs and you are employed as a LAME then it would seem highly likely to not be a genuine case of redundancy. The devil may be in the details, there may well be different positions or somesuch that they may be able to use as selection criteria rather than the blanket "we are all LAMEs" that is presumed to be correct but may not be so. Note that location is a valid selection criteria so if they have too many LAMEs in Sydney but not enough in Brisbane then they can make positions redundant in Sydney whilst employing in Brisbane.
CoolB1: Correct. The tax office in particular are very clear in this regard due to the "benefits" of the eligible termination legislation with regard to tax taken.
CoolB1: Correct. The tax office in particular are very clear in this regard due to the "benefits" of the eligible termination legislation with regard to tax taken.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From listening to the various management views, I think their opinion is that lame positions will be made redundant first , then a re distribution of the remaining numbers. It's hard to make a lot of sense out of this whole plan.
It's hard to get a straight answer at the moment.
Perhaps the union can clarify without breaking the confidentiality of their consultation process??
It's hard to get a straight answer at the moment.
Perhaps the union can clarify without breaking the confidentiality of their consultation process??
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the numbers presented to the ALAEA (which have been sent to members via email)
2 LMO "ports" are increasing in LAME headcount "PER" and "SAM", yet PER is apparently the only port not included in the redundancy EOI.
Thats pretty clear and many will be transferred to SAM.
You'd have to think that those who also hold the 744 would be earmarked for the transfer, being that the 744 ticket is worthless at SDO?
2 LMO "ports" are increasing in LAME headcount "PER" and "SAM", yet PER is apparently the only port not included in the redundancy EOI.
SDO will lose Lames that have NG endorsements.
That's a fact
That's a fact
You'd have to think that those who also hold the 744 would be earmarked for the transfer, being that the 744 ticket is worthless at SDO?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Association meeting with the company tomorrow and the latest 'criteria' expected to be tabled.
Some that think it is simply a case of: legacy licences only and you're gone/new gen and you're safe, may be in for a bit of a shock.
Some that think it is simply a case of: legacy licences only and you're gone/new gen and you're safe, may be in for a bit of a shock.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most guys I talk to just want to know where they stand as soon as possible. We just want to get on with our lives.
People are hungry for info. No more cloak and dagger crap.
People are hungry for info. No more cloak and dagger crap.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CoolB1
Most guys I talk to just want to know where they stand as soon as possible. We just want to get on with our lives.
People are hungry for info. No more cloak and dagger crap.
People are hungry for info. No more cloak and dagger crap.
But above anything else people should be treated as adults and with respect. If they are to be made redundant then tell them so, give them their options and let them choose (assuming there are options for finish dates, alternative employment elsewhere etc) what they wish to do.
Given the scale of Qantas redundancies being talked about arrange common finish dates and give people the dignity of a farewell at the local pub. Again, that won't be a joyous gathering but it allows people to say goodbye to workmates and gives some form of genuine closure.
Whether that happens or not is a different matter, but the humanity of the people and the situation should never be overlooked.
