Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Jetstar EBA 2019

Old 12th Dec 2019, 11:44
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 900
You can -always- find a lawyer to agree with what you want (much like consultants). Shyster & Graft are NOT infallible. Although they did fire a future PM for fraud and successfully hide the evidence...
V-Jet is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 11:49
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by A little birdie View Post
I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a union strategist. I don’t know what options are available but the AFAP and JQ pilots have chosen this option so it’s not unreasonable to ask ‘will this PIA achieve what JQ pilots are trying to achieve’ and ‘what is Qantas history of responding to this sort of PIA’ and ‘what happens if they respond as they have in the past’?
I’ll try:

1. “will this PIA achieve what JQ pilots are trying to achieve”?

It may achieve nothing, It may achieve part of what they are trying to achieve, It may achieve all of what they are trying to achieve. Absolutely impossible to predict, because doing so would imply knowledge of the future actions of both parties as it plays out dynamically. If you were observing a house sale, and the vendor wanted $600K and the buyer wanted it for $400K, and the buyer threatened to walk away and buy another house, can you predict the outcome? Of course not, it depends not only on what both parties hope to achieve, but also on how it plays out. Bluff can play a significant role. If both parties need an eventual outcome, it can come down to all sorts of things. Can you starve out the opponent? Will someone else come along with a better offer? Will your opponent get a better offer? Will the opponent beat you down psychologically through battle fatigue by calling you daily pretending they have a better offer? The house could end up selling for $400K or $600K or anywhere in between, or in the extreme example, the buyer ended up paying $700 because the vendor knew how to play the psychological game (or $300K if the buyer did).

2. “what is Qantas history of responding to this sort of PIA”?

Qantas has a long history of battling PIA from unions. They have a heavily unionised workforce. They have spent decades trying to reduce the impact of unions. The very existence of Jetstar is a prime example. Jetstar evolved from Dixon’s purchase of Impulse, which was not only non-union, but the pilots weren’t even employed by Impulse. What better compliant workforce to start with! He ended up having to put the pilots on the books because he knew Qantas could not possibly continue to get away with that scam under the spotlight that shines of QF, but he went to great lengths and expense to discourage any unionism of those pilots (short of actually paying and treating them well). He and his right hand mate AJ who he put in charge of JQ had the same opinion of pilots, and nearly two decades later, look who’s still in charge. There were those back in the day who understood Dixon thought pilots should earn train driver pay, and those who think that was the good old days because Joyce thinks they should earn less than that.

Where am I going with this? Well I am answering your question. Qantas has a long history of PIA, and dealing with it. I’ve provided the background of why they won’t treat pilots any differently from any other workforce who engages in PIA, because they don’t consider the pilot workforce to be any different from the staff who replace the toilet roll in the executive washroom. In fact, lower, because the washroom staff fold the toilet rolls in nice 45degree corners purely for AJ’s pleasure, and he probably assumes correctly that no pilot would do that for him, even for $300,000 per year.

In terms of recent history of PIA from pilots? No recent history from JQ in my knowledge. In 2011 they responded to mainline with a lockout but that was ended by the government before the lockout started, so no-one was locked out. The threat affected some staff psychologically, but the end result was a basic 3% determination by the FWC. It didn’t have to be a determination, take note. It only became a determination because mandatory arbitration could not reach a deal. There were three unions “locked out” at that time, the other two were the LAMES and I think the AWU. Those other unions reached an arbitrated deal prior to a determination. At the end of the day, there was no negative for the pilots other than that they did not achieve the workplace security clauses they were taking PIA over. Pretty much the rest of their EBA claims happened anyway.

So Qantas got slammed by the general public for screwing up the nation for a week, it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, they lost a lot of face with government (of whom many MP’s also got stuck), and they ended up with an EBA for the same dollars they started with, but without the job security clauses the unions were asking for (read: security against future outsourcing).

Conclusion: this is how much the Company are (or were) prepared to pay to keep their options open for future outsourcing.

3. “what happens if they respond as they have in the past’?”

Well, in the past they have either returned to the negotiation table or conducted a lockout and endured an unsuccessful arbitration which led to a determination. A determination is unlikely to leave JQ pilots worse off, particularly considering where they are coming from. In the light of the latest Tiger EBA, a determination could well work in their favour, but that would be up to the FWC.

Birdie, I hope I have answered your questions.

Both parties start to take strategic risks at this point, the outcome is unknown, but the legal risks are quantifiable by law if both parties play fair.
Derfred is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 12:47
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 422
AIPA's warning was nothing more than an attempt to destabilise and undermine the PIA about to take place this weekend, for whatever reason. Slater and Gordon have provided an indepedant ruling in favour of the AFAP.
Firstly, this whole issue really is an irrelevant distraction. How many AIPA JQ members actually joined AFAP in the time since the vote? Given AFAP already have 80% coverage, some pilots are in the TWU and many would have no representation at all, the amount jumping ship in this narrow timeframe would be two tenths of fu€k all.
Even if the warning is heeded it would have zero effect on the success of the PIA.

Secondly, lawyers don’t provide ‘an indepedant ruling‘, they provide their opinion. If you want a ruling, ignore the advice, get disciplined by Jetstar and then take your defence to the FWC or court, then you can get your independent ruling.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 13:02
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by 2theline View Post
AIPA's warning was nothing more than an attempt to destabilise and undermine the PIA about to take place this weekend, for whatever reason. Slater and Gordon have provided an indepedant ruling in favour of the AFAP. Absolutely mind blowing that instead of seeking unity, division is being sought. No wonder as pilots we are the laughing stock around the world!
1. I am no lawyer.

2. I believe your statement that AIPA’s warning was attempting to destabilise and undermine the PIA is false. That’s my opinion against yours. I am not a member of AIPA’s committee, and have no inside knowledge, but I don’t believe they would do that, I also don’t believe they would have any reason to do that.

3. It’s nice to hear from Slater and Gordon, AFAP didn’t divulge that in the communication... maybe it’s more recent advice.

Hang on, did you just say it was an “independent ruling”?

Wow, that’s different then. An independent ruling is very different from “Slater and Gordon advice”.

One is a legal opinion from a law firm, which could easily differ from a legal opinion from a different law firm, such as the one Qantas may chose to employ. An “independent ruling” implies a decision made by a justice of the court or similar upon the presentation of two competing cases under some kind of legal framework. Which are we talking here? Sorry to be picky but this is important when colleagues careers are on the line.

Sorry to be argumentative, but your tone triggered me to question what you said. I doubt it’s factually correct.

Back to the point, maybe AFAP are now quoting an “independent legal advice” or similar. They didn’t earlier.

Potentially AIPA could counter the argument with their “independent legal advice” which may or may not differ. Seriously, I doubt they would, because it would serve them no gain - it would only provoke a “tit-for-tat” social media war with the AFAP. They have already cautioned a small number of pilots to be cautious of unprotected industrial action, presumably based on their advice of legal risk. They have no reason to devote resources to further question that advice just because AFAP may have secured a law firm and published an alternative advice.

4. Agreed about the mind-blowingness of seeking division. One union provided its internal legal advice to its members, then another union went nuts about it publicly, for no useful reason that I can determine. Maybe both unions need to send their presidents to lunch together to sort their shit out. I’ll happily donate the garlic bread and a bottle of Coonawarra. This crap serves none of us well.

Derfred is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 14:39
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Sorry to be argumentative, but your tone triggered me to question what you said. I doubt it’s factually correct
Question all you want my friend. As for being factually correct, well that remains to be seen. Doesnt change the fact that many believe that sinister intentions were behind the advice
2theline is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 14:46
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aus
Age: 51
Posts: 73
Even Jetstar understand that members who joined after November 18 can engage in PIA.


2 Eligibility

You are ONLY eligible to engage in the Protected Industrial Action if:

· you are a member of the AFAP ; and

· the AFAP is your bargaining representative.
Keith Myath is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 18:34
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 88
So....what exactly is the objective of this PIA?
KZ Kiwi is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 20:27
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 268
AIPA legal has always been very good. This sort of thing would be referred to a senior industrial barrister.

QF/JQ May not go after individual pilots who joined AFAP after the ballot. But they sure as shit would look into the AFAP Exec and JQ faction for organising and coercion.

Div 3/4 P340 onwards of the Act (page414). P176 might be worth a look too.

I can’t imagine the intent of the Act is to facilitate employees Monty Pythonesque rushing from one union to another, after a PIA ballot. If there was any doubt, perhaps Q would consider running an action anyway. Make things very real for the AFAP leadership, probably stand them down or lock em’ out because of the stress.

guessing Keith’s email came from JQ. See how they have made a distinction between being a “member of AFAP” and “bargaining representative”. There might be a reason for that.


Yep, what is the objective?? Apart from running it at Xmas?



Last edited by Iron Bar; 12th Dec 2019 at 21:47.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 21:10
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: South Island
Age: 64
Posts: 5
1. With colleagues like some of you, Joyce doesn’t have to do much at all. Half the work is already done. The travelling public are more supportive of this action.

2. Objective = to better the conditions of the employees.

3. Has anyone talked about the fact that QF and Alliance will (may) be picking up some of the flying? Yes, I understand it’s illegal to refuse.


All the best to our Jetstar colleagues, I and everyone I fly with truly hope you come out on top. Please stick together.
dashate is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 21:46
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by dashate View Post
1. With colleagues like some of you, Joyce doesn’t have to do much at all. Half the work is already done. The travelling public are more supportive of this action.

2. Objective = to better the conditions of the employees.

3. Has anyone talked about the fact that QF and Alliance will (may) be picking up some of the flying? Yes, I understand it’s illegal to refuse.


All the best to our Jetstar colleagues, I and everyone I fly with truly hope you come out on top. Please stick together.
QF, QLink and Alliance are all covering the flying.

The ex JQNZ Dash8's are heading to MEL this weekend to cover some flying as well.
Going Nowhere is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 22:38
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Dubbo
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Going Nowhere View Post
The ex JQNZ Dash8's are heading to MEL this weekend to cover some flying as well.
Yep, looks like TQL/TQM head down this arvo. Slated in for some Melbourne to Launy runs tomorrow. Just like old times in the classic club.
MikeHatter732 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 22:55
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 409
QF, QLink and Alliance are all covering the flying.
Some of the flying.

Last edited by gordonfvckingramsay; 13th Dec 2019 at 01:00.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 23:16
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 260
What a pack of selfish a/holes to pull this stunt at Xmas disrupting kids and families and using them as hostages.
TBM-Legend is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 23:21
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 294
Who - management?
I agree - they could have easily signed off on the proposed EBA and avoided all of this conflict and upcoming financial impact.
Johhny Utah is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 23:43
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,680
Originally Posted by Johhny Utah View Post
Who - management?
I agree - they could have easily signed off on the proposed EBA and avoided all of this conflict and upcoming financial impact.
Of course, but doing so would penalise those who, in an airline who spend their waking hour making tensions, complexity and generally upsetting everyone.
IR is the only "growth" area in Little Napoleon's reign.
That the company spends a fortune to save a dime is lost on the emperor and his hall of mirrors.
Rated De is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 01:04
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aus
Age: 51
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
AIPA legal has always been very good.


Comedy gold.

Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
This sort of thing would be referred to a senior industrial barrister.
If AIPA referred this sort of thing to a senior industrial barrister, don’t you think they should have published that advice? Here’s a tip, they didn’t.

Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
QF/JQ May not go after individual pilots who joined AFAP after the ballot. But they sure as shit would look into the AFAP Exec and JQ faction for organising and coercion.
On this we can agree. There are large penalties for false and misleading statements from unions. The AFAP have stood by their advice, consulted external experts, and published that advice. False and misleading statements are a two way street, you may want to seek qualified legal advice on what AIPA is publishing.

Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
Div 3/4 P340 onwards of the Act (page414). P176 might be worth a look too.
Bush lawyer 101, thanks for the tip. There are a few other pages that are worth a look, along with a few opinions and rulings from commissioners. But hey, why broaden your horizons when a narrow interpretation suits your purpose. Selective quoting is the best friend of the ignorant.

Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
I can’t imagine the intent of the Act is to facilitate employees Monty Pythonesque rushing from one union to another, after a PIA ballot. If there was any doubt, perhaps Q would consider running an action anyway. Make things very real for the AFAP leadership, probably stand them down or lock em’ out because of the stress.
You probably should read the advice the AFAP received from Slater and Gordon. It explains quiet succinctly why employees are allowed to join PIA well after a ballot order has been issued. Alternatively, you can hold court and regale us with your superior opinions, I'm not sure who wants to listen to you.

Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
guessing Keith’s email came from JQ. See how they have made a distinction between being a “member of AFAP” and “bargaining representative”. There might be a reason for that.
Genius. What gave it away, the bit where I stated “even Jetstar”

Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
Yep, what is the objective?? Apart from running it at Xmas?
Hardly surprising AIPA doesn’t know what the objective of PIA is. It’s only run one PIA campaign in its 30 year history. I'm sure the Jetstar pilots will be in touch if they consider a red tie campaign.



Keith Myath is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 01:36
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 422
2 Eligibility

You are ONLY eligible to engage in the Protected Industrial Action if:

· you are a member of the AFAP ; and

· the AFAP is your bargaining representative.
So if you are an AIPA member and an AFAP member, who is your bargaining representative?
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 04:10
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 268
Well Keith, AFAP and Slater & Gordon, glad it’s not me being asked to rely on any of that advice.

Good luck with the action, going to be an interesting weekend.



Iron Bar is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 09:22
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Ballarat
Posts: 52
Getting interesting. Latest email.

Originally Posted by The JQ Executive Remuneration Maximization Team
Under the Fair Work act 2009, the company may withhold all pay otherwise due to an employee on any day that the employee engages in protected industrial action in the form of a partial work ban.

This letter constitutes notification to you in accordance with section blah blah of the FWA 2009 that Jetstar refuses to accept the performance of any work by you until you are prepared to perform all your normal duties.

Accordingly, if you engage in one or both of the partial work bans listed above, you will not be entitled to any payment for the entire duration of the partial work ban - The period from 0001 on 14 Dec 19 to 2359 20 Dec 2019.

Last edited by Paddleboat; 13th Dec 2019 at 09:37.
Paddleboat is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 09:41
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 843
This is getting interesting. So what they are saying is that even when you turn up to work during the PIA period you will be doing so for free!

Last edited by Ollie Onion; 13th Dec 2019 at 10:00.
Ollie Onion is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.