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

Qantas Taken To Court.

Old 29th Apr 2020, 04:03
  #21 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,201
Neville. I’m not on AL at the moment. I’m stood down. I can elect to be paid my annual leave entitlements in lieu of being stood down unpaid. A subtle but important distinction.

Interestingly the pay slip refers to this also showing SU $0 and then AL credit hours with the $$$ figure beside them.

Even if a pilot was supposed to be on Annual leave when all this started they still got a stand down notice. That then also triggers the inability to schedule the surgery or otherwise be sick for your leave and thus take sick leave and get the annual leave re-credited.
Keg is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 04:13
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 37
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Problem with your argument is that you can take annual leave and then replace it with sick leave if you get sick. So the fact that you don't have any work on is irrelevant.
It's just that lowering the annual leave balance has a benefit to the company while sick leave does not, which I would suggest is why QF are doing it.
That's exactly why they're doing it - under the guise of being beneficial to the employee group. "You can take your AL/LSL now and not lose $$ during the stand down......"

The KRviatrix is an accountant and everything to them is an "Asset" or "Liability". Employees are Liabilities because they (eventually) cost money. Accrued leave is a liability because it has to be paid eventually, and budgeted for accordingly. AL/LSL goes up at the %-age of your EBA increases and thus, becomes more valuable (to us) and more expensive (to them) if you don't take it year onyear. Let's say you have 1000 hrs AL owing, at $100/hr for round figures. Your AL liability to the company is, $100,000. But if you don't take that this year, then next year, that liability becomes $102,500 (or whatever %-age your EBA increase is), so of course the company - any company - wants you to use your AL/LSL as soon as you can.

But, if you don't take your AL/LSL, you're eligible for the $1,500/FN payment, which is enough to live on for most people if you can suspend your mortgage as well as keeping your accrued leave balances. I know what I'd rather do.
KRviator is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 04:31
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Best Place!
Posts: 197
Look a little further than your own industry and you'll find that Qantas isn't the only big company denying the use of Sick Leave right now.
mmmbop is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 05:27
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 278
Not heard of that one Dragon Man. Wasnít aware Qantas had any specialist medical staff other than Dr Ian.



Iron Bar is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 05:59
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,124
Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
Not heard of that one Dragon Man. Wasnít aware Qantas had any specialist medical staff other than Dr Ian.
They donít, when they are not happy with the situation they can insist you see a company approved specialist at their cost, the downside being that they agree as they did in this case with the patient.
dragon man is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 06:03
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,444
I’m not on AL at the moment. I’m stood down. I can elect to be paid my annual leave entitlements in lieu of being stood down unpaid. A subtle but important distinction.
That will be the question for the judge, whether there is a distinction or not. From reading the fair work act I think you are probably drinking too much company Kool Aid as I don't see where there specifies a distinction. If you are taking paid leave you are on leave end of story.

An employee may take paid or unpaid leave (for example, annual leave) during all or part of a period during which the employee would otherwise be stood down under subsection 524(1).
In the article quoted these people sounded like they were on long term sick leave, so I don't see why that would magically stop, as it is a form of leave, just one QF don't want to pay as there is no benefit to them.

neville_nobody is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 06:31
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 258
Itís unfortunately this simple.

If a workplace agreement includes stood down provisions, those provisions apply, not the FWA. Not one stood down legislation in the FWA is relevant. The only thing that matters are those EA stood down clauses.

In most QF agreements Iíve read, the stood down provisions include that annual leave may be offered. There is no mention of personal leave or sick leave. So itís not payable. Itís one of the few instances where our agreements are worse than the FWA legislation.

I expect Qantas will win.
crosscutter is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 06:31
  #28 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,201
Nev, does that section that you quote apply to us given we are on an EA? Will it apply to the TWU employee? As you say Neville, a judge will decide.

Spare me the ‘Kool Aid’ accusation though. I’m just reading the relevant legislation and the LHEA and giving it a ‘best guess’ like most other contributors here. A mate who has far more legal experience flicked me a message and he disagrees with my assessment. I respect his opinion.

I hope I am wrong. I’d like nothing better than to schedule in a couple of minor procedures needed whilst things are quiet at the moment and to switch from AL to SL.
Keg is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 06:46
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 41
There goes that frontal lobotomy I had planned.
IsDon01 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 09:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: vegas, not 'las', or 'bris', but the other one
Posts: 87
Perhaps the Ďyesí voters could use this time to have their testies re-attached 😂
mince is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 09:19
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 402
Originally Posted by IsDon01 View Post
There goes that frontal lobotomy I had planned.
Didnít they tell you? You already had it.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 10:00
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 37
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by mince View Post
Perhaps the ‘yes’ voters could use this time to have their testies re-attached 😂
And the 'no' voters have a brain installed.
normanton is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 10:34
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,032
IsDon01:
There goes that frontal lobotomy I had planned.


What about the (Ahem) gender reassignment surgery?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 01:32
  #34 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,201
Looks like Qantas won this one..
Keg is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 01:42
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 49

Court dismisses stood down Qantas staff's sick leave bid

A Federal Court judge has dismissed a union-led bid to have Qantas workers paid sick leave during the coronavirus crisis.

Some 20,000-odd Qantas workers stood down in mid-March have been able to legally access some entitlements including annual leave but they've been prevented from accessing sick, carers and compassionate leave.

The company's position on Monday was backed by Justice Geoffrey Flick.

He agreed with Qantas that the stand-down power served two important purposes: offering businesses financial relief and protecting workers from termination.

Allowing staff to access sick leave while lawfully stood down because there is no work would "go against the very object and purpose of conferring those entitlements - namely an entitlement to be relieved from the work which the employee was otherwise required to perform", Justice Flick said.

AAP
Vindiesel is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 01:48
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 37
Posts: 365
I wonder why AIPA wasn't involved?
normanton is online now  
Old 18th May 2020, 01:50
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 678
The opening sentence is wrong, should have read....."Qantas court judge" ! -)
machtuk is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 02:37
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
I would have thought the unions have a case.
Whoíd have thought Sunfish would have been wrong. Again.

Qantas 2. Sunfish 0.

Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 18th May 2020 at 11:36.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 05:52
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,057
There's 2 guys there I used to work with that have terminal illnesses. They must be gutted.
ampclamp is offline  
Old 18th May 2020, 06:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,124
Originally Posted by ampclamp View Post
There's 2 guys there I used to work with that have terminal illnesses. They must be gutted.
So whatís the problem, he thought they had a case , they did and the TWU agreed however this judge didnít. It happens all the time and I suspect will now go to a full bench for appeal.
dragon man 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.