QF mandates Vaccine
Freedom of speech isn’t the same thing as telling dangerous lies.
Xeptu, you keep saying Companies shouldn’t be able to mandate without legislation. There is plenty of legislation that allows Companies to enforce mandates such as this, how else do you think some Companies get away with mandating Hepititis vaccines before being able to work in their surgical hospitals, or pre-schools that mandate a full vaccine record of teachers and students. You will find different companies policy documents full of mandates that are not backed by specific legislation but can be backed up by more broad legislation such as Health and Safety regulations. Qantas and other companies will have very good legal basis for this, every Lawyer I have spoken too about this is in general agreement that Companies can mandate vaccinations should they choose. Obviously Qantas feels there is a commercial advantage to going down this path and the majority of staff support that position.
Troo believers trust the science.
Some of the smartest people on the planet have been involved in the research and development of the COVID vaccines. Budgets worth billions. Thousands of scientists, doctors, immunologists and virologists yet the non believers think they’re smarter with a glass of red and half an hour using google to confirm their bias.
The next time you get on an aeroplane how do you know it’s safe to fly on? Is the engineering up to scratch? Has the Captain had a bender the night before due to their divorce. What about the F/O whom just scraped through on their last sim. Nope you get onboard having faith and trust in those appointed as specialists in their field to keep you safe so you can recline knowing that the thousands of engineers and pilots that built and fly the machine are experts in what they do.
At what point in society do we acknowledge and let the experts make the call? What makes the ignorant suddenly such experts on immunology and vaccines? Do you even know what a confidence interval or p value is? Let us all know when you understand the full gamut of the subject otherwise you’re not qualified to comment.I’m certainly not either.
I trust the science. I’m not smart enough to know otherwise and I’m certainly no expert in any of the above fields but I’m humble enough to know what I don’t know and that’s a significant amount.
Some of the smartest people on the planet have been involved in the research and development of the COVID vaccines. Budgets worth billions. Thousands of scientists, doctors, immunologists and virologists yet the non believers think they’re smarter with a glass of red and half an hour using google to confirm their bias.
The next time you get on an aeroplane how do you know it’s safe to fly on? Is the engineering up to scratch? Has the Captain had a bender the night before due to their divorce. What about the F/O whom just scraped through on their last sim. Nope you get onboard having faith and trust in those appointed as specialists in their field to keep you safe so you can recline knowing that the thousands of engineers and pilots that built and fly the machine are experts in what they do.
At what point in society do we acknowledge and let the experts make the call? What makes the ignorant suddenly such experts on immunology and vaccines? Do you even know what a confidence interval or p value is? Let us all know when you understand the full gamut of the subject otherwise you’re not qualified to comment.I’m certainly not either.
I trust the science. I’m not smart enough to know otherwise and I’m certainly no expert in any of the above fields but I’m humble enough to know what I don’t know and that’s a significant amount.
Xeptu, you keep saying Companies shouldn’t be able to mandate without legislation. There is plenty of legislation that allows Companies to enforce mandates such as this, how else do you think some Companies get away with mandating Hepititis vaccines before being able to work in their surgical hospitals, or pre-schools that mandate a full vaccine record of teachers and students. You will find different companies policy documents full of mandates that are not backed by specific legislation but can be backed up by more broad legislation such as Health and Safety regulations. Qantas and other companies will have very good legal basis for this, every Lawyer I have spoken too about this is in general agreement that Companies can mandate vaccinations should they choose. Obviously Qantas feels there is a commercial advantage to going down this path and the majority of staff support that position.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that wish to fly internationally and layover abroad, the employer is holding the deck of cards and not the employee, irrespective of any legislation. For long haul pilots that have an aversion to getting vaccinated, I am sure a young regional pilot who is vaccinated, will happily swap with you in a heartbeat! 
Xeptu, it would seem that the top barristers, the PM and Fair Work Australia disagree with you, perhaps you should start a legal practice:
The Flu Jab isn’t enforced by any legislation yet FWA upheld an employers right to mandate it’s use in high risk settings.
Employment law experts, including barrister Ian Neil and Adelaide University professor Andrew Stewart, have argued that employers’ common law power to issue “lawful and reasonable” directions could allow them to require staff to be vaccinated.
This view has been bolstered by two recent Fair Work Commission cases upholding the sacking of staff who refused influenza vaccines in child care and aged care settings.
On Friday, Morrison revealed the solicitor general had given national cabinet his view that the legality of requiring a vaccination depends on the “reasonableness of any direction made to an employee”.
Morrison said it was “very clear” that workers in quarantine facilities covered by public health orders could be required to be vaccinated.
He also suggested that it would be reasonable to require employees who “may be in direct contact potentially [with the virus], or [risk] becoming infected” to be vaccinated, such as airline workers.
“You have a second tier, which are those who may be working with people who are quite vulnerable,” he said, citing aged care.
“A third tier are those who are in a position where they are public facing in their daily work. So we’re talking about retail, supermarkets, things of that nature, working in essential occupations.”
The Flu Jab isn’t enforced by any legislation yet FWA upheld an employers right to mandate it’s use in high risk settings.
Employment law experts, including barrister Ian Neil and Adelaide University professor Andrew Stewart, have argued that employers’ common law power to issue “lawful and reasonable” directions could allow them to require staff to be vaccinated.
This view has been bolstered by two recent Fair Work Commission cases upholding the sacking of staff who refused influenza vaccines in child care and aged care settings.
On Friday, Morrison revealed the solicitor general had given national cabinet his view that the legality of requiring a vaccination depends on the “reasonableness of any direction made to an employee”.
Morrison said it was “very clear” that workers in quarantine facilities covered by public health orders could be required to be vaccinated.
He also suggested that it would be reasonable to require employees who “may be in direct contact potentially [with the virus], or [risk] becoming infected” to be vaccinated, such as airline workers.
“You have a second tier, which are those who may be working with people who are quite vulnerable,” he said, citing aged care.
“A third tier are those who are in a position where they are public facing in their daily work. So we’re talking about retail, supermarkets, things of that nature, working in essential occupations.”
Xeptu, it would seem that the top barristers, the PM and Fair Work Australia disagree with you, perhaps you should start a legal practice:
The Flu Jab isn’t enforced by any legislation yet FWA upheld an employers right to mandate it’s use in high risk settings.
Employment law experts, including barrister Ian Neil and Adelaide University professor Andrew Stewart, have argued that employers’ common law power to issue “lawful and reasonable” directions could allow them to require staff to be vaccinated.
This view has been bolstered by two recent Fair Work Commission cases upholding the sacking of staff who refused influenza vaccines in child care and aged care settings.
On Friday, Morrison revealed the solicitor general had given national cabinet his view that the legality of requiring a vaccination depends on the “reasonableness of any direction made to an employee”.
Morrison said it was “very clear” that workers in quarantine facilities covered by public health orders could be required to be vaccinated.
He also suggested that it would be reasonable to require employees who “may be in direct contact potentially [with the virus], or [risk] becoming infected” to be vaccinated, such as airline workers.
“You have a second tier, which are those who may be working with people who are quite vulnerable,” he said, citing aged care.
“A third tier are those who are in a position where they are public facing in their daily work. So we’re talking about retail, supermarkets, things of that nature, working in essential occupations.”
The Flu Jab isn’t enforced by any legislation yet FWA upheld an employers right to mandate it’s use in high risk settings.
Employment law experts, including barrister Ian Neil and Adelaide University professor Andrew Stewart, have argued that employers’ common law power to issue “lawful and reasonable” directions could allow them to require staff to be vaccinated.
This view has been bolstered by two recent Fair Work Commission cases upholding the sacking of staff who refused influenza vaccines in child care and aged care settings.
On Friday, Morrison revealed the solicitor general had given national cabinet his view that the legality of requiring a vaccination depends on the “reasonableness of any direction made to an employee”.
Morrison said it was “very clear” that workers in quarantine facilities covered by public health orders could be required to be vaccinated.
He also suggested that it would be reasonable to require employees who “may be in direct contact potentially [with the virus], or [risk] becoming infected” to be vaccinated, such as airline workers.
“You have a second tier, which are those who may be working with people who are quite vulnerable,” he said, citing aged care.
“A third tier are those who are in a position where they are public facing in their daily work. So we’re talking about retail, supermarkets, things of that nature, working in essential occupations.”
I understand they may wish to cause you to believe that so you believe you are subject to a mandate. Until there's a problem and they say not at all where did you get that.
Note I can't speak for every state, but our health workers have not been personally directed to be vaccinated for CV-19, The health department mandate is probably legal protection enough, but there may still be an argument that I did not voluntarily accept the vaccine because I was required to, show your evidence.
Last edited by Xeptu; 25th Aug 2021 at 09:45.
For those that wish to fly internationally and layover abroad, the employer is holding the deck of cards and not the employee, irrespective of any legislation. For long haul pilots that have an aversion to getting vaccinated, I am sure a young regional pilot who is vaccinated, will happily swap with you in a heartbeat!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xeptu, several times you appear to question the ability of employers to mandate vaccination as the COVID vaccine has not been ‘legislated’. I suspect that you may be confused as to what legal system we use in Australia. We are a ‘common law’ country as opposed to a ‘civil law’ country. Civil law is based on all laws being codified. In common law countries, law is based on laws that are codified (such as legislation) and also on the common law (judge made law) and equity. As an employee of Qantas, pilots will be subject to their obligations under statute, their enterprise agreement and also their common law obligations. One of those common law obligations is to follow a lawful and reasonable direction from their employer. The article linked above describes that obligation in the context of vaccination. For information, one of the people providing information in that article is Andrew Stewart. Those that have studied employment law would recognise him as the person that literally ‘wrote the book’ on Australian employment law.
Xeptu, several times you appear to question the ability of employers to mandate vaccination as the COVID vaccine has not been ‘legislated’. I suspect that you may be confused as to what legal system we use in Australia. We are a ‘common law’ country as opposed to a ‘civil law’ country. Civil law is based on all laws being codified. In common law countries, law is based on laws that are codified (such as legislation) and also on the common law (judge made law) and equity. As an employee of Qantas, pilots will be subject to their obligations under statute, their enterprise agreement and also their common law obligations. One of those common law obligations is to follow a lawful and reasonable direction from their employer. The article linked above describes that obligation in the context of vaccination. For information, one of the people providing information in that article is Andrew Stewart. Those that have studied employment law would recognise him as the person that literally ‘wrote the book’ on Australian employment law.
It will make for an interesting legal argument, not one that will be decided in the FWA.
Further: Given vaccinations fall under health as a medical procedure, I doubt it will or would have been deemed lawful and reasonable.
Last edited by Xeptu; 25th Aug 2021 at 12:03.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt there is a single airline that will accept responsibility for any unfortunate medical outcomes that are linked to the vaccine. I suspect it would not take long to find a legal loophole that ensures that any legal case that was mounted against the airline, fell apart like a pack of cards.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For comparison of policies, read this article on Delta Airlines’ Covid vaccination strategy:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08...ck-market-news
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08...ck-market-news
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the argument for application of common law where the matter falls outside of that which legislation applies as is the case in this instance. Then it would come down to a lawful and reasonable direction and I think that's where the issue is given where the vaccine was at the time the mandate was made, if in fact there has been such a mandate.
It will make for an interesting legal argument, not one that will be decided in the FWA.
Further: Given vaccinations fall under health as a medical procedure, I doubt it will or would have been deemed lawful and reasonable.
It will make for an interesting legal argument, not one that will be decided in the FWA.
Further: Given vaccinations fall under health as a medical procedure, I doubt it will or would have been deemed lawful and reasonable.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the very same company stance that has just been announced by Swiss, who have now mandated all of their crew shall be vaccinated. They picked out Far East destinations as becoming particularly problematic with crew rostering.
Lawful and reasonable are legal concepts backed by case law. It is not what you may think is ‘reasonable’. I don’t agree with your assessment that something that is a health issue falls outside ‘lawful and reasonable’, as complying with a work health and safety requirement is certainly a criteria that would put a direction ‘lawful and reasonable’.
To keep it simple, laws are made by our elected members in parliament, when interpretation of that is needed the Judiciary. To make a company direction in the form of a mandate, would leave the employee believing "I must comply" that direction therefore is misleading, not reasonable and doomed to fail.
I won't be saying anymore about this matter and to be clear this is about the Company Mandate, not the C-19 vaccine
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your opening statement defines it perfectly, case law, precedent. It's not what a lawyer thinks is reasonable either and certainly not the office girl.
To keep it simple, laws are made by our elected members in parliament, when interpretation of that is needed the Judiciary. To make a company direction in the form of a mandate, would leave the employee believing "I must comply" that direction therefore is misleading, not reasonable and doomed to fail.
I won't be saying anymore about this matter and to be clear this is about the Company Mandate, not the C-19 vaccine
To keep it simple, laws are made by our elected members in parliament, when interpretation of that is needed the Judiciary. To make a company direction in the form of a mandate, would leave the employee believing "I must comply" that direction therefore is misleading, not reasonable and doomed to fail.
I won't be saying anymore about this matter and to be clear this is about the Company Mandate, not the C-19 vaccine
To keep it simple, you have it wrong again. You have described the civil law system. While a lawyer may not actually make the law with regards to what is lawful and reasonable, they have the training to give reasonable advice about what is. That is why the opinions in the linked article above are useful. Most Qantas mainline pilots have access to advice if they call AIPA and ask. What you have stated above is based on what appears to be just your uninformed opinion.
