QF mandates Vaccine
From Qantas
If you're booked to travel to or from Australia on a Qantas aircraft, you'll need to be fully vaccinated. Many countries have also introduced entry requirements in relation to COVID-19, which may include providing proof of a negative pre-departure COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test result prior to travel. If you're unable to meet these requirements, you may still be able to travel with us under certain circumstances.
Please keep up.
If you're booked to travel to or from Australia on a Qantas aircraft, you'll need to be fully vaccinated. Many countries have also introduced entry requirements in relation to COVID-19, which may include providing proof of a negative pre-departure COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test result prior to travel. If you're unable to meet these requirements, you may still be able to travel with us under certain circumstances.
Please keep up.
Last edited by Troo believer; 16th Nov 2021 at 23:56.
Not sure where people get that companies can not mandate things. Private companies set the rules for themselves, the only real law governing that is human rights and discrimination policy. Try to turn up to work at QANTAS out of uniform, try turning up to work at QANTAS day after day without washing or cleaning yourself, and many other things, that is why airlines have a 'policy and procedure' manual as thick as some anti vaxxers heads. These are all mandates/requirements for you to work there. I could run around all day fighting that I want to roll in dirt and wear my tracksuit to work because muh human rights. At the end of the day I can do that all I want at home but on QANTAS payrole I have to do what mommy wants and be happy, that's life. There is no discrimination here as vaccination is a choice and the rule applies equally to all regardless of anything else, there is no human rights violation because you are not being forced to vaccinated as it's a choice of whether you want to work there or not. SO all it comes down to is, QANTAS has set a rule, you have to follow it, the same way you dress up as pilots each day and brush your teeth and maintain hygiene as expected of the position.
I've had the jab and these clowns are infringing and usurping MY rights to live in a safe environment.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That passenger mandate is for International only. My apologies. But there is no domestic mandate as far as I am aware.
43Inches, all you have given me is an opinion. In fact you have stretched it even further and said that a company can mandate anything it likes.
Actually, I believe that companies can only make mandates that are lawful. For anything that treads close to the line, such as this, a company may have to prove a significant risk to or from unvaccinated employees.
If Qantas mandated all staff to tattoo a kangaroo on their face, would that be lawful? I would suggest not - I think they would lose that one in court.
As far, as far as I am aware, the COVID vaccine mandate of a private company is yet to be tested in court - particularly one that is not specifically “high risk” (how many times have they told us that aircraft cabins and flight decks are “low risk”) - how many COVID cases in this country have been contracted in an aircraft?
BHP may be the first to test it.
Here is a legal opinion that is not as black and white as some here seem to suggest: https://www.sparke.com.au/insights/t...-normal-world/
43Inches, all you have given me is an opinion. In fact you have stretched it even further and said that a company can mandate anything it likes.
Actually, I believe that companies can only make mandates that are lawful. For anything that treads close to the line, such as this, a company may have to prove a significant risk to or from unvaccinated employees.
If Qantas mandated all staff to tattoo a kangaroo on their face, would that be lawful? I would suggest not - I think they would lose that one in court.
As far, as far as I am aware, the COVID vaccine mandate of a private company is yet to be tested in court - particularly one that is not specifically “high risk” (how many times have they told us that aircraft cabins and flight decks are “low risk”) - how many COVID cases in this country have been contracted in an aircraft?
BHP may be the first to test it.
Here is a legal opinion that is not as black and white as some here seem to suggest: https://www.sparke.com.au/insights/t...-normal-world/
Tatooing would definitely be against human rights so bad example. And yes obviously a company has to act within the law, that's a no brainer. But unless you actually infringe on an employees rights or discriminate against them you can do anything within the stated contract. I think you need to have a good read of the reasoning behind why mandated flu shot requirements were upheld, which is what I based my comments on. One, there was finding that no human rights were infringed, two there was no discrimination as its a discretionary choice. The only other condition that need by met is is it necessary, and in those cases the chance of encountering members of the public vulnerable to Flu was high and therefore the vaccination justified. Now in regard to an airline that is a similar answer. As an airline employee are you likely to be in contact with people vulnerable to covid, the answer is almost certainly yes if you are customer service, flight attendant or flight crew as the latter also occupy a sealed space with such passengers for an entire flight duration. The only other option would be to deny travel to those with vulnerable conditions, which then really delves into discrimination as you then have to exclude a large part of the population such as diabetics, lung and heart conditions, old age etc...
OH and BTW, a company, and you and I can do whatever we want, mandate away, but then anything can be tested in court as to whether its acceptable. Most things have a predictable outcome. The question you have about whether covid mandates are legal is an opinion at present, as it has not been tested, and current rules allow it to be mandated until otherwise judged. The result vs the flu shot really is a similar precedence so it comes down to the same questions asked there. I can sack someone that doesn't want to get vaccinated, cause no one has said I can not, that's the simple stick of it right now.
OH and BTW, a company, and you and I can do whatever we want, mandate away, but then anything can be tested in court as to whether its acceptable. Most things have a predictable outcome. The question you have about whether covid mandates are legal is an opinion at present, as it has not been tested, and current rules allow it to be mandated until otherwise judged. The result vs the flu shot really is a similar precedence so it comes down to the same questions asked there. I can sack someone that doesn't want to get vaccinated, cause no one has said I can not, that's the simple stick of it right now.
Last edited by 43Inches; 17th Nov 2021 at 09:12.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only other condition that need by met is is it necessary, and in those cases the chance of encountering members of the public vulnerable to Flu was high and therefore the vaccination justified. Now in regard to an airline that is a similar answer. As an airline employee are you likely to be in contact with people vulnerable to covid, the answer is almost certainly yes if you are customer service, flight attendant or flight crew as the latter also occupy a sealed space with such passengers for an entire flight duration.
How do you justify the BHP mandate?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
There are already thousands of workers compensation claims going through due to catching covid at work, including deaths. Projections of cost are already in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Article here
Employers are of course legally obliged to provide a safe work place and they know insurance premiums will rise, or even worse they may not be able to buy cover without a mandate. They'd be fools not to do what they can to protect themselves.
Qantas obviously has looked at workers comp as an issue, it's big bucks, but because of the nature of the business, they must give their passengers whatever confidence they can to get onto an aircraft and know the vast majority of the staff and passengers are vaccinated. It's not perfect , but it's the best protection available.
Like it or not, the world and as a consequence, the work environment has changed due to covid.
Job or no job. Travel by aircraft or not.
I'm not even sure why the thread is still running, it's like arguing over a referee's decision in last season's footy finals.
The deadline has passed, those walking the walk will presumably have been given their show cause and or stood down.
Article here
Employers are of course legally obliged to provide a safe work place and they know insurance premiums will rise, or even worse they may not be able to buy cover without a mandate. They'd be fools not to do what they can to protect themselves.
Qantas obviously has looked at workers comp as an issue, it's big bucks, but because of the nature of the business, they must give their passengers whatever confidence they can to get onto an aircraft and know the vast majority of the staff and passengers are vaccinated. It's not perfect , but it's the best protection available.
Like it or not, the world and as a consequence, the work environment has changed due to covid.
Job or no job. Travel by aircraft or not.
I'm not even sure why the thread is still running, it's like arguing over a referee's decision in last season's footy finals.
The deadline has passed, those walking the walk will presumably have been given their show cause and or stood down.
Sorry, but that argument dies the moment they mandate for all staff, not just customer facing. Which they have.
How do you justify the BHP mandate?
How do you justify the BHP mandate?
You have to remember that this is a test of unfair dismissal rules, we are not discussing murder or theft of property. As no overall rule exists for this then a commissioner has to make a ruling based on what I've discussed before. The company can still mandate such rules until someone enacts laws banning it as has been done in some states in the US. If it's written into contract that workers agree to then that covers it, regardless of rulings. So we have narrowed this down to how can an existing employee be treated if choosing not to vaccinate and the company has given proper notice, warning and time to allow such effect.
The answer partly can be to re-employ such worker in an area not requiring vaccination, if its a company wide mandate this may not be possible. Then it comes back to the question, is it lawful and necessary? Lawful has been discussed under discrimination and rights. So we come to whether it is justified. In the case of non customer facing then it becomes harder, but still possible to claim it's for health and OHS reasons, or even cost of maintaining higher level of cleaning and so on. In the case of BHP they could cite reasoning such as operating in close quarters remote environments, where the risk of infection and transmission balanced against being able to provide adequate medical provisions. In city tower blocks we could see reasoning such as closed environment promoting transmission and transit of vulnerable staff that work in such facilities.
There's a myriad of possibilities based on infinite workplace scenarios, however the case for airlines front facing staff is pretty much in line with what has already been tested.
The legal test is: is the directive lawful and reasonable. To be lawful, it must not involve illegality. Reasonableness is a test that looks at the relationship between the directive and the nature of the employment. Failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction may be grounds for dismissal. Even if a dismissal is subsequently found to be unfair by Fair Work, reinstatement is not guaranteed.
The legal test is: is the directive lawful and reasonable. To be lawful, it must not involve illegality. Reasonableness is a test that looks at the relationship between the directive and the nature of the employment. Failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction may be grounds for dismissal. Even if a dismissal is subsequently found to be unfair by Fair Work, reinstatement is not guaranteed.
It appears those digging in will probably either capitulate or walk. Less than 20 holding out apparently which is an incredibly small percentage given that the group employs more than 3000 pilots as a rough guess. Why you would give away a high paying job over a needle is beyond me. Perhaps it’s for the better for all concerned if they go. Time to move on and enjoy the normality that’s approaching from over the horizon and put the last two years behind us.
For those holding out, good luck in your new endeavours. It must be incredibly difficult for your family and friends to watch this transpire unnecessarily. I simply don’t understand.
Since there will always be a percentage that are unvaxxed, what does it matter that 20 out of 3000 are not? You are protected, and don't know if the guy standing next to you at the coffee cart is or is not (and right now you are just relying on the percentages after all), so what does it matter that someone in your company may be that guy? The country is open and we are back to "normal" when 300 out of 3000 are unvaxxed.
“I've had the jab and these clowns are infringing and usurping MY rights to live in a safe environment.”
If I don’t turn up to work having had a few drinks, why should I be bothered if others turn up after a couple of beers? I’ve made my choices to turn up sober, what other people do with their bodies is their business. Right?
To be lawful, it must not involve illegality.
It's a necessary distinction because there are a bunch of crewroom lawyers who think that "lawful instruction" means "there is a law saying I have to do it", when what it actually means is "there isn't a law saying it's illegal". The company can make the lawful instruction eg "Bloggs must wear a company high-vis and uniform while on the tarmac", and Bloggs can get in trouble - fired, even - for breaking that instruction, even though there is no law anywhere on the books stating "All employees of XYZ Airlines must wear company high-vis and uniform".
It's a necessary distinction because there are a bunch of crewroom lawyers who think that "lawful instruction" means "there is a law saying I have to do it", when what it actually means is "there isn't a law saying it's illegal". The company can make the lawful instruction eg "Bloggs must wear a company high-vis and uniform while on the tarmac", and Bloggs can get in trouble - fired, even - for breaking that instruction, even though there is no law anywhere on the books stating "All employees of XYZ Airlines must wear company high-vis and uniform".
“I've had the jab and these clowns are infringing and usurping MY rights to live in a safe environment.”
If I don’t turn up to work having had a few drinks, why should I be bothered if others turn up after a couple of beers? I’ve made my choices to turn up sober, what other people do with their bodies is their business. Right?
If I don’t turn up to work having had a few drinks, why should I be bothered if others turn up after a couple of beers? I’ve made my choices to turn up sober, what other people do with their bodies is their business. Right?
Since I am vaccinated, I couldn’t care less if the bloke next to me is. It’s his risk, not mine.
If you believe the unvaccinated next to you is a risk to your safety, you wouldn’t be at work travelling overseas would you?
Since there will always be a percentage that are unvaxxed, what does it matter that 20 out of 3000 are not? You are protected, and don't know if the guy standing next to you at the coffee cart is or is not (and right now you are just relying on the percentages after all), so what does it matter that someone in your company may be that guy? The country is open and we are back to "normal" when 300 out of 3000 are unvaxxed.