Qantas terminates long haul cabin crew agreement, demands more flexibility
What would be the grounds for Fair Work to terminate an agreement? Surely QF can’t use COVID tough times blah blah blah that would start a rolling domino affect in all industry’s when other EAs are open.
That Qantas could do this would be no surprise to Mainline pilots, as they were warned of this possible consequence by some of their AIPA representatives during the last round of bargaining for enterprise agreements. Unfortunately some labeled them scaremongers.
You need to have gone past the expiry date of your enterprise agreement to be able to follow the process to get approval from Fair Work to conduct protected industrial action. Moreover, the action cannot be in support of claims by workers under a different industrial agreement. So, no, there cannot be ‘industry wide‘ protected industrial action.
Plenty of agreements reaching their maturity in the near future and hundreds of staff members with long memories who have been burnt by greed driven airline managers. A career spent being sh!t talked and having our profession destroyed by said managers must have ramifications for the perpetrators. I would never suggest anyone conduct their own unprotected action but I have to say the little extras and goodwill that airlines have enjoyed for decades is not covered by my agreement. At a time when staff are the ONLY way airlines can recover, managers are playing a game of diminishing returns.
With regard to your statement, be aware that not performing 'the little extras that are not covered by your agreement', may well be considered taking industrial action. The Act, in part, defines industrial action as: 'the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice which results in a restriction, or limitation on, or a delay in the performance of work'.
I understand the sentiment, and don't disagree. My comments above are not in any way meant to state that I accept that the industrial laws in this country are fair or balanced, I was just relaying what the legislation contains.
With regard to your statement, be aware that not performing 'the little extras that are not covered by your agreement', may well be considered taking industrial action. The Act, in part, defines industrial action as: 'the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice which results in a restriction, or limitation on, or a delay in the performance of work'.
With regard to your statement, be aware that not performing 'the little extras that are not covered by your agreement', may well be considered taking industrial action. The Act, in part, defines industrial action as: 'the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice which results in a restriction, or limitation on, or a delay in the performance of work'.
Odd how that never cuts the other way. The little extras I enjoyed back when I was a valued member of an airline team have been quite openly withdrawn over the years. Anyhoo good on us for showing an interest in what the company is (attempting) to do to our cabin colleagues.
Unfortunately, it looks like the statements put out by Qantas look eerily similar to the successful arguments used to terminate the Griffin Coal agreement. In that case, the public interest test argument was construed as meeting the objects of the Act of flexibility for business, productivity and economic growth against the protection of the relevant modern award.
You mean in the way other airlines CC such as BA, Virgin Atlantic and Australia (when they had LH B777 and A330 types), EK, EY, QR and who knows how many others with mixed fleets operate with no significant problems? My partner is CC for an airline and works across multiple types, equipment and layouts with no issues. As an Engineer I am Licensed and work across multiple types, engines, equipment and configs (even within the same type). If the Union were a bit more aware, they should be negotiating a reasonable pay rise on the basis of their members expanded qualifications.
This is the weapon by which the ruling class oppress the working class. The award system is deliberately suppressed to keep the remuneration levels (and conditions) abysmally low. This provides the mechanism for employers to strip out conditions for a few extra pennies of wages and remain above the award. The ultimate agenda is for the employer groups to arrive at a situation where there are no conditions left to bargain with and hence Australia will join the nations of the working class poor. Those who think this is not possible in this country need to research history. Why do you think unions came into being? The irrefutable fact is (for the general population) there is a direct correlation between low union membership and diminished wages and employment conditions.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/work...11-p5984f.html
Nunc est bibendum
Chris, Gordon was suggesting an industry wide strike. We sure as heck aren’t going to see an industry wide ‘great resignation’.
No doubt some of the F/As will. In fact a number of them have definitely done so already. Having been stood down many discovered alternative careers. They happily built these careers over the last 20 months whilst also pocketing the jobkeeper and other amounts paid (IRP, DRP, etc) and then when the time to be recalled came tendered their resignations. Good on those who did and good on those who also saw the opportunity to take VR.
Those who chose to remain though are now faced with this set of circumstances and as the Headmaster has pointed out, the game is not geared towards favouring the employee.
No doubt some of the F/As will. In fact a number of them have definitely done so already. Having been stood down many discovered alternative careers. They happily built these careers over the last 20 months whilst also pocketing the jobkeeper and other amounts paid (IRP, DRP, etc) and then when the time to be recalled came tendered their resignations. Good on those who did and good on those who also saw the opportunity to take VR.
Those who chose to remain though are now faced with this set of circumstances and as the Headmaster has pointed out, the game is not geared towards favouring the employee.
They've also pre-empted the fact, as with last night's news, that the real money earner, Domestic, is going to have it's full recovery further delayed by months. So minimum cost for labour is priority.
As above, looks like those COVID tough times are going to continue.....
As above, looks like those COVID tough times are going to continue.....
Last edited by dr dre; 21st Jan 2022 at 00:20.
Most people I know (not all) needed to take leave at various times just to keep food on the table, particularly families where both incomes are supplied by the aviation industry. Not too many peeps could just live off jobkeeper, but I’m sure there were some.
The group basically had their leave balances subsidized by jobkeeper during the pandemic.
Also, the entity I work for made the whole process as convoluted as possible. As a result, people missed out of government support via various cutoffs, payroll anomalies, payroll balancing, company policy (fortnight support payments vs monthly pays) etc.
Nunc est bibendum
Correct. Jobkeeper was always advertised as a business support. In the early part of the pandemic I took some leave and the jobkeeper money went direct to QF to cover that leave. Later in the pandemic I was stood down, took no leave, and thus I got the full benefit of the jobkeeper amount.
Not only did Jobkeeper subsidise staff burning their leave but it also subsidised every staff member that remained working. That was the exactly as the government intended.
And yes, if one was being paid for meal allowances in arrears when stood down then that also impacted on how much flowed through to the individual. Sadly, that too was as the government intended.
However the crew I was referring to earlier started other jobs/ careers. Thus they weren’t burning leave. The jobkeeper amount went through to them on top of their income in their new job/ career. And when QF asked them to return many of them said ‘yeah, nah’.
Not only did Jobkeeper subsidise staff burning their leave but it also subsidised every staff member that remained working. That was the exactly as the government intended.
And yes, if one was being paid for meal allowances in arrears when stood down then that also impacted on how much flowed through to the individual. Sadly, that too was as the government intended.
However the crew I was referring to earlier started other jobs/ careers. Thus they weren’t burning leave. The jobkeeper amount went through to them on top of their income in their new job/ career. And when QF asked them to return many of them said ‘yeah, nah’.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much crap written. Look at how many times Andrew David and Qantas say COVID in offical communication.
Qantas only able to pull this off whilst COVID is such a big issue. Omicron wave will soon end and Qantas will run out of justification.
Don’t waste a crisis. Trying to tie this to other unrelated issues is just misinformation.
Qantas only able to pull this off whilst COVID is such a big issue. Omicron wave will soon end and Qantas will run out of justification.
Don’t waste a crisis. Trying to tie this to other unrelated issues is just misinformation.