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

Qantas Court Loss

Old 5th May 2022, 11:38
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blubak View Post
There probably werent any or many 64yr olds but there were lots in their 50's who had lots of experience & the 'knowhow' to identify & fix a problem quickly.
Right now there is none of that & even if some of these guys are working for a contractor their job now is just to turn up,load or unload the baggage & leave the problem solving to somebody else thus its not hard to work out why baggage is often either not going or going somewhere it was never intended to go.
This is the issue with all forms of outsourcing. Much easier to say 'not my problem', with little regard or pride for the company itself.
The same thing happens in retail - "I don't work for Myer"
lc_461 is offline  
Old 6th May 2022, 00:45
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,999
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Qantas was all about it’s people. They made the airline what it was, an highly regarded international ambassador recognised by all.

Recent CEO’s and Board Members are going out of their way to get rid of those people. Before too long, there will be no one employed by Qantas Airways LTD.



Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 6th May 2022, 22:41
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Qantas was all about it’s people. They made the airline what it was, an highly regarded international ambassador recognised by all.

Recent CEO’s and Board Members are going out of their way to get rid of those people. Before too long, there will be no one employed by Qantas Airways LTD.

Shh🤫 you’ll give them ideas how to get around the pesky Qantas Sales Act😂
Roj approved is offline  
Old 7th May 2022, 08:19
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How about the TWU attack each board member separately, under the Corporation’s Act? The board must have known AJ’s actions would be borderline illegal but they didn’t act? Therefore breaching their duties? Then they each face fines, disqualification? Divide and conquer Just a thought.
Vref+5 is offline  
Old 7th May 2022, 09:06
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vref+5 View Post
How about the TWU attack each board member separately, under the Corporation’s Act? The board must have known AJ’s actions would be borderline illegal but they didn’t act? Therefore breaching their duties? Then they each face fines, disqualification? Divide and conquer Just a thought.
Arent they all in bed together!!
They all tell each other how good they are & how hard they work.
U are correct though,they would have known & are as guilty as AJ & co.
blubak is offline  
Old 7th May 2022, 10:35
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Maybe AJ woke up one Saturday morning with this “master plan”. Has a familiar ring to it.
LAME2 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2022, 00:17
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 39
Posts: 1,021
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
So after losing the initial Federal court case, then the appeal to that case, Qaint-arse is now taking their argument to the High Court. Here's hoping they get their arses handed to them again to prove their dog act was illegal.
Qantas given green light to appeal court ruling that outsourcing baggage handlers was illegal

Qantas has been given the green light to fight a court ruling that its outsourcing of about 1700 ground crew workers during the Covid-19 pandemic was unlawful.

The High Court granted the national carrier special leave to appeal against two earlier Federal Court rulings in a hearing on Friday.

Qantas earlier this year vowed to take its case to the High Court after losing its appeal against a 2021 ruling that the outsourcing was unlawful.

The Federal Court found the airline’s decision was partially motivated by many of the sacked workers being union members with stronger bargaining capability. The full bench of the Federal Court in May unanimously rejected Qantas’ first appeal against the decision.

The Transport Workers’ Union says it will “mount the strongest possible case” in the High Court following the outcome of Friday’s hearing.

Qantas has struggled with a shortage of baggage handlers since it outsourced its own ground crews and replaced many of them with staff contracted from labour hire companies.
KRviator is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2022, 20:27
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
So after losing the initial Federal court case, then the appeal to that case, Qaint-arse is now taking their argument to the High Court. Here's hoping they get their arses handed to them again to prove their dog act was illegal.
In reality,is this surprising?
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else.
blubak is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2022, 03:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 274
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by blubak View Post
In reality,is this surprising?
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else.
I said months ago, without any dog in the fight personally, that this is not over until it is heard in the High Court. Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.

Good luck to both sides.

Anyone denigrating either side and suggesting (albeit in a veiled manner) as appears in some of the comments on this thread, that Qantas is somehow doing something illegal by pursuing its right to appeal, would be saying exactly the opposite if they'd been convicted of something and were exercising all their rights to appeal. Whether Qantas did the wrong thing or not is for the courts to decide.

I am happy to be proven wrong but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was the TWU, I find it hard to believe that the High Court will uphold any decision that removes the right of a company to determine who it employs to perform certain work, even if we don't agree with contracting out.

Certainly if Qantas win in the High Court, then that's the end of the matter. Unless Tony Abbott worms his way back into power and decides, a la his stupid 'Knights and Dames' decision, to re-introduce appeals to the Privy Council LOL (although I don't think that is possible constitutionally now due to the Australia Acts).
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2022, 09:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 392
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
Good luck to both sides.
You’ve obviously never worked in the QF Group
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2022, 00:44
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,651
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.
Actually, it is “illegal” unless and until the higher court overturns the lower court’s decision. What do you think the position would have been if the High Court had refused Qantas leave to appeal? The majority of judicial decisions are not appealed to any higher court and the great majority of applications for leave to appeal a decision to the High Court are refused. (Some stats on applications to the: High Court.)

A higher court can effectively delay the operation of a lower court decision, pending the outcome of an appeal, but I think that’s a matter of discretion in most if not all cases. Are you aware of any authority for the proposition that the grant of leave to appeal to the High Court ‘automatically’ stays the effect of the decision appealed against? I may have missed something.

But, as you say, the High Court could ultimately find that the Federal Court got it wrong.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 01:52
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
I said months ago, without any dog in the fight personally, that this is not over until it is heard in the High Court. Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.
Well, the court doesn't decide if something is illegal or not, that's already set out by the law. The court decides if the accused is guilty of the illegal act.

Good luck to both sides.
How can both sides have good luck in this matter?

Anyone denigrating either side and suggesting (albeit in a veiled manner) as appears in some of the comments on this thread, that Qantas is somehow doing something illegal by pursuing its right to appeal
I don’t see anyone denigrating either side or making such suggestions although to be fair my drivel filter is on.
Eclan is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 07:30
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,651
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Well, the court doesn't decide if something is illegal or not, that's already set out by the law. The court decides if the accused is guilty of the illegal act.
Oh dear.

In this case the High Court won’t decide whether an “accused” is “guilty” or “not guilty”. The High Court will decide what “already set out by the law” means.

At least your misconceptions help to explain your weird statements in the thread about Romeo areas.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 09:57
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 47
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Either way sick leave is going gangbusters! Take the freebies! Lol
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 12:06
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,066
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
I am happy to be proven wrong but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was the TWU, I find it hard to believe that the High Court will uphold any decision that removes the right of a company to determine who it employs to perform certain work, even if we don't agree with contracting out.
Pretty sure this is not about who they choose to employ, rather the process and manner in which a large section were dismissed and under what pretence. The court is deciding on whether the dismissals were conducted in an appropriate manner, and if not, what penalties/compensation is warranted. If it was about whether they have the right to dismiss them or not then there would be an argument for reinstatement.
43Inches is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 12:24
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 274
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Actually, it is “illegal” unless and until the higher court overturns the lower court’s decision. What do you think the position would have been if the High Court had refused Qantas leave to appeal? The majority of judicial decisions are not appealed to any higher court and the great majority of applications for leave to appeal a decision to the High Court are refused. (Some stats on applications to the: High Court.)

A higher court can effectively delay the operation of a lower court decision, pending the outcome of an appeal, but I think that’s a matter of discretion in most if not all cases. Are you aware of any authority for the proposition that the grant of leave to appeal to the High Court ‘automatically’ stays the effect of the decision appealed against? I may have missed something.

But, as you say, the High Court could ultimately find that the Federal Court got it wrong.
Yes, you are correct, I was a little sloppy in my wording. Of course, the High Court decision will render it 'legal' or it will stay 'illegal' depending on their decision. What I was trying to say I guess is that it's not settled until the final decision now it has been accepted to be heard by the High Court.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 12:30
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 274
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Oh dear.

In this case the High Court won’t decide whether an “accused” is “guilty” or “not guilty”. The High Court will decide what “already set out by the law” means.

At least your misconceptions help to explain your weird statements in the thread about Romeo areas.
Actually, the Court CAN decide whether something is legal or not. The High Court can and has struck down laws which have been used to prosecute a case on the basis they are unconstitutional. Not saying that is at play here, but the High Court can very much determine something that is 'illegal' to be 'legal' or otherwise. Australian Capital Television vs the Commonwealth is one such example. The Commonwealth sought to restrict political advertising, essentially making it 'illegal' to say certain things. The High Court struck the entire law down as unconstitutional because it breached an implied right to freedom of political thought and association in the Constitution. BTW, it wasn't just some esoteric legal argument as I understand, based on the Judges opinions of what the law should be, it was based on the character of the constitution, a la the entrenchment of popular sovereignty and ".... the people of the Commonwealth..." electing parliaments characterising the polity as a political democracy, which can't exist without said freedom. The only difference here is that no one was charged with breaching the law, it was rather appealed as a law.

LB. I've come to respect your opinion so I'm sure you can put what I'm trying to say less clumsily in a legal sense than I have.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2022, 23:55
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,651
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
I think we're in heated agreement, but using different words, AP! You are of course correct. The High Court's 'main' job is to decide whether 'something' is lawful or not (or, in layperson's language, "legal" or "illegal") contrary to Eclan's ridiculous assertion.

In this case, the High Court will decide whether the Full Court of the Federal Court's judgment contains errors of a kind that would justify allowing Qantas's appeal. That process necessarily entails the High Court first deciding what the applicable law is and means.

Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2022, 00:19
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 692
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
I think we're in heated agreement, but using different words, AP! You are of course correct. The High Court's 'main' job is to decide whether 'something' is lawful or not (or, in layperson's language, "legal" or "illegal") contrary to Eclan's ridiculous assertion.

In this case, the High Court will decide whether the Full Court of the Federal Court's judgment contains errors of a kind that would justify allowing Qantas's appeal. That process necessarily entails the High Court first deciding what the applicable law is and means.
Are we to assume that the law itself will be applied lawfully?
gordonfvckingramsay is online now  
Old 23rd Nov 2022, 00:22
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,651
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
That, by definition, is what the High Court does. What it pronounces to be the law, is the law in relation to the circumstances of the case, unless the High Court subsequently pronounces the law to be something different (or the Parliament passes a valid law making the law different).
Lead Balloon is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.