Qantas Court Loss
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The same thing happens in retail - "I don't work for Myer"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else.
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).
Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
