Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

CAO 48.1 Operators Breaching the Award

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

CAO 48.1 Operators Breaching the Award

Old 29th Jun 2022, 04:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,254
CAO 48.1 Operators Breaching the Award

It's hardly breaking news that the protracted implementation of CAO 48.1 was due in no small part to the increasing influence of Industry. Initially hoped to provide enhanced protection against fatigue, it has devolved into a document worse than its predecessor! We now have situations where crew can be worked well in excess of the previous limits, and the onus for policing actual fatigue levels has fallen largely onto the individual, with all the associated pressures that can be brought to bear by some unscrupulous operators.

With commendable foresight the authors of the Air Pilots Award 2020 have included many of the protections of the former CAO48. One such inclusion (of which there are several) is what we all knew as the "12 hour rule" now to be found in the Air Pilots Award 2020 15.8 (n). Black and White! Under the old CAO48, bust 12 hours (of which you were forbidden to do so intentionally) and you are required to have at least 24 hours free from all duty. Now, under our "enhanced" Fatigue rules, you can legally bust 12 hours, and your duty free period is just 1.5 times the exceedance added to 12 hours! CAO48.1 8.2.

As we all know, an employer is not allowed to subject an employee to workplace conditions or practices that reduce to below the Award. This includes an EBA, a signed Workplace agreement, or any other instrument except the National Employment Standards (NES). I have been informed by a former colleague that his airline has stated that in accordance with CAO48.1, they can, and will, require them to perform duties up to 13.5 hours!

Know your rights everyone.
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 05:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,265
Are they operating under an Appendix or FRMS? If it’s the later the operator would have wrote their own script and CASA should have already signed off on it by now. I’m not taking sides, however the 12 hour rule was ditched with the recent 48.1 changes for those operating under an approved FRMS.

Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 08:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 155
FRMS is a heap of shit, end of story.
Don Diego is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 08:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,265
Originally Posted by Don Diego View Post
FRMS is a heap of shit, end of story.
Yer, don’t tell me because I know.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 08:59
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Don Diego View Post
FRMS is a heap of shit, end of story.
Why? I operate under a great FRMS that is far more restrictive than anything CASA or the award dreams up.

”FRMS Is a heap of shit” is a very broad and incorrect statement.
morno is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 11:05
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34 View Post
Sorry Guys,

But you are all missing the point! Let me quote from my original post:

"...an employer is not allowed to subject an employee to workplace conditions or practices that reduce to below the Award. This includes an EBA, a signed Workplace agreement, OR ANY OTHER INSTRUMENT (additional emphasis) except the national Employment standards...

So it doesn't matter if your FRMS (as in any other instrument) is gold plated or a turd rolled in sprinkles, if it requires you to work hours that are greater than the Award, it ain't legal for them to direct you to do it!

The FRMS in this case is irrelevant!
This is why NJS were forced…sorry voted…to delete virtually all of their EBA rights to a lifestyle. The FRMS is the target now.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 12:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 407
How many pilots will take the employer to Fairwork over a breach of this nature?
tossbag is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 12:16
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 267
Wouldn’t they argue that a salary above the award or more days off cancels it out?
TimmyTee is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 12:31
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: A long way from home
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by TimmyTee View Post
Wouldn’t they argue that a salary above the award or more days off cancels it out?
Nah, they'd save themselves the bother and read up and realise that clause 15.2 of the air pilots award 2020 states that - provided you work less than 38 hours a week on average - rest periods will be determined by the CASA regs, employer exemptions or the FRMS.
Rhterrke Atnyeneteke is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 13:20
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by Rhterrke Atnyeneteke View Post
Nah, they'd save themselves the bother and read up and realise that clause 15.2 of the air pilots award 2020 states that - provided you work less than 38 hours a week on average - rest periods will be determined by the CASA regs, employer exemptions or the FRMS.
Correct, but Clause 15.4 states that if you work in accordance with Clause 15.2(a) the following provisions will apply, including Clause 15.8(n)
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 22:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 155
Morno, good for you. In 40 plus years of 48 it was not too hard to figure out where you stood but this “heap of shit” has more if’s, but’s and maybe’s than a Rhodes Scholar could understand, remember and use, they had to make a “calculator” to help. Nope, just a modern whip to get more out of us and oh, if you go “fatigued” there must be something wrong with you so off to the company Dr for a look see. Yeah great.
Don Diego is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2022, 23:23
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
15.3 Facilitative Provision

Clauses 15.4 to 15.8 may be varied by agreement between the employer and a majority of the employees in the workplace or part of it.
What is your understanding of clause 15.3 KRUSTY 34? Is your former colleague working under the bare bones of the Award, or an agreement?

Last edited by RatherBeFlying07; 30th Jun 2022 at 00:00.
RatherBeFlying07 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2022, 09:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Here and now
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Don Diego View Post
Morno, good for you. In 40 plus years of 48 it was not too hard to figure out where you stood but this “heap of shit” has more if’s, but’s and maybe’s than a Rhodes Scholar could understand, remember and use, they had to make a “calculator” to help. Nope, just a modern whip to get more out of us and oh, if you go “fatigued” there must be something wrong with you so off to the company Dr for a look see. Yeah great.
THIS !!! ^^^
There are guys falling out with medicals in large numbers in recent years and in addition, companies REFUSING to put air quality monitors in the aircraft and it's all just a big mystery.
With the diversity quota wide open, perhaps enough minorities may get sick enough they might just start looking into the industry. Already had more guys at one of the majors go long term sick to make the ABC 'cancer cluster' look like a rounding error.

Last edited by Slugga; 30th Jun 2022 at 10:00.
Slugga is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2022, 22:13
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 552
(n) Where a tour of duty already commenced exceeds 12 hours or the flight time exceeds 9 hours the employee will have,at the completion of the tour of duty,a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours.[size=33px]
”....already commenced....” is different to a rostered duty that exceeds 12 hours, isn’t it?


ie I’m rostered for a 9 hour duty, the duty has commenced, but now you go beyond 12hrs duty (or 9hrs Flt), you then get 24hrs off

is a different scenario than

im rostered for a 12.5hr duty in the first place.[/size]

Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2022, 23:11
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,254
Have a look at 15.8 (l).

That pretty much takes care of the semantics of whether “already commenced” has any relevance?
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2022, 23:32
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,299
Are you saying that, because of (l), (n) has no practical operation? That would be an unusual interpretation.

Seems that (n) is intended to operate in circumstances in which a pilot's tour of duty exceeds 12 hours or the flight time exceeds 9 hours, despite having been rostered for less than 12/9.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 30th Jun 2022 at 23:55. Reason: Transposed paras
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2022, 23:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: A long way from home
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34 View Post
Correct, but Clause 15.4 states that if you work in accordance with Clause 15.2(a) the following provisions will apply, including Clause 15.8(n)
Sure. But 15.3 Facilitative Provision says you can modify this, and 15.5 says it doesn't apply to a >2 pilot crew.

Furthermore you're conveniently ignored the elephant in the room by stopping reading 15.2 at 15.2(a)...(b) general or employer-specific exemptions to, or concessions under, the regulations approved by CASA from time to time; or
(c) a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) that has been developed by the employer after consultation with the affected pilots and/or their representatives and approved by CASA to apply to particular employers and employees.So none of what you wrote re the 12 hour limit applies if B or C applies.....

Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34 View Post
So it doesn't matter if your FRMS (as in any other instrument) is gold plated or a turd rolled in sprinkles, if it requires you to work hours that are greater than the Award, it ain't legal for them to direct you to do it!

The FRMS in this case is irrelevant!
Your statement is not correct. 15(.2(c) skewers it straight through the heart.

I'm not trying to nit pick or belittle you, but I'd hate for someone to grab what you wrote as gospel and walk in to HR and throw their weight around and come off a bit worse for wear when they read past (a).
Rhterrke Atnyeneteke is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 00:05
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Are you saying that, because of (l), (n) has no practical operation? That would be an unusual interpretation.

Seems that (n) is intended to operate in circumstances in which a pilot's tour of duty exceeds 12 hours or the flight time exceeds 9 hours, despite having been rostered for less than 12/9.
Poor choice of words on my part LB. What I meant was (l) sets the limit for the duty and the idea that “once commenced” in (n) does not allow for a duty to be rostered beyond 12 hours.
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 00:40
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,254
Originally Posted by Rhterrke Atnyeneteke View Post
Sure. But 15.3 Facilitative Provision says you can modify this, and 15.5 says it doesn't apply to a >2 pilot crew.

Furthermore you're conveniently ignored the elephant in the room by stopping reading 15.2 at 15.2(a)...(b) general or employer-specific exemptions to, or concessions under, the regulations approved by CASA from time to time; or
(c) a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) that has been developed by the employer after consultation with the affected pilots and/or their representatives and approved by CASA to apply to particular employers and employees.So none of what you wrote re the 12 hour limit applies if B or C applies.....


Your statement is not correct. 15(.2(c) skewers it straight through the heart.

I'm not trying to nit pick or belittle you, but I'd hate for someone to grab what you wrote as gospel and walk in to HR and throw their weight around and come off a bit worse for wear when they read past (a).
Your point is well taken.

In hindsight I have failed to see the implications for those operating under an FRMS! And yes, pilots should always seek the advice of their professional representatives.

I view the term “...developed by the employer after consultation with the affected pilots...” with a certain level of bemusement. I wonder just how many pilots truly understood the implications that these systems (apparently negotiated in their name) would have on their future quality of life?

There are still some operators however who only use CAO 48.1
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 01:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,299
The FRMS provisions and the ‘minor variations’ provisions have the effect of, once again, putting a veil over what each operator is actually obliged to do.

It used to be that the Parliament and members of the public and all operators were (naively) assuming that all operators would be complying with the ‘level playing field’ of the CAO 48 series of Orders. Then the Parliament found out that CASA was handing out exemptions to those Orders (and others) like confetti. That’s why exemptions became disallowable and have to be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. The Parliament and the public and operators could then have some chance of working out who was and was not obliged to comply with what flight and duty (and other) regulations.

But now the public and operators (and the Parliament) do not know the specific flight and duty time obligations of each operator. So far as I am aware, CASA does not publish all (or any) CASA-approved FRMSs. So far as I am aware, CASA does not publish all (or any) CASA-approved ‘minor variations’ to CAO 48.1. (CASA’s ‘Minor Variations Policy’ is very interesting reading.)

Happy to stand corrected.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.