Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
The following users liked this post:
Looks like classic "Chairman's Lounge".
The same powerbrokers will be regular visitors I'm sure.
The same powerbrokers will be regular visitors I'm sure.
The gift that keeps on giving, $500 million I hope in compensation and fines.
[img][/img]
Adelaide Langless than 2 min read
March 18, 2024 - 12:11PMNCA NewsWire
Play
Mute
Loaded: 0%
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 0:00
Fullscreen
‘You did nothing wrong’: Tony Burke supports workers who were illegally sacked by QantasEmbattled airline Qantas is facing a multimillion-dollar compensation bill after it was found guilty of illegally firing 1700 workers during the Covid pandemic.
The Federal Court ruled in 2021 that the airline had acted unlawfully when it sacked the ground services employees of 11 airports in 2020 and outsourced their roles to contractors.
The matter returned to court on Monday to determine compensation after the High Court rejected Qantas’ attempt to appeal the verdict.
Outside court, Transport Workers Union lawyer Josh Bornstein estimated the payments for sacked workers would be “very, very substantial, running into the many millions of dollars”.
He said the hearing, which will run over the next week, would determine the cost for breaching workplace laws “in such a spectacular way”.
The enormity of the possible compensation payout reflects Qantas being guilty of the largest illegal sacking in Australia’s corporate history.
Qantas has been found guilty of illegally sacking 1700 workers. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David SwiftParliamentary secretary for industrial relations Mark Buttigieg said the ruling against the airline was a “damning indictment against a once great company”.
He noted Qantas accepted $800m of taxpayer funds to keep people employed before they unlawfully sacked 1700 staff.
“I hope Qantas learns from this lesson, this litany of failures, and treating employees so shabbily and comes to the party to do the right thing,” the Labor MP said.
Former employee Don Dixon told reporters that he hoped it would finally be the end of a three-year legal battle with the airline.
“Probably the most fundamental thing for all the workers I represent is we did absolutely nothing wrong,” he said.
In a statement, Qantas repeated its apology to the 1700 affected workers and reaffirmed its commitment to reaching an agreement.
“Qantas sincerely apologises and deeply regrets the personal impact the outsourcing decision had on these former employees,” a spokesperson said.
“We want them to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.”
TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said the 1700 workers have “been through hell” after being unlawfully sacked three years ago.
“It’s time for Qantas to pay up,” he said.
Justice Michael Lee will hear three test cases in order to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the illegally sacked workers.
[img][/img]
Qantas faces multimillion-dollar bill over illegally firing 1700 workers
Qantas is facing a multimillion-dollar bill after it was found guilty of illegally firing 1700 workers during the Covid pandemic.Adelaide Langless than 2 min readMarch 18, 2024 - 12:11PMNCA NewsWire
PlayMute
Loaded: 0%
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 0:00
Fullscreen
‘You did nothing wrong’: Tony Burke supports workers who were illegally sacked by QantasEmbattled airline Qantas is facing a multimillion-dollar compensation bill after it was found guilty of illegally firing 1700 workers during the Covid pandemic.
The Federal Court ruled in 2021 that the airline had acted unlawfully when it sacked the ground services employees of 11 airports in 2020 and outsourced their roles to contractors.
The matter returned to court on Monday to determine compensation after the High Court rejected Qantas’ attempt to appeal the verdict.
Outside court, Transport Workers Union lawyer Josh Bornstein estimated the payments for sacked workers would be “very, very substantial, running into the many millions of dollars”.
He said the hearing, which will run over the next week, would determine the cost for breaching workplace laws “in such a spectacular way”.
The enormity of the possible compensation payout reflects Qantas being guilty of the largest illegal sacking in Australia’s corporate history.
Qantas has been found guilty of illegally sacking 1700 workers. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David SwiftParliamentary secretary for industrial relations Mark Buttigieg said the ruling against the airline was a “damning indictment against a once great company”. He noted Qantas accepted $800m of taxpayer funds to keep people employed before they unlawfully sacked 1700 staff.
“I hope Qantas learns from this lesson, this litany of failures, and treating employees so shabbily and comes to the party to do the right thing,” the Labor MP said.
Former employee Don Dixon told reporters that he hoped it would finally be the end of a three-year legal battle with the airline.
“Probably the most fundamental thing for all the workers I represent is we did absolutely nothing wrong,” he said.
In a statement, Qantas repeated its apology to the 1700 affected workers and reaffirmed its commitment to reaching an agreement.
“Qantas sincerely apologises and deeply regrets the personal impact the outsourcing decision had on these former employees,” a spokesperson said.
“We want them to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.”
TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said the 1700 workers have “been through hell” after being unlawfully sacked three years ago.
“It’s time for Qantas to pay up,” he said.
Justice Michael Lee will hear three test cases in order to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the illegally sacked workers.
The following 7 users liked this post by dragon man:
A TWU survey of the sacked workers showed half had not found meaningful employment in the two-and-a-half years since the sackings. One-third suffered mental distress and one in 10 had had suicidal thoughts
The following 6 users liked this post by gordonfvckingramsay:
I don’t want to get into an argument about people getting the benefits of a union’s case without been members however my reading of this is that after illegally sacking 1700 workers and trying every court in the land to over turn it they are now trying to weasel out of paying all those involved.
The following users liked this post:
I don’t want to get into an argument about people getting the benefits of a union’s case without been members however my reading of this is that after illegally sacking 1700 workers and trying every court in the land to over turn it they are now trying to weasel out of paying all those involved.
I think the QF argument was why should they be made to pay for membership fees from members who were possibly un-financial at the time, as well as a number of other different scenarios.
Justice Lee seemed thoroughly unimpressed by the performance of the TWU lawyers. Scathing even…..
I don’t want to get into an argument about people getting the benefits of a union’s case without been members however my reading of this is that after illegally sacking 1700 workers and trying every court in the land to over turn it they are now trying to weasel out of paying all those involved.
Why don't you post the whole article like you normally do? It is very clear what was being discussed, and it is most assuredly not how you've portrayed it.
The following users liked this post:
Is that from the Judge’s tongue-lashing of TWU as compensation hearings for Qantas outsourcing kicks off article in today's The Australian?
Why don't you post the whole article like you normally do? It is very clear what was being discussed, and it is most assuredly not how you've portrayed it.
Why don't you post the whole article like you normally do? It is very clear what was being discussed, and it is most assuredly not how you've portrayed it.
Why don’t you post the whole article if you think that’s the case. The reason I didn’t is because I could only get a photo as I couldn’t down load the whole article to cut and paste. The TWU probably deserved the tongue lashing they got but that is of no interest to me.
The following users liked this post:
The ongoing Federal Court hearing in TWU v Qantas is broadcast, live, on the Federal Court's youtube channel. The hearing is listed to resume at 10:15am local Sydney time.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
“Qantas sincerely apologises and deeply regrets the personal impact the outsourcing decision had on these former employees,” a spokesperson said.
“We want them to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.”
Yeah sure, that's why they dragged it through all possible legal channels to now say sorry and hope it all happens quickly.
It should come out of the pockets of those who made that disgraceful decision. They would have known of its dubious legality, but did it anyway and reaped their rewards. Now shareholders will pay.
“We want them to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.”
Yeah sure, that's why they dragged it through all possible legal channels to now say sorry and hope it all happens quickly.
It should come out of the pockets of those who made that disgraceful decision. They would have known of its dubious legality, but did it anyway and reaped their rewards. Now shareholders will pay.
The following 3 users liked this post by ampclamp:
“Qantas sincerely apologises and deeply regrets the personal impact the outsourcing decision had on these former employees,” a spokesperson said.
“We want them to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.”
Yeah sure, that's why they dragged it through all possible legal channels to now say sorry and hope it all happens quickly.
It should come out of the pockets of those who made that disgraceful decision. They would have known of its dubious legality, but did it anyway and reaped their rewards. Now shareholders will pay.
“We want them to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.”
Yeah sure, that's why they dragged it through all possible legal channels to now say sorry and hope it all happens quickly.
It should come out of the pockets of those who made that disgraceful decision. They would have known of its dubious legality, but did it anyway and reaped their rewards. Now shareholders will pay.
I struggle to believe that Qantas even comprehends the following words:
Sincerely/sincere/sincerity
apologies/apologise
regrets/regret
Fair/fairness
It must awesome to have a faceless entity and a sea of shareholders that one can hide behind that will apologise, take the blame for and pay for the horrible actions and decisions that one makes.
Last edited by Talkwrench; 19th Mar 2024 at 01:53. Reason: Grammar
The following 4 users liked this post by Talkwrench:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
None of words are in their vocabulary. Anathema to their corporate vision.
Qantas have bent over backwards for many years to drag down wages and conditions sometimes with the backing of various governments and industrial legislation. And now we get stories like this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-...jobs/103573228.
Well hello, its been no mystery that the average age of aviation workers has been high and going up for years. No wonder those sacked or that took a redundancy wont go back. Ask those that stuck around. It's not pretty.
Qantas have bent over backwards for many years to drag down wages and conditions sometimes with the backing of various governments and industrial legislation. And now we get stories like this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-...jobs/103573228.
Well hello, its been no mystery that the average age of aviation workers has been high and going up for years. No wonder those sacked or that took a redundancy wont go back. Ask those that stuck around. It's not pretty.
I struggle to believe that Qantas even comprehends the following words:
Sincerely/sincere/sincerity
apologies/apologise
regrets/regret
Fair/fairness
It must awesome to have a faceless entity and a sea of shareholders that one can hide behind that will apologise, take the blame for and pay for the horrible actions and decisions that one makes.
Sincerely/sincere/sincerity
apologies/apologise
regrets/regret
Fair/fairness
It must awesome to have a faceless entity and a sea of shareholders that one can hide behind that will apologise, take the blame for and pay for the horrible actions and decisions that one makes.
Another e.g. - Woolworths "we actively want you to spend less when you shop with us" - yeah, right.
The following users liked this post:
Know no shame and defending the indefensible.
[img][/img]
Robyn IronsideAviation Writer
@ironsider
2 min read
March 19, 2024 - 6:42PMThe Australian Business Network
Qantas baggage handling operations were among those outsourced in late 2020 in a decision the Federal Court found was unlawful. Picture: Dan Peled/NCA NewsWireQantas has told the Federal Court that if it had not taken the decision to outsource the jobs of 1683 ground handling workers in late 2020, it would have done it 12 months later as the Covid pandemic continued to ravage the airline’s bottom line.
In hearings to determine what compensation should be paid to the former workers after the court found Qantas acted unlawfully, the airline is arguing it has limited liability to the ex-employees.
The Transport Workers Union was seeking vastly more compensation, claiming their members had considered their positions at Qantas “jobs for life”.
In order to help Justice Michael Lee decide upon an appropriate amount, both parties were presenting “counterfactual” scenarios, outlining what would have happened had the unlawful outsourcing decision not been made in 2020.
Justice Lee’s original judgment found Qantas could not prove it was not motivated by the desire to avoid industrial action by its ground crews who were due to negotiate a new enterprise agreement in 2021.
TWU assistant national secretary Nick McIntosh argued it was unlikely the ground handling workers would have staged industrial action in 2021, as a new pay deal was negotiated.
He said the TWU had spent $1m on an in-house bid to keep the ground handling work at Qantas, to show how important those jobs were to members.
“The last thing we want to do is run to industrial action,” Mr McIntosh said, pointing out that the last time ground crews went on strike at Qantas was in 2011.
Federal Court Justice Michael Lee at a conference in Melbourne. Picture: Aaron FrancisQantas chief operating officer Colin Hughes said in the event new enterprise agreements had been negotiated with the TWU, he still would have recommended to his manager that ground handling operations be outsourced.
“I would’ve been making the case that the arguments we had for outsourcing in 2020 remained, because the financial targets that were set for the business wouldn’t have been met,” Mr Hughes said.
“Obviously the circumstances of the pandemic continued in 2021 and the commercial imperatives that existed in 2020, existed in 2021. That would’ve been the logic and the reason I brought to that conversation.”
It was also suggested much of the ground handling workforce would have remained stood down without pay during 2021.
Barrister Richard Dalton for Qantas pointed out the “sole decision maker” in the matter would still have been Andrew David, the then Qantas Domestic and International chief executive.
“On Mr David’s evidence (at a previous hearing) this outsourcing option would’ve been back under consideration (in mid-2021),” Mr Dalton said.
“Qantas was looking at drastic measures to stem losses including the sale of their Mascot premises and other cost reduction measures. This option would’ve been back on the table for consideration at that time.”
Justice Lee suggested it would have been helpful to hear “what (former CEO) Alan Joyce thought, and what the board thought” about the outsourcing decision.
Mr David, who retired from Qantas last year, was expected to give evidence at the hearing on Wednesday.
A Qantas spokesman said they wanted former ground handling employees to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.
Court-ordered mediation between the TWU and Qantas led by CEO Vanessa Hudson, was unable to reach an agreement.
[img][/img]
Qantas moves to keep compo bill for outsourced workforce to a minimum
Qantas told the Federal Court that if it had not outsourced its ground handling operations in 2020, it would have done so the following year.Robyn IronsideAviation Writer @ironsider
2 min read
March 19, 2024 - 6:42PMThe Australian Business Network
Qantas baggage handling operations were among those outsourced in late 2020 in a decision the Federal Court found was unlawful. Picture: Dan Peled/NCA NewsWireQantas has told the Federal Court that if it had not taken the decision to outsource the jobs of 1683 ground handling workers in late 2020, it would have done it 12 months later as the Covid pandemic continued to ravage the airline’s bottom line. In hearings to determine what compensation should be paid to the former workers after the court found Qantas acted unlawfully, the airline is arguing it has limited liability to the ex-employees.
The Transport Workers Union was seeking vastly more compensation, claiming their members had considered their positions at Qantas “jobs for life”.
In order to help Justice Michael Lee decide upon an appropriate amount, both parties were presenting “counterfactual” scenarios, outlining what would have happened had the unlawful outsourcing decision not been made in 2020.
Justice Lee’s original judgment found Qantas could not prove it was not motivated by the desire to avoid industrial action by its ground crews who were due to negotiate a new enterprise agreement in 2021.
TWU assistant national secretary Nick McIntosh argued it was unlikely the ground handling workers would have staged industrial action in 2021, as a new pay deal was negotiated.
He said the TWU had spent $1m on an in-house bid to keep the ground handling work at Qantas, to show how important those jobs were to members.
“The last thing we want to do is run to industrial action,” Mr McIntosh said, pointing out that the last time ground crews went on strike at Qantas was in 2011.
Federal Court Justice Michael Lee at a conference in Melbourne. Picture: Aaron FrancisQantas chief operating officer Colin Hughes said in the event new enterprise agreements had been negotiated with the TWU, he still would have recommended to his manager that ground handling operations be outsourced. “I would’ve been making the case that the arguments we had for outsourcing in 2020 remained, because the financial targets that were set for the business wouldn’t have been met,” Mr Hughes said.
“Obviously the circumstances of the pandemic continued in 2021 and the commercial imperatives that existed in 2020, existed in 2021. That would’ve been the logic and the reason I brought to that conversation.”
It was also suggested much of the ground handling workforce would have remained stood down without pay during 2021.
Barrister Richard Dalton for Qantas pointed out the “sole decision maker” in the matter would still have been Andrew David, the then Qantas Domestic and International chief executive.
“On Mr David’s evidence (at a previous hearing) this outsourcing option would’ve been back under consideration (in mid-2021),” Mr Dalton said.
“Qantas was looking at drastic measures to stem losses including the sale of their Mascot premises and other cost reduction measures. This option would’ve been back on the table for consideration at that time.”
Justice Lee suggested it would have been helpful to hear “what (former CEO) Alan Joyce thought, and what the board thought” about the outsourcing decision.
Mr David, who retired from Qantas last year, was expected to give evidence at the hearing on Wednesday.
A Qantas spokesman said they wanted former ground handling employees to receive fair compensation as quickly as possible.
Court-ordered mediation between the TWU and Qantas led by CEO Vanessa Hudson, was unable to reach an agreement.
Hearing listed to recommence at 0930 (Sydney local time) this morning. Will be broadcast on youtube.
“I would’ve been making the case that the arguments we had for outsourcing in 2020 remained, because the financial targets that were set for the business wouldn’t have been met,”
The statement itself is probably a fine statement, true and accurate. The problem is the weight that it carries with the person who makes the final decision, in this case Andrew David. If you go back 40 years the decision maker would take that statement as just one of many competing variables that are weighed to make the best long-term decision for the company. Now days, the near term financial targets carry the greatest weight and sensible forward looking ( beyond next year) decisions are less likely.
I wonder if it’s because we have finance people running the Aviation industry? There is certainly a place for them, I just don’t think it’s at the top.
The following 6 users liked this post by framer:
I haven’t followed all of the hearing but just now, it was so nice to hear someone put it to a ‘decision maker’ that the excuse of a massive GSE expenditure requirement, just doesn’t hold up when they then turned around and sold everything that “needed replacing” to their fancy new provider, and that Mr Oldmeadow picked up on this excuse as a legal issue straight away.
The mind boggles afresh every day.
The mind boggles afresh every day.
short flights long nights
Tied up in that statement by the Chief Operating Officer is the crux of the problem with business decision making at executive levels, over the last 30 years.
The statement itself is probably a fine statement, true and accurate. The problem is the weight that it carries with the person who makes the final decision, in this case Andrew David. If you go back 40 years the decision maker would take that statement as just one of many competing variables that are weighed to make the best long-term decision for the company. Now days, the near term financial targets carry the greatest weight and sensible forward looking ( beyond next year) decisions are less likely.
I wonder if it’s because we have finance people running the Aviation industry? There is certainly a place for them, I just don’t think it’s at the top.
The statement itself is probably a fine statement, true and accurate. The problem is the weight that it carries with the person who makes the final decision, in this case Andrew David. If you go back 40 years the decision maker would take that statement as just one of many competing variables that are weighed to make the best long-term decision for the company. Now days, the near term financial targets carry the greatest weight and sensible forward looking ( beyond next year) decisions are less likely.
I wonder if it’s because we have finance people running the Aviation industry? There is certainly a place for them, I just don’t think it’s at the top.
They only plan as far ahead as their next bonus. And that is the root of all the problems.
The following 2 users liked this post by SOPS:
I haven’t followed all of the hearing but just now, it was so nice to hear someone put it to a ‘decision maker’ that the excuse of a massive GSE expenditure requirement, just doesn’t hold up when they then turned around and sold everything that “needed replacing” to their fancy new provider, and that Mr Oldmeadow picked up on this excuse as a legal issue straight away.
The mind boggles afresh every day.
The mind boggles afresh every day.