Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
Adjourned until later this afternoon.
...but resumed now and being broadcast on Youtube.
...and adjourned again for a while.
...and back on now.
Adjourned until 2:15 pm Sydney time.
The following users liked this post:
Qantas are trying to get out of paying any compensation to sacked workers saying they would've been sacked anyway. It is fair to say the new QF under VH doesn't look that different from the AJ one. The Australian article below.
THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU04:24
Qantas outsourced
Almost 1700 ground handling employees had their jobs outsourced during the Covid pandemic, in a decision found to be unlawful on the basis Qantas was motivated by a desire to avoid industrial action by the heavily unionised workforce.
In a new submission made just ahead of final hearings to determine what compensation and penalty Qantas should face for the illegal outsourcing, the airline said the decision would still have been made on November 30, 2020 had the unlawful reasons not existed.
The position was different from what Qantas had previously argued, suggesting if the airline had not outsourced in 2020 because of the unlawful reasons, it would have done so in August 2021 when the Delta strain of Covid set back the carrier’s recovery.
The Transport Workers Union disagreed with both scenarios, arguing the legal risk of the outsourcing should have derailed the decision made in 2020.
TWU barrister Mark Gibian told the Federal Court if this had been the case Qantas would not have revisited the plan.
In order to determine an appropriate level of compensation for the affected employees, the court was examining alternative scenarios to determine what the workers might have earned had their jobs not been unlawfully axed.
Mr Gibian told Justice Michael Lee the employees had expected to remain in long-term jobs with Qantas until retirement and should be compensated as such.
Justice Lee asked if that didn’t “fly in the face of reality?”
“I think you have to work on the basis that Qantas was looking after its commercial interests and was trying to cut costs all over the shop and didn’t behave towards it employees, well it wasn’t some sort of altruistic exercise,” said Justice Lee.
“Even if (the outsourcing) didn’t occur in 2021, wouldn’t I have to at the very very least, think about the possibility it would’ve happened at some stage? (Alan) Joyce was there, the documents are replete with the fact he wanted to cut costs.”
“We can talk about likelihoods or percentages but I find it very difficult to believe they would still be working there.”
Qantas barrister Richard Dalton argued there was no way the ground handling workers would still be employed because the outsourcing decision would have gone ahead in 2020 or 2021.
“Would there have been an outsourcing?” Mr Dalton put to the court.
“If the answer to that question is yes, then there’s no loss (of income).”
Justice Lee suggested he was running an “all or nothing case”.
Mr Dalton explained it was preferable to remain as close to the known facts as possible and simply remove the unlawful element of the decision for clarity on what would have happened.
“Simplicity and minimalism is the way to go,” Mr Dalton said.
The new scenario presented by Qantas caused some delay to proceedings early on Monday when the TWU suggested it would prejudice the union’s case for the court to consider it.
Justice Lee said it would be unfair to Qantas if he did not include it and gave the TWU the opportunity to reopen its case and conduct a fresh cross examination of witnesses.
The TWU declined and agreed to continue with final submissions.
As time ran out, Justice Lee made arrangements for a further hearing on May 29 to allow Mr Dalton to complete his submission and for Mr Gibian to have the chance to reply.
TWU national secretary Michael Kaine in Sydney. Picture: Gaye GerardThe TWU was believed to be hopeful of a penalty in the vicinity of $200m on top of compensation for the workers, including baggage handlers, cleaners and ground crews.
In a separate matter brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Qantas recently agreed to a $100m fine plus $20m compensation for customers impacted by the sale of tickets on already cancelled flights.
Qantas curveball in outsourcing case aims to reduce compensation to next to nothing
THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU04:24
Qantas outsourced By ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER- 9:19AM MAY 21, 2024
Almost 1700 ground handling employees had their jobs outsourced during the Covid pandemic, in a decision found to be unlawful on the basis Qantas was motivated by a desire to avoid industrial action by the heavily unionised workforce.
In a new submission made just ahead of final hearings to determine what compensation and penalty Qantas should face for the illegal outsourcing, the airline said the decision would still have been made on November 30, 2020 had the unlawful reasons not existed.
The position was different from what Qantas had previously argued, suggesting if the airline had not outsourced in 2020 because of the unlawful reasons, it would have done so in August 2021 when the Delta strain of Covid set back the carrier’s recovery.
The Transport Workers Union disagreed with both scenarios, arguing the legal risk of the outsourcing should have derailed the decision made in 2020.
TWU barrister Mark Gibian told the Federal Court if this had been the case Qantas would not have revisited the plan.
In order to determine an appropriate level of compensation for the affected employees, the court was examining alternative scenarios to determine what the workers might have earned had their jobs not been unlawfully axed.
Mr Gibian told Justice Michael Lee the employees had expected to remain in long-term jobs with Qantas until retirement and should be compensated as such.
Justice Lee asked if that didn’t “fly in the face of reality?”
“I think you have to work on the basis that Qantas was looking after its commercial interests and was trying to cut costs all over the shop and didn’t behave towards it employees, well it wasn’t some sort of altruistic exercise,” said Justice Lee.
“Even if (the outsourcing) didn’t occur in 2021, wouldn’t I have to at the very very least, think about the possibility it would’ve happened at some stage? (Alan) Joyce was there, the documents are replete with the fact he wanted to cut costs.”
“We can talk about likelihoods or percentages but I find it very difficult to believe they would still be working there.”
Qantas barrister Richard Dalton argued there was no way the ground handling workers would still be employed because the outsourcing decision would have gone ahead in 2020 or 2021.
“Would there have been an outsourcing?” Mr Dalton put to the court.
“If the answer to that question is yes, then there’s no loss (of income).”
Justice Lee suggested he was running an “all or nothing case”.
Mr Dalton explained it was preferable to remain as close to the known facts as possible and simply remove the unlawful element of the decision for clarity on what would have happened.
“Simplicity and minimalism is the way to go,” Mr Dalton said.
The new scenario presented by Qantas caused some delay to proceedings early on Monday when the TWU suggested it would prejudice the union’s case for the court to consider it.
Justice Lee said it would be unfair to Qantas if he did not include it and gave the TWU the opportunity to reopen its case and conduct a fresh cross examination of witnesses.
The TWU declined and agreed to continue with final submissions.
As time ran out, Justice Lee made arrangements for a further hearing on May 29 to allow Mr Dalton to complete his submission and for Mr Gibian to have the chance to reply.
TWU national secretary Michael Kaine in Sydney. Picture: Gaye GerardThe TWU was believed to be hopeful of a penalty in the vicinity of $200m on top of compensation for the workers, including baggage handlers, cleaners and ground crews.In a separate matter brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Qantas recently agreed to a $100m fine plus $20m compensation for customers impacted by the sale of tickets on already cancelled flights.
They have no morals and if they didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.
The following 14 users liked this post by dragon man:
I’m perplexed by the QF barrister’s defence that ‘we would have done it eventually, therefore it’s not really that bad’. Since when has admitting to your intention to commit an unlawful act in the future a defence for actually committing it now?
The following 2 users liked this post by gordonfvckingramsay:
It’s like the police booking a speeding motorist who’s committed a bank robbery. They are desperate, throw enough poo 💩 against the wall nd hope some sticks.
Qantas’s argument is that the commercial imperatives for outsourcing would have led, inexorably, to that decision in any event, and that decision could lawfully have been made. Outsourcing is not, in or of itself, unlawful.
That’s what all the counterfactual arguments are about. What would have happened if the outsourcing decision infected by unlawfulness had not been made? Qantas says a lawful decision to outsource could and would have been made in any event, ‘eventually’.
It is all about a matter of principle of course: Money. Qantas is trying to minimise the amount of compensation it has to pay as a consequence of the unlawful decision.
I make no comment on the merits of any of the arguments.
It is a strange argument though. Surely, if it is illegal at the time you commit an action, then it is illegal. Arguing that the situation will change in the future doesn't seem to come into it. It seems to be like getting caught driving without a licence but arguing that at some point soon you will have a licence so then driving will be legal.
The following users liked this post:
It is a strange argument though. Surely, if it is illegal at the time you commit an action, then it is illegal. Arguing that the situation will change in the future doesn't seem to come into it. It seems to be like getting caught driving without a licence but arguing that at some point soon you will have a licence so then driving will be legal.
There seems to be a misunderstanding to the effect that any decision to outsource would, in and of itself, have been unlawful.
The particular decision was found to be unlawful because (and I'm paraphrasing and simplifying here) it was infected by an unlawful purpose among lawful purposes. The unlawful purpose was to avoid the workers having particular rights arising under the fair work legislation. Qantas's argument is that if that decision had not been made, it remained open to Qantas to make a lawful decision to outsource and that lawful decision would inevitably have been made.
The particular decision was found to be unlawful because (and I'm paraphrasing and simplifying here) it was infected by an unlawful purpose among lawful purposes. The unlawful purpose was to avoid the workers having particular rights arising under the fair work legislation. Qantas's argument is that if that decision had not been made, it remained open to Qantas to make a lawful decision to outsource and that lawful decision would inevitably have been made.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 29th May 2024 at 00:25.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that.
Qantas’s argument is that the commercial imperatives for outsourcing would have led, inexorably, to that decision in any event, and that decision could lawfully have been made. Outsourcing is not, in or of itself, unlawful.
That’s what all the counterfactual arguments are about. What would have happened if the outsourcing decision infected by unlawfulness had not been made? Qantas says a lawful decision to outsource could and would have been made in any event, ‘eventually’.
It is all about a matter of principle of course: Money. Qantas is trying to minimise the amount of compensation it has to pay as a consequence of the unlawful decision.
I make no comment on the merits of any of the arguments.
Qantas’s argument is that the commercial imperatives for outsourcing would have led, inexorably, to that decision in any event, and that decision could lawfully have been made. Outsourcing is not, in or of itself, unlawful.
That’s what all the counterfactual arguments are about. What would have happened if the outsourcing decision infected by unlawfulness had not been made? Qantas says a lawful decision to outsource could and would have been made in any event, ‘eventually’.
It is all about a matter of principle of course: Money. Qantas is trying to minimise the amount of compensation it has to pay as a consequence of the unlawful decision.
I make no comment on the merits of any of the arguments.
In any case, QF have shown for the hundredth time that they have utter contempt for staff and what the rest of society would consider decency, and they’re doubling down by fighting it! Meanwhile, another group of indecently treated staff are being offered cash bonuses to NOT leave. When will they learn?
The following 6 users liked this post by gordonfvckingramsay:
The ‘legal eventually’ argument is a pretty abstract argument to a pilot though, imagine if we applied it.
In any case, QF have shown for the hundredth time that they have utter contempt for staff and what the rest of society would consider decency, and they’re doubling down by fighting it! Meanwhile, another group of indecently treated staff are being offered cash bonuses to NOT leave. When will they learn?
In any case, QF have shown for the hundredth time that they have utter contempt for staff and what the rest of society would consider decency, and they’re doubling down by fighting it! Meanwhile, another group of indecently treated staff are being offered cash bonuses to NOT leave. When will they learn?
What a great deal! $18k less tax & less super so in reality maybe $10k in pocket if you are lucky.
She obviously hasnt jumped on the reality train by offering an insult such as this.
The following users liked this post:
There seems to be a misunderstanding to the effect that any decision to outsource would, in and of itself, have been unlawful.
The particular decision was found to be unlawful because (and I'm paraphrasing and simplifying here) it was infected by an unlawful purpose among lawful purposes. The unlawful purpose was to avoid the workers having particular rights arising under the fair work legislation. Qantas's argument is that if that decision had not been made, it remained open to Qantas to make a lawful decision to outsource and that lawful decision would inevitably have been made.
The particular decision was found to be unlawful because (and I'm paraphrasing and simplifying here) it was infected by an unlawful purpose among lawful purposes. The unlawful purpose was to avoid the workers having particular rights arising under the fair work legislation. Qantas's argument is that if that decision had not been made, it remained open to Qantas to make a lawful decision to outsource and that lawful decision would inevitably have been made.
QF is trying to counter the Union's argument that the sacked workers should be compensated for long-term lost earnings based on their belief they had "jobs for life". QF are saying that that is a mistaken belief, that irrespective of the means of workforce reduction, it was going to happen anyway, so that is all that should be considered when calculating compensation.
Even the judge is querying the union's stance.
So what Qantas is really saying is sorry but we terminated you for the wrong reason therefore you get minimum compensation as because of that mistake we will just come up with another reason that isn’t illegal to terminate you anyway. How much are they paying for this crap just own up you cretins.
The hearing is listed to resume at 0930 Sydney time this morning. As usual, it should be broadcast on YouTube.