Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
This. 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.
[img][/img]
The outsourcing of 1683 ground handling workers at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic was in 2021 found to be unlawful by Justice Lee, after the Transport Workers Union successfully argued Qantas was motivated by a desire to avoid industrial action.
Qantas appealed against the decision to the Full Federal Court and the High Court, but the original ruling was upheld.
The airline and union were then ordered into mediation to determine compensation for the affected workers but the talks failed.
In the absence of an agreement the matter returned to the Federal Court, which heard what might have happened to that workforce if the illegal outsourcing had not occurred.
Qantas argued the workers would have been outsourced anyway – if not in 2020 then in 2021 – while the TWU claimed they would have continued in their jobs until retirement.
As Qantas barrister Richard Dalton, KC, made his final submissions on the “inevitable” outsourcing, Justice Lee said there was a “high degree of artificiality” about the decision reached in 2020.
“It’s all very carefully done but the fact is it seems to me Qantas was intent on doing everything it could, irrespective of how it affected employees, and if it meant getting rid of them it was going to get rid of them,” Justice Lee said.
“If one looks at the entire suite of communications, this is all reverse engineered (by Qantas).
“We’re instructing lawyers to give us advice as to how we best minimise our risks, we’ll put on affidavits that bear no resemblance to the reality and assume the judge came down in the last shower.”
Justice Lee highlighted that there was even discussion with solicitors about putting in place a regime to select a sole decision maker who could best withstand a legal challenge.
“It’s as plain as day that’s what happened,” Justice Lee said.
“They knew there would be a court case and wanted to minimise their legal risk. What does cause me concern was that evidence was presented to the court which does not, frankly, disclose that reality.”
Mr Dalton said advice taken from lawyers and industrial relations expertsin early 2020 was simply aimed at weighing up the risks of outsourcing against the commercial rewards.
Qantas “illegally” outsourced its ground handling operations in 2020. Picture: Dan Peled He told the court the TWU argument that ground handling workers would have remained in their jobs if the outsourcing had not occurred, was “very weak” and “unrealistic”.
Philip Boncardo, for the TWU, said the Qantas case ignored the facts, which were if the outsourcing was not undertaken in 2020 because it was unlawful, it was unlikely to have been revisited in 2021.
“Your Honour could not be satisfied that the same decision could have been made lawfully,” Mr Boncardo said.
Justice Lee said there was a significant amount of artificiality about the way Qantas had presented its original defence, and “that lack of realism persists today”.
“I think there was a corporate will at the highest levels to proceed along these paths,” Justice Lee said.
“That’s the reason I made the findings I did at the reinstatement hearings (that the workers would’ve been outsourced as soon as possible).”
Matthew Follett, SC, also for Qantas, took up the argument around what compensation should be paid to the affected workers.
He said any compensation should take into account the likelihood stand-downs would have continued in 2021 due to the lack of flying.
“The union proposes a six-month period (of stand-downs) by which future income in 2021 should be discounted; we propose eight months,” Mr Follett said.
The hearing continues on Thursday
By ROBYN IRONSIDE
- 4:38PM MAY 29,
The outsourcing of 1683 ground handling workers at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic was in 2021 found to be unlawful by Justice Lee, after the Transport Workers Union successfully argued Qantas was motivated by a desire to avoid industrial action.
Qantas appealed against the decision to the Full Federal Court and the High Court, but the original ruling was upheld.
The airline and union were then ordered into mediation to determine compensation for the affected workers but the talks failed.
In the absence of an agreement the matter returned to the Federal Court, which heard what might have happened to that workforce if the illegal outsourcing had not occurred.
Qantas argued the workers would have been outsourced anyway – if not in 2020 then in 2021 – while the TWU claimed they would have continued in their jobs until retirement.
As Qantas barrister Richard Dalton, KC, made his final submissions on the “inevitable” outsourcing, Justice Lee said there was a “high degree of artificiality” about the decision reached in 2020.
“It’s all very carefully done but the fact is it seems to me Qantas was intent on doing everything it could, irrespective of how it affected employees, and if it meant getting rid of them it was going to get rid of them,” Justice Lee said.
“If one looks at the entire suite of communications, this is all reverse engineered (by Qantas).
“We’re instructing lawyers to give us advice as to how we best minimise our risks, we’ll put on affidavits that bear no resemblance to the reality and assume the judge came down in the last shower.”
Justice Lee highlighted that there was even discussion with solicitors about putting in place a regime to select a sole decision maker who could best withstand a legal challenge.
“It’s as plain as day that’s what happened,” Justice Lee said.
“They knew there would be a court case and wanted to minimise their legal risk. What does cause me concern was that evidence was presented to the court which does not, frankly, disclose that reality.”
Mr Dalton said advice taken from lawyers and industrial relations expertsin early 2020 was simply aimed at weighing up the risks of outsourcing against the commercial rewards.
Qantas “illegally” outsourced its ground handling operations in 2020. Picture: Dan Peled He told the court the TWU argument that ground handling workers would have remained in their jobs if the outsourcing had not occurred, was “very weak” and “unrealistic”. Philip Boncardo, for the TWU, said the Qantas case ignored the facts, which were if the outsourcing was not undertaken in 2020 because it was unlawful, it was unlikely to have been revisited in 2021.
“Your Honour could not be satisfied that the same decision could have been made lawfully,” Mr Boncardo said.
Justice Lee said there was a significant amount of artificiality about the way Qantas had presented its original defence, and “that lack of realism persists today”.
“I think there was a corporate will at the highest levels to proceed along these paths,” Justice Lee said.
“That’s the reason I made the findings I did at the reinstatement hearings (that the workers would’ve been outsourced as soon as possible).”
Matthew Follett, SC, also for Qantas, took up the argument around what compensation should be paid to the affected workers.
He said any compensation should take into account the likelihood stand-downs would have continued in 2021 due to the lack of flying.
“The union proposes a six-month period (of stand-downs) by which future income in 2021 should be discounted; we propose eight months,” Mr Follett said.
The hearing continues on Thursday
sickening but nothing new, we all know qantas execs believe they can get away with anything as long as they keep giving out chairman club invites to influential people and would rather waste millions of dollars on lawsuits than treat there staff well. Outsourcing was never about saving money its about control
There was a time when 747 Capt salaries were on a par with High court Judges.
Having watched Justice Lee's deliberations recently I am quite happy to concede that he might be a bit smarter than me!!
He cops some criticism from some and this may go either way but the decision will be a fair one.
Having watched Justice Lee's deliberations recently I am quite happy to concede that he might be a bit smarter than me!!
He cops some criticism from some and this may go either way but the decision will be a fair one.
The following 3 users liked this post by PW1830:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,117
Received 14 Likes
on
8 Posts
"Qantas argued the workers would have been outsourced anyway"
Taking that argument further, if someone had been killed whilst on the job, would they then run the defence such as , we're not liable because they would have died anyway.
The Justice appears to see through the facade.
Taking that argument further, if someone had been killed whilst on the job, would they then run the defence such as , we're not liable because they would have died anyway.
The Justice appears to see through the facade.
