Qantas agrees to Same-Work Same-Pay

[grangebackstabber]

Originally Posted by Mr Proach

Are you a member of AIPA or AFAP?

AIPA. Both need to act though…TOGETHER

[grangebackstabber]

Originally Posted by dr dre

AIPA have announced multiple times that their legal advice is that SJSP doesn’t apply to pilots in different subsidiaries. Any claim would just be a waste of member’s money.



Errrr Joyce resigned in September 2023, and the SJSP legislation was passed into law in December 2023…..



Errr they have just announced today they will not oppose the C/C union’s SJSP applications instead of opposing it as before. A massive change.

thanks for management’s position on this. Glad you’re here to clarify yet again.

[grangebackstabber]

Originally Posted by JamieMaree

Positive comment not.
I think you are GasChamber in drag

is there an engineering forum?
maybe go post nonsense there.
not interested in you derailing yet another thread due to jealousy and hate.

[soseg]

Originally Posted by dr dre

Errrr Joyce resigned in September 2023, and the SJSP legislation was passed into law in December 2023…..



Errr they have just announced today they will not oppose the C/C union’s SJSP applications instead of opposing it as before. A massive change.

Jesus, Dre. How much kool aid you drinking?

oh big changes! 500 in staff travel bonus! Wow! Thank you. So generous. I can taste the change of tone from management.

What on earth are you trying to argue by stating that Joyce left just before the laws were applied? I think you misunderstood the post. Too excited celebrating your gigantic staff travel voucher to comprehend what their post means?

[grangebackstabber]

Originally Posted by soseg

Jesus, Dre. How much kool aid you drinking?

oh big changes! 500 in staff travel bonus! Wow! Thank you. So generous. I can taste the change of tone from management.

What on earth are you trying to argue by stating that Joyce left just before the laws were applied? I think you misunderstood the post. Too excited celebrating your gigantic staff travel voucher to comprehend what their post means?

an imposter perhaps?
otherwise clearly Stockholm syndrome…

[framer]

What on earth are you trying to argue by stating that Joyce left just before the laws were applied?

He just misinterpreted the post. He thought there was an implication that Joyce had used SJSP as a threat. The original post was saying that Joyce had used subsidiary flying as a threat.

[DirectAnywhere]

You’re in the midst of a fever dream if you think this has any relevance to the disparate entities that make up pilot groups.

Subsidiary pilots are all employed by different companies, fly different equipment and don’t sit next to mainline pilots, or get out of the seat at the end of a sector so a mainline pilot can fly that same aircraft.

Jetconnect does, but they’re based in NZ and covered under NZ law so aren’t affected by this.

Don’t think for one second that Network, NJS and Alliance are going to get a payrise out of same
job, same pay, or that the lost flying is coming flooding back to mainline.

Cabin crew do exactly the same job the same equipment at the same time. The company has had long enough to digest the legislation, realised they were screwed and have simply rolled over. There is no magnanimity in this on their part - they were just screwed.

The company now has to make up the lost $$ from elsewhere - so watch the screws continue to tighten on other employee groups.

(Second officers on the B-scale may be an exception to what I wrote above - depends if anyone wants to push that).

[Beer Baron]

I don’t want to give the new management too much credit, but this is being handled differently than in the past. With Joyce at the helm, Qantas would have fought this all the way to the High Court, threatened the FAAA with reprisal and exorbitant cost orders. Even if they knew they would lose. They’d hope for the FAAA to blink first or run out of money to fight it.
Perhaps they have taken a (very small) step toward civility.

[framer]

Jetconnect does, but they’re based in NZ and covered under NZ law so aren’t affected by this.

That statement was true when Jetconnect was an Airline with an AOC. It’s debatable at best in 2024.
Nowhere in the new legislation does it say that you can’t use cheap labour-hire staff to undercut an Australian agreement……unless they are based overseas.
Where the labour-hire company is based and within which jurisdiction it operates is irrelevant. FWC would focus on the actions of Qantas. Are they using labour- hire workers to undercut an Australian EBA? The answer is obviously yes.
The commission would not have to reach over into NZ law to determine that Qantas can’t use an overseas labour-hire company ( Jetconnect) to undercut the SH EBA. They would just have to determine that the work done by the labour-hire pilots ( wherever they are from) is the same work as is done by the pilots on the SH agreement.
The overseas company would then have no purpose and would probably fold, but that’s not relevant in the FWC’s decision making process.
Qantas may decide to simply keep the same Jetconnect arrangement but up the pay for tax and industrial purposes.

[BinChook]

Originally Posted by Beer Baron

I don’t want to give the new management too much credit, but this is being handled differently than in the past. With Joyce at the helm, Qantas would have fought this all the way to the High Court, threatened the FAAA with reprisal and exorbitant cost orders. Even if they knew they would lose. They’d hope for the FAAA to blink first or run out of money to fight it.
Perhaps they have taken a (very small) step toward civility.

Thats not how big business works. There’s no emotion. They would have received legal advice that this is the best way to proceed and will now recover costs from other areas of the business.

As the management teams are the one who decide where these costs are recovered from it obviously won’t come from executive remuneration.

[Martinflyer]

How does this affect LH SO positions under the B scale? When you could have two SO sitting next to each other operating the same flight on different payscales?

[Beer Baron]

It doesn’t. The new hire second officers are on the same Enterprise Agreement as every other LH pilot. They work for the same company, they don’t work for a labour hire company.
The only way to fix the S/O pay issue is part of the current LHEA negotiations.

[MikeHatter732]

Originally Posted by BinChook

Thats not how big business works. There’s no emotion. They would have received legal advice that this is the best way to proceed and will now recover costs from other areas of the business.

As the management teams are the one who decide where these costs are recovered from it obviously won’t come from executive remuneration.

Exactly. You only need to look at how they are treating the pilot co-hort with negotiations to see its business as usual at the C-suite.

[Beer Baron]

Originally Posted by framer

The commission would not have to reach over into NZ law to determine that Qantas can’t use an overseas labour-hire company ( Jetconnect) to undercut the SH EBA. They would just have to determine that the work done by the labour-hire pilots ( wherever they are from) is the same work as is done by the pilots on the SH agreement.

Look at the legislation and the remedy available to the FWC. If a labour hire company is determined to be in breach of the Same Job, Same Pay rules, then the labour hire company (not the host of their employees) is issued with a Labour Hire Order that compels them to pay the same pay rate as the host (Qantas).
So tell me, how does Fair Work Australia issue an order to a New Zealand company, with New Zealand employees, based in New Zealand?
What can Fair Work do if JetConnect fail to comply? The legislation says they can issue a fine up to $187,000, but again, does the FWC have any jurisdiction to fine a company that is not in Australia?
I expect not but we’d need an employment lawyer to say for sure. Importantly, the compliance measures are levelled at the labour hire company, not the host (Qantas), so that makes it hard to force Qantas to stop using them.

[framer]

So tell me, how does Fair Work Australia issue an order to a New Zealand company, with New Zealand employees, based in New Zealand?

They don’t.

​​​​​​​Where the labour-hire company is based and within which jurisdiction it operates is irrelevant. FWC would focus on the actions of Qantas. Are they using labour-hire workers to undercut an Australian EBA? The answer is obviously yes.

They use the ‘anti avoidance ‘ provisions so that they are wielding their power solely within their jurisdiction.
Basically host companies ( in this case Qantas) can’t enter into arrangements that specifically avoid the intent of the legislation.
Could you construct an argument to convince a commissioner that Jetconnect exists for reasons other than to provide cheap labour? If not then two out of three commissioners may decide that by owning and using Jetconnect, Qantas is engaging in behaviour designed to avoid the intent of the new legislation. ie they are using a loophole when we are trying to close loopholes.
If anti- avoidance provisions weren’t built into the legislation it would take lawyers and accountants about four minutes to design work-arounds that would look a lot like……..Jetconnect.

[framer]

Thats not how big business works. There’s no emotion. They would have received legal advice that this is the best way to proceed

I hear what you are saying BinChook, but I don’t think it is as cut and dried as that.
After the legal advice is dispensed, after the accountants have had their say, when all the experts have left the room, personality and emotion is still involved in the decision. The decision normally lies with one person ( sometimes a few as is the case with a FWC bench).
Kingdoms have been lost and businesses have been ruined because of the emotions that bubble away at the top end of town.
I have even heard of one business where the personality and emotions of one single person lead a once great business to make dozens of poor decisions that ultimately cost that business hundreds of millions and negatively impacted every nook and cranny of the place. The board was at a loss to explain how they had missed it, but later admitted it did happen.

[Xhorst]

Originally Posted by framer

They don’t.

They use the ‘anti avoidance ‘ provisions so that they are wielding their power solely within their jurisdiction.
Basically host companies ( in this case Qantas) can’t enter into arrangements that specifically avoid the intent of the legislation.
Could you construct an argument to convince a commissioner that Jetconnect exists for reasons other than to provide cheap labour? If not then two out of three commissioners may decide that by owning and using Jetconnect, Qantas is engaging in behaviour designed to avoid the intent of the new legislation. ie they are using a loophole when we are trying to close loopholes.
If anti- avoidance provisions weren’t built into the legislation it would take lawyers and accountants about four minutes to design work-arounds that would look a lot like……..Jetconnect.

Have you had that conversation with AIPA?

[framer]

Have you had that conversation with AIPA?

I have not had this conversation with AIPA.

[KhoaSanRoad]

If I was at the FAAA I wouldn’t be celebrating to early.

I’d expect the company to keep the other entities that Cabin Crew are employed by and provide a top up payment that provides equal work equal pay.

If Qantas never recruit to legacy conditions again and most likely offer generous Voluntary redundancies to legacy QAL crew to accelerate their departure.

Once the QAL legacy cabin crew are gone, the same work same pay top up also disappears.

if the FAAA wants to ensure Qantas are serious about equal work equal pay the need to move cabin crew onto the same award and recruit to it.

[Boe787]

This decision, which may well work out for the C suite, but for a F/A friend it is great, they took the package when covid Hit, rejoined post Covid when QF were desperate for staff, at a lower pay rate, now they will be earning same as before they took the package.