OWS launches duress case against major transport operator
 

http://www.ows.gov.au/asp/index.asp?...id=5231&id=597

:hmm::hmm:

Hopefully the first of several cases that will make certain management types wake up and smell the roses.

Now only if they took the 33k out of the management bonus’ …….nahhhh never happen.

Interesting how a current employee can't be coerced into signing a new AWA, but yet can never return to an EBA with that employer.
What happens when the AWA expires and you don't like the new one?
What was your mate offered? Sorry he's not allowed to tell you.
What about a new employee? They have to accept whatever is offered. Why is this not coercion?

HR Manager "Sorry your crewing company A has just been wound up... but we have an excellent opportunity in crewing company B, sign here please"

Just a few things to think about on election day.

Awards are an anachronism of another industrial era, a fact accepted by both sides of politics. WorkChoices legislation must continue to mature and ensure equity, transparency, fairness and flexibility to both employers and employees.

It is indeed very regrettable major employers in the airline industry appear intent upon exploiting staff. In the short term, supply and demand for experienced aircrew may dictate terms and conditions, as it should be.

Nat Jet on ABC
 

Print Email
Last Update: Sunday, May 27, 2007. 7:01pm (AEST)
Firm charged over forced AWAs
A major aviation company has been charged with forcing three of its pilots to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).

It is alleged National Jet Systems withheld pay rises the pilots were entitled to under their existing AWAs to pressure them into signing new agreements.

The Office of Workplace Services (OWS) says the Perth-based company rejected numerous opportunities to rectify the alleged underpayments.

More than 800 people work for National Jet Systems, which provides airline charter, freight and passenger services.

The OWS is seeking penalties in the Federal Magistrates Court in Perth for the duress and the alleged underpayments.

The office also wants an order ensuring any other underpayments by the company are rectified.

More on SMH as well.

ahh yes comrade, I remember Labors IR policy towards silvertail pilots in 1989.

Perth based? Thought NJS were Adelaide based.

Air Ace,

With respect, you write of utopia. Workers don't have awards or join unions because they want to, they are forced into it by their employers. This appears to be a classic case in point. It seems NJS are doing this ONLY because the current laws allow them to.

There are hundreds of fine employees at NJS, and it seems weird that all of a sudden they (NJS) are hell-bent on sticking it up them.

Anybody who says AWAs are the way to go for a large aviation organisation, where the pilots hardly ever see the boss, let alone have him actually seeing them doing their job, just doesn't understand (or is a non-team backstabber willing to crawl over others to get into the left seat). :yuk:

Confused
 

Air Ace

You are assuming the people who control your employment contract don't have their own interests at heart.
Performance pay systems distort.
Workchoices is about giving the employer the edge.
As an individual, unless my skill is dearly needed, I have no bargaining power. I have to accept what is offered. That is the problem with Workchoices. The only way I can ensure a resonable deal is to work within the EBA system.
If an employer is confrontational then there is a problem for the employee.

Now I realise you are closer to the action than I Bloggsy, but did anybody bother to read any of the links? Action is being taken by the Office of Workplace Services (ombudsman), against NJS because they are believed to have CONTRAVENED the law, not abided by it! :rolleyes:

As a closet conspiracy theorist :} did anyone else notice that very conveniently, NO QF tails where shown? ironically, at least one of the chaps getting shafted is a 717/Qlink driver, being shafted ( indirectly ) by QF via NJS IMHO.
Hey Bloggsy, if you recommend me for a job on the Surv. Dash, I'll split the 5K with ya :}

Hey cunning, I was thinking of doing the same thing but then realised that would be tantamount to prostitution! :E

Nice of you Cunning, except it would be Bloggs' 5K to split with you!

Someone mentioned '89???

Which party was in POWER when INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS were "introduced" in that time in history???

Which UNION stood up and said it was NO GOOD??

What unions did nothing, "it won't happen to us!!!"

A lot of people need to revisit history.

:*:*

I know the answer to the first question Mr Beard, now please enlighten me and others about the rest...;)

Work Choice AWA's = "Betwixt and Between"
 

Greybeard i agree entirely about your comments re : 89 ; but the problem some of us face is these new AWA's are even "more sinister".
the "fairness test" will not apply to "our" eba when it finishes/terminates and has to be "transferred" in 18 months time.
a mate of mine in National J?? was explaining in great detail what they are trying to do to pilots their.
work choice awa's are a recipe for abuse !!!!

cheers
dijon moutard

I understand that there are many folk out there who are still bitter about the 89 dispute. Just as there are many who are still bitter about the SEQEB dispute in 85 in Qld. But the important point is that those two disputes have nothing in common with the current workplace laws at all.
In the 89 dispute a union (on behalf of its members) made claims upon employers which the employer (and the government of the day) deemed to be unreasonable. Both the employer and government put a lot of dollars into winning the dispute (at a huge personal and financial cost to many pilots and other airline staff).
The current workplace laws however are designed to ensure that no organisation or group of employees can make ANY claims upon their employers at all. By introducing AWA's and removing the ability for unions to recruit members and then negotiate on behalf of members the potential for an employee to make any meaningful improvement to their terms and conditions is nullified.
The anti-coercion laws are little more than a cosmetic assurance that all employees will be treated fairly. It is absolutely true that AWA's can be compulsory for new staff and it is also true that existing staff can be advised that the only access they will have to future pay increases is by virtue of an AWA. If an existing employee refuses to sign an AWA an employer is well within their rights to offer no further wage increases until the employees wage is equal to the minimum wage or Australian Pay and Classification Scale for their role.
When this position is maintained and any attempts to commence collective bargaining are resisted by the employer (very easy nowdays), all employees will eventually end up being covered by an AWA. Of course all AWA's will have different expirey dates so that they never line up and give the employees the opportunity to negotiate collectively again.
I haven't seen any instances where the implementation of an AWA has meant an improvement of standards for the employee concerned.

Not quite correct if the employee is already on an AWA with that employer. Depending on the wording of the "current" AWA (pre-workchoices), it remains in force "until it is replaced". End of story. Employers MUST continue to pay as per the AWA, even though it may be after it's nominal expiry date. I believe that's what the OWS is on to in this case.

This is different from the more draconian Workchoices AWAs, where the words are "until replaced or terminated". "terminated" can be by unilateral action by the employer (or employee for that matter) with 90 days notice and no recourse.

Agree wholeheartedly with that, at least in the aviation industry. :ok: