Unseen, you got it in one :ok:

He/She said

You would scream yourselves silly if you saw a bunch of lawyers talking about how to fly a jet,

but you are quite happy to sit here and pontificate about your interpretation of the law as if your are an expert,

Anyone who thinks that the legal system and the law about something like 'working to rule' can be described in a few sentences is fooling themselves.

Pilots - great at what they do, but think that that expertise extends to everything,

Stick with what you are good at..


That last sentence concerns me a little though.:D

FGD135

So contrary to your statement in post #23:
Infact isn’t correct.
Everything you have said is just your opinion. Do you have a law degree specialising in industrial relations? I will admit I don’t but I have studied law in the degree I do have and most of the evidence you have claimed the employer would have is circumstantial at best and if all the individual employee is doing is not working on their days off or being contactable, I find it very unlikely a judge will order them to always be available to work on their days off and be able to be contactable when there isn’t a requirement for them to be contactable.

From the Australian.......

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce has repeatedly said that a decision to lock out workers and ground the airline was not made until the morning of the shutdown, although he has conceded the airline already had plans in place for such a contingency.

What a way to lead 33 000 staff and motivate a workforce, by using pure 100% Grade A bull****.

Once again I ask the question - If Joyce decided on the morning of the grounding to take that course of action, this shows a knee jerk adhoc action that could not have been risk analysed prior to him acting upon that impulse.
This is sheer lunacy, and it is equally disconcerting that CASA has done absolutely nothing. What ever happened to Section 28 of the act? Do we need to supply CASA with a copy of the responsibilities and accountabilities of the AOC holder?

If ever there was a time or need for Senator Xenophon to analyse the actions of Qantas and inactions of CASA it is now. It has become palpable that this is going on. I know we have focused a lot on the FWA issue at hand, as well as the bonuses and cloud cuckoo land mentality displayed by QF's leaders, and I don't wish to detract from that, but what about safety? What about CASA's requirement to uphold and ensure passenger safety? What about the operators agree and written safety policy signed by the CEO himself to uphold and promote a safety first business? This is a sham and a national disgrace.

CASA......A wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas

No it does not.

There was obviously planning, risk assesments, discussions etc prior to the decision being made on the Saturday morning as per the risk assement submitted to FWA.

What he has said is that the decision itself on whether or not to proceed with those plans was not made until that day.

I bet there were (are) a number of other plans that as yet have not been pulled out of the drawer for implementation as there has been no decision to do so (yet).

All been done before - DOT as it was known then was once a
subsidiary of ATI and cigar smoke was permitted to permeate
its head office.