Last on First off.
Word on the streets is Joyce will force AIPA to arbitration. One of their arguments will be to drop the last on first off clause in the EBA due to the large cost involved to the company in retraining.
If they win this(and they have won everything else) they will do redundancies across the fleets and ranks where the excesses are. I should imagine Qantas Captains will go across to Jetstar as Captains in preference to centre link. Any bush lawyers care to comment?:confused: |
I understand VR must be offered [at a reasonable package] before CR.:)
This may cost more than the re-training!:eek: Mind you, nothing would suprise most of us.:hmm: C%£&s^&$%£*s:mad: |
I don't believe there is any requirement for VR in the long haul EBA. The long haul cabin crew have it but tech crew do not.
|
BBB.
I reckon you are right about the company wanting mass redundancies out of seniority order, as well as about the arbitration piece. QF have not negotiated in good faith at all since the beginning of EBA negotiations, and that has all been about getting to this point. Don't think you a right about QF Capt's displacing anyone else in the group however. Joyce has been pretty clear he wants the "rouge overpaid pollution living in cloud cuckoo land" out of the industry altogether. With extreme prejudice and maximum personal financial and emotional damage to each and every QF pilot. |
Is there any requirement for R in the EA?:confused: [EBAs long gone]
Common usage with other parts of the company may influence the amounts of any redundancy package. For example: LOA 154 regarding FEO redundacies refers to 3 weeks pay/years of service up to 5 years and 4 weeks pay/years of service over 5 years.:E Plus 6 months notice etc. |
How is it that an Award/Contract/Negotiation can include a Last ON, First OFF! clause, then all of a sudden, all bets are off!
Are there any protections for employees these days? |
Are there any protections for employees these days? |
I'm sure Team Bazza has everything under control. Official word from the Exec when quizzed on this topic from within COM (reportedly on numerous occasions during their tenure) is that the Award will be followed -
President Jackson was elected because of his affable demeanor and negotiating skill set, surely there is no need to get hysterical now; is there? |
As I understand it, this was an ambit claim from the company that was quickly dismissed by both parties early in negotiations. I'm sure the company would like to have it revisited along with a 20% pay cut, reduction in allowances, loss of pay protection etc etc.
This dispute was mostly about the job security clause and the company have made enough public statements to verify that was the sticking point. I think that's the central issue FWA will rule on. I very much doubt they will start stripping away existing entitlements, at least I hope not. |
Wow, you lot are really jumping at shadows.
It's not 1989, stand together and do not resign from your job unless you've got a better one to go to. You start using more fuel, pushing headwinds, not carrying defects, don't do call ins. You might lose the occasional battle, make sure you win the war. AJ is not some super strategist, his game plan is simple, we've all been bullied before, fight the smart fight, stand your ground, I will be. I'd reckon he's the kind of guy that could not stand on his own. IMHO, as soft as a pensioners turd. |
Shed Dog pretty much has it spot on work to rule, follow all SOP's, find the head winds, dont shut the engines off quite as promptly when you pull into the gate, gas it up when taxing etc.
|
As an outsider looking in......think about this.
Your battle is not directly with AJ. Study your enemy.....study real Damned hard...... It's L Clifford. Do I make myself 100,000% clear. This is LC all over. You can be blind to the Forrest due the trees if you like. I bet you all your houses and lives on it. Sorry I am telling you the obvious if you already see it. |
Yep sheds on the money
This is just a bigger nastier version of any GA outfit. Intimidate and push the staff, see how far they go. When their back won't bend any further and they say enough is enough (fuel burns increase, OTP constantly crap and no more helping out the company) they stop and then come to an agreement. But just like GA there will be those that jump ship early thinking the end of the world is nigh. |
work to rule = UNPROTECTED industrial action.
|
How can work to rule be industrial action? Just doing what your meant to do , nothing more.
|
astroboy55
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, industrial action is defined as to include the following actions: • Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed. (In other words no “Go Slows” operating at higher than normal Mach No etc etc). • Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work. (In other words no pickets, harassing of other employees etc). • A ban, limitation or restriction by employees on performing or accepting work. (An example here would be baggage handlers refusing to lift any bags over 10 kgs). • A failure or refusal by employees to attend for work or perform any work. (Striking). • The lockout of employees from their employment by their employer. (What Qantas almost did a few weeks ago). Work to rule or contract compliance isn’t industrial action. When an employee performs his job as described in his contract, he is complying with the contract he signed with his employer. If he does more than what is in his contract, this is good will. Industrial action occurs if he does less than what is in his contract. Fair Work Ombudsman - Industrial Action |
Gday Titan,
Whilst I agree with the above, the unfortunate fact is that any work to rule is Unprotected Industrial Action. The key here is Employees performing work in a manner different to how it is normally performed. The other key is Employees adopting a practice, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work I dont agree with it, but it would be a brave person who tried a work to rule campaign right now without protection. However, as pointed out,there are far more subtle ways one can get their message across without resorting to such tactics :p Cheers |
I believe you'll find:
* Organised work to rule is unprotected, * individuals choosing to work to rule, is a person meeting the bare minimums of their employment contract, can't get sacked for that. In the same way, an individual choosing not to overtime or call ins, is quite within their rights. |
Margaret and Scrotum Face used to brag that no one was leaving...well they will now and the worry is the damage they do before they leave.....
|
Astro, while on the surface when someone "works to rule" the performance or output might be different, proving that in the Commission will be quite a task, when a Commissioner will just as easily turn around and ask the employer - "what is expected of the employee(s) under their agreement/contract".
An employer can't just come in and say "well this person usually works to this level which is above the terms of their contract etc etc" and think that would satisfy an unprotected IA claim. Even if an employer has certain implied expectations of it's employees the contract is the contract. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.