That's exactly why they're doing it - under the guise of being beneficial to the employee group. "You can take your AL/LSL now and not lose $$ during the stand down......"

The KRviatrix is an accountant and everything to them is an "Asset" or "Liability". Employees are Liabilities because they (eventually) cost money. Accrued leave is a liability because it has to be paid eventually, and budgeted for accordingly. AL/LSL goes up at the %-age of your EBA increases and thus, becomes more valuable (to us) and more expensive (to them) if you don't take it year onyear. Let's say you have 1000 hrs AL owing, at $100/hr for round figures. Your AL liability to the company is, $100,000. But if you don't take that this year, then next year, that liability becomes $102,500 (or whatever %-age your EBA increase is), so of course the company - any company - wants you to use your AL/LSL as soon as you can.

But, if you don't take your AL/LSL, you're eligible for the $1,500/FN payment, which is enough to live on for most people if you can suspend your mortgage as well as keeping your accrued leave balances. I know what I'd rather do.

Look a little further than your own industry and you'll find that Qantas isn't the only big company denying the use of Sick Leave right now.

Not heard of that one Dragon Man. Wasn’t aware Qantas had any specialist medical staff other than Dr Ian.

They don’t, when they are not happy with the situation they can insist you see a company approved specialist at their cost, the downside being that they agree as they did in this case with the patient.

That will be the question for the judge, whether there is a distinction or not. From reading the fair work act I think you are probably drinking too much company Kool Aid as I don't see where there specifies a distinction. If you are taking paid leave you are on leave end of story.

In the article quoted these people sounded like they were on long term sick leave, so I don't see why that would magically stop, as it is a form of leave, just one QF don't want to pay as there is no benefit to them.

It’s unfortunately this simple.

If a workplace agreement includes stood down provisions, those provisions apply, not the FWA. Not one stood down legislation in the FWA is relevant. The only thing that matters are those EA stood down clauses.

In most QF agreements I’ve read, the stood down provisions include that annual leave may be offered. There is no mention of personal leave or sick leave. So it’s not payable. It’s one of the few instances where our agreements are worse than the FWA legislation.

I expect Qantas will win.

Nev, does that section that you quote apply to us given we are on an EA? Will it apply to the TWU employee? As you say Neville, a judge will decide.

Spare me the ‘Kool Aid’ accusation though. I’m just reading the relevant legislation and the LHEA and giving it a ‘best guess’ like most other contributors here. A mate who has far more legal experience flicked me a message and he disagrees with my assessment. I respect his opinion.

I hope I am wrong. I’d like nothing better than to schedule in a couple of minor procedures needed whilst things are quiet at the moment and to switch from AL to SL.

There goes that frontal lobotomy I had planned.

Perhaps the ‘yes’ voters could use this time to have their testies re-attached 😂

Didn’t they tell you? You already had it. :}

And the 'no' voters have a brain installed.

IsDon01:

What about the (Ahem) gender reassignment surgery?

Looks like Qantas won this one.. :(

Court dismisses stood down Qantas staff's sick leave bid

A Federal Court judge has dismissed a union-led bid to have Qantas workers paid sick leave during the coronavirus crisis.

Some 20,000-odd Qantas workers stood down in mid-March have been able to legally access some entitlements including annual leave but they've been prevented from accessing sick, carers and compassionate leave.

The company's position on Monday was backed by Justice Geoffrey Flick.

He agreed with Qantas that the stand-down power served two important purposes: offering businesses financial relief and protecting workers from termination.

Allowing staff to access sick leave while lawfully stood down because there is no work would "go against the very object and purpose of conferring those entitlements - namely an entitlement to be relieved from the work which the employee was otherwise required to perform", Justice Flick said.

AAP

I wonder why AIPA wasn't involved?

The opening sentence is wrong, should have read....."Qantas court judge" ! -)

Who’d have thought Sunfish would have been wrong. Again.

Qantas 2. Sunfish 0.

There's 2 guys there I used to work with that have terminal illnesses. They must be gutted.

So what’s the problem, he thought they had a case , they did and the TWU agreed however this judge didn’t. It happens all the time and I suspect will now go to a full bench for appeal.

If they have terminal illnesses then they wouldn't have been on sick leave. They would have been medically terminated and have been able to claim through loss of license / loss of income policies.