|
Originally Posted by Johhny Utah
(Post 10838517)
LH EA 15.10.2 (b).
All there in black and white. :ugh: Thanks Johnny , from the EA b) The Company may make pilots compulsorily redundant, which WILL occur in reverse order of seniority – that is, on a last on first off basis except that the Company MAY ‘pass over’ a pilot who is on LWOP and that period of leave commenced prior to the issuing of the notice of compulsory redundancy and was approved for a period of more than 12 months. Where a pilot is on LWOP that was not approved prior to the issuing of notices of redundancy and that period of LWOP was approved for a period of less than 12 months then: So as a result of Qantas Managements application of the wording of “MAY” pass over a Pilot on LWOP this then makes any chance of a pilot potentially affected , zero chance of making an educated guess as to “ where one might stand in the scheme of things “ ,which makes trying to work out a plan of action nigh on impossible ! As a result , why wouldn’t a pilot who is affected by this application of “ MAY “ being interpreted as “WILL “ launch a grievence because they have been materially disadvantaged by a poorly worded clause ? What should be attempted by Management is a multi stage expressions of interest for each form of number reductions starting with VR progressing to expressions of interest for LWOP ,etc in order to allow for the least amount of uncertainty resulting in the least number of materially disadvantage pilots due to the honest presentation of data ! Otherwise this is just another cynical Managerial troll ! |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10838583)
In your opinion, however I can tell you that they are not forcing long haul pilots who reach 65 at the moment to retire and that’s because in my opinion they can’t and they know it.
I’d assume to fulfil a SH vacancy, it would need to be started before the 65th birthday. It can be argued once you are unable to do your duties you stop being stood down. |
Originally Posted by crosscutter
(Post 10838606)
I’m sure you are familiar with the Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie case. Similarities can be drawn.
|
I am disgusted by how the company is acting in regards to CR/VR/LWOP.
i understand it is a business decision but maybe the wrong decision has been made. Some of us, if still employed, will not forget. they are following the agreement as interpreted, both parties can play that game. |
Originally Posted by Come in spinner
(Post 10838626)
I am disgusted by how the company is acting in regards to CR/VR/LWOP.
i understand it is a business decision but maybe the wrong decision has been made. Some of us, if still employed, will not forget. they are following the agreement as interpreted, both parties can play that game. Well said , there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge. |
Make sure to express your concerns to the CoM. These threats are a disgrace and need to be noted.
We just finished the 1st quarter...I’d say Aug 7th will be half time. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10838528)
If as above you are correct then what happens if you take two years LWOP and they need pilots after one year who comes back first the pilot on CR or can the pilot on LWOP returning earlier than the LWOP that he took Instead of the more senior pilot who was compulsory made redundant? The bottom line is a Pandora’s box has been opened and like a royal commission do you want to go to FWA without knowing what the result will be.
The LWOP pilot will be asked to come back early (they are employed by the company). They can refuse. The CR pilot remains unemployed until Qantas do external recruitment. At that point they return to Qantas and return to the same seniority # (above the LWOP pilot). |
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist
(Post 10838509)
Not true, pilots are called back in seniority order - whether from LWOP
or the retrenched list. |
Originally Posted by normanton
(Post 10838668)
Nope. Shot down in a webinar by HR.
|
What don't you understand dragon man?
If you are on LWOP you are employed by the company. If you receive CR you are not. You have nothing to do with the company whatsoever. You keep your name on a list and that's it - hopefully one day you will get the call. The question you are getting at was specifically asked in a webinar and the answer was as I mentioned above. If you refused to come back from LWOP early and they were short of crew, then they will recruit externally (i.e. call back the CR pilot). It's not rocket science mate. Jesus! |
The least of Qantas’s problems right now Or in the future few years is a pilots shortage.
|
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10838672)
If that’s what HR says it’s probably a porky pie
Like beautiful_butterfly’s post above, you can go on all day about what you think should be happening. It’s actually pretty clear what is going to happen. Management have said it pretty openly numerous times. If you are on LWOP you are employed by the company. If you receive CR you are not. You have nothing to do with the company whatsoever. You keep your name on a list and that's it - hopefully one day you will get the call. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10838583)
In your opinion, however I can tell you that they are not forcing long haul pilots who reach 65 at the moment to retire and that’s because in my opinion they can’t and they know it.
opinion or not, it’s QF’s position. They have done their homework. As Dre said, it’s what will happen. Just like SH being excluded if there are CR’s. It doesn’t mean I agree with it. its sad for all the guys 62+ who did their last flights and didn’t know it. But this is how QF are running it. Until we see a successful challenge to something, that’s the only assumption we can make. And I’m yet to see a successful challenge. Edit forget all the above, we are all saved. Apparently all we have to do is wear LJ activewear :p |
b) The Company may make pilots compulsorily redundant, which WILL occur in reverse order of seniority – that is, on a last on first off basis except that the Company MAY ‘pass over’ a pilot who is on LWOP and that period of leave commenced prior to the issuing of the notice of compulsory redundancy and was approved for a period of more than 12 months. Got it. So the company is going to to use this clause to passover a less expensive junior CR candidate, in order to pay out a larger sum of money in these financially constrained times to a more expensive senior pilot. Makes sense. If any of you believe any of the rubbish being spruiked by HR/Tino then read yesterday's article in the SMH - "The plan means Qantas is much less likely to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic with the risk of its long haul international pilots taking holidays just as the company's planes get back in the air." So now the accrual of Annual Leave and Long Service Leave isn't actually about the bottom line, it's about the pesky pilots deciding that after X Months/Years of not flying they are going to take Leave as soon as they are stood up again and threaten the future of the airline. :ugh::ugh: You couldn't make this sh1t up. No, wait, not true. I've read enough of the comments on this forum to understand how easy it is to lead sheep to slaughter. |
It’s interesting to note comments from the CFO stating that no one knows what demand will look like into the future!
So what is the three year plan based on? What if demand really picks up? Oxford and Moderna have both had successful phase one results. Efficacy trials should be known by September with Oxford manufacturing starting now for delivery in October. It reminds of the end scene in Zombieland 2 where Woody leads all the zombies to jump off the roof. You can’t stop human nature? |
Originally Posted by Wingspar
(Post 10839177)
It’s interesting to note comments from the CFO stating that no one knows what demand will look like into the future!
So what is the three year plan based on? What if demand really picks up? I think we can all agree if that course of action is needed then that it’s a problem everyone will be glad to have. |
Originally Posted by common cents
(Post 10839178)
So a more senior pilot on SU and a more junior pilot on LWOP are both still employed by the company. The industrial agreements in place give the company the option to by pass the LWOP pilot in case of CR.
Both still considered employees of the company but the company has the option to discriminate. I’d love to be the judge presiding over that one! |
So let me get this straight , taking this concept of the “Immaculate Passover “ for LWOP pilots to the nth degree , you could quite possibly end up with a situation of a vast number of junior pilots being convinced and herded into taking LWOP by Management and their FUD campaign of being CR’d if they aren’t protected by Managements application of “MAY” as in LH EA 15.10.2 (b).
Let us say, for arguments sake , that a senior pilot with decades of seniority , or a middle ranking pilot for that matter, due to past practice and principle application of Seniority would in a normal world have a fair idea of where they stood in the scheme of things , as has been shown by the Company’s application in other past decisions regarding application of the concept of seniority . Now these middle ranking pilots and above suddenly find themselves subject to being CR’d due to an arbitrary managerial interpretation of the contract which “convinced” a vast number of more Junior pilots into taking LWOP due to the supposed protections afforded if they capitulate ..and these middle ranking and above pilots so affected aren’t anywhere even close to the bottom of the seniority pyramid scheme ! Is this truely how the application of Compulsory Redundancy was envisaged? One would think that the intrinsic concept of “last on first off “ as pretty straight forward ! Obviously not when viewed through the cynical prism of Qantas interpretation ! Talk about unintended consequences ! Come on , get real , how long would this cynical Company interpretation last under legal scrutiny? What other long upheld tenants are Management going to “re-interpret” cynically in these “unprecedented “ times one wonders ! |
|
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
(Post 10839197)
So let me get this straight , taking this concept of the “Immaculate Passover “ for LWOP pilots to the nth degree , you could quite possibly end up with a situation of a vast number of junior pilots being convinced and herded into taking LWOP by Management and their FUD campaign of being CR’d if they aren’t protected by Managements application of “MAY” as in LH EA 15.10.2 (b).
Let us say, for arguments sake , that a senior pilot with decades of seniority , or a middle ranking pilot for that matter, due to past practice and principle application of Seniority would in a normal world have a fair idea of where they stood in the scheme of things , as has been shown by the Company’s application in other past decisions regarding application of the concept of seniority . Now these middle ranking pilots and above suddenly find themselves subject to being CR’d due to an arbitrary managerial interpretation of the contract which “convinced” a vast number of more Junior pilots into taking LWOP due to the supposed protections afforded if they capitulate ..and these middle ranking and above pilots so affected aren’t anywhere even close to the bottom of the seniority pyramid scheme ! Is this truely how the application of Compulsory Redundancy was envisaged? One would think that the intrinsic concept of “last on first off “ as pretty straight forward ! Obviously not when viewed through the cynical prism of Qantas interpretation ! Talk about unintended consequences ! Come on , get real , how long would this cynical Company interpretation last under legal scrutiny? What other aspects of the Contract are Management going to “interpret” cynically in these “unprecedented “ times one wonders ! |
Inexcusable to use the threat of CR to get people off the books!
Fear of losing ones job. Modus operandi. Isnt it bad enough to stand people down without pay? |
This is a little like a prisoners dilemma....however, the pilots have the advantage of talking to one another. If everyone agreed to not take LWOP (unless those that freely desired it) then the outcome is optimised.
Seniority is respected. The fewest number leave the company (as it costs them) Protection of self interest is a killer...but understandable. |
Originally Posted by common cents
(Post 10839178)
So a more senior pilot on SU and a more junior pilot on LWOP are both still employed by the company. The industrial agreements in place give the company the option to by pass the LWOP pilot in case of CR.
Both still considered employees of the company but the company has the option to discriminate. I’d love to be the judge presiding over that one!
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
(Post 10839197)
So let me get this straight , taking this concept of the “Immaculate Passover “ for LWOP pilots to the nth degree , you could quite possibly end up with a situation of a vast number of junior pilots being convinced and herded into taking LWOP by Management and their FUD campaign of being CR’d if they aren’t protected by Managements application of “MAY” as in LH EA 15.10.2 (b).
Let us say, for arguments sake , that a senior pilot with decades of seniority , or a middle ranking pilot for that matter, due to past practice and principle application of Seniority would in a normal world have a fair idea of where they stood in the scheme of things , as has been shown by the Company’s application in other past decisions regarding application of the concept of seniority . Now these middle ranking pilots and above suddenly find themselves subject to being CR’d due to an arbitrary managerial interpretation of the contract which “convinced” a vast number of more Junior pilots into taking LWOP due to the supposed protections afforded if they capitulate ..and these middle ranking and above pilots so affected aren’t anywhere even close to the bottom of the seniority pyramid scheme ! Is this truely how the application of Compulsory Redundancy was envisaged? One would think that the intrinsic concept of “last on first off “ as pretty straight forward ! Obviously not when viewed through the cynical prism of Qantas interpretation ! Talk about unintended consequences ! Come on , get real , how long would this cynical Company interpretation last under legal scrutiny? What other long upheld tenants are Management going to “re-interpret” cynically in these “unprecedented “ times one wonders ! You want to dance around on your seniority yet when there is a clause in the EBA that legally allows the company to go around it, it's suddenly not acceptable. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. |
So what happens to the junior SH pilots that didn’t take LWOP by Aug 7 ? I know the company have stated their position with regards to CR. AIPA have stated theirs. When it ends up in court resulting in AIPAs favour what happens then?
|
Are you saying AIPA doesn't agree with the bypass clause in the EBA?
|
Originally Posted by KZ Kiwi
(Post 10839248)
So what happens to the junior SH pilots that didn’t take LWOP by Aug 7 ? I know the company have stated their position with regards to CR. AIPA have stated theirs. When it ends up in court resulting in AIPAs favour what happens then?
Any longhaul pilot and most second officers that started within the last few years could have be Shorthaul if they wished. Seniority works very well going upwards. It’s the downwards part that it doesn’t. To quote sunfish, ‘to put it another way’, do you think Qantas is going to spend 2 years retraining all the long haul guys to Shorthaul? By the time they’re all typed and checked out, long haul will be back. |
Thats correct. Redundancy happens when an employer doesn't need an employees job to be done by anyone. A genuine redundancy is when a persons job doesn't need to be done by anyone. A dismissal of a pilot whose job is not redundant is not a genuine redundancy if the employer still needs the job to be done by someone.
Interesting times indeed. |
But in the above examples you’re saying if enough people take LWOP mid range seniority LH FOs could be made redundant and returning SOs from LWOP would then fill those positions......at great CR cost and retraining cost to the company.
Plenty of people have spent time in SH before returning to LH so maybe cut the “too bad you had your chance” language. |
Your missing the point that the CR is happening because there is a surplus right now. The position is not being made redundant and then instantly replaced by a person on LWOP. The LWOP pilot might not come back for 2+ years. In which case they are still technically employed by the company, and as advised by HR, they will return first. Only when external recruitment is required will the CR pilot come back at their original seniority position.
Originally Posted by KZ Kiwi
(Post 10839275)
But in the above examples you’re saying if enough people take LWOP mid range seniority LH FOs could be made redundant and returning SOs from LWOP would then fill those positions......at great CR cost and retraining cost to the company.
|
I don’t mean the individual I mean the position.
Lots of mid range seniority FOs on the 787 and 330......those positions certainly aren’t being made redundant any time soon as they are likely to be the LH fleet going forward |
Originally Posted by KZ Kiwi
(Post 10839279)
I don’t mean the individual I mean the position.
Lots of mid range seniority FOs on the 787 and 330......those positions certainly aren’t being made redundant any time soon as they are likely to be the LH fleet going forward At the end of the day if Qantas says it’s a redundant position, then it’s a redundant position. It’s not something AIPA will win in a courtroom. Qantas own the train set, and they will do as they please. |
Righto. I’m out of here. Good luck everyone. See you at sign on some time in the future hopefully or maybe at Centrelink.
|
It’s basically why SOs need to take LWOP.
As the guys at the top trickle down, Qantas probably can’t make SOs CR as the FOs lose a stripe along with Captains. Of course Qantas could just build up a pool of SOs as the top move down and then make those positions redundant. However the easiest way to manage it is targeted VR at the top to prevent the downwards RIN and targeted LWOP at the bottom. The ones I really feel sorry for are the recent transfers to long haul from Shorthaul who could be facing loss of a stripe. But it’s still better than nothing I guess. Aviation really is messed up sometimes. |
Originally Posted by common cents
(Post 10839285)
Blueskymine
I largely agree with your take on the situation. One question though. Even if this pool of S/O positions are made redundant, how does the company remove a senior S/O on SU so that a more junior S/O on LWOP takes the job. Would that not mean that the retrenched S/O has been unfairly dismissed? If the SO who is on LWOP is nearing their return date and there is a notice of CR, they’d be crazy to return. They’d apply for an extension and I’d see no reason why the company wouldn’t approve it. So the senior SO is CRd, joins the retrenchment list and when all LWOP pilots return or the company starts external recruitment the retrenchment list pilots will have another shot after a HR driven process of some unspecified description, and if successful, return to their original seniority in the base and rank that’s vacant. (PER 787 SO). These are the facts. They may not be what we all want to hear. AIPA won’t be able to challenge it for risk of a ruling against seniority which won’t be great moving forward and that is pretty much that. The real concern is if every SO took LWOP, the oldies give the bird and stick around and the gators start snapping into the FO ranks. Whilst unlikely, (it’s unlikely anyone will exit the business involuntarily) it’s worth considering the ramifications (Tino has admitted this is a possibility) and perhaps tightening a few words and clauses in EBA11. LWOP as far as I can see it is insurance. You’re giving up 6-12 weeks of annual leave for a six digit salary and maintaining your position while avoiding a HR driven process going forward. You’re also maintaining your rank, base and fleet (provided it still exists). If you join the retrenchment list, you won’t. |
Originally Posted by Blueskymine
(Post 10839290)
If the junior SO is on LWOP at the time and there is a notice of CRs, and the senior SO is on SU, the CR may pass over the junior SO on LWOP and target the senior one. (At the companies discretion). Provided the junior SO took greater than 12 months LWOP by 07/08
If the SO who is on LWOP is nearing their return date and there is a notice of CR, they’d be crazy to return. They’d apply for an extension and I’d see no reason why the company wouldn’t approve it. So the senior SO is CRd, joins the retrenchment list and when all LWOP pilots return or the company starts external recruitment the retrenchment list pilots will have another shot after a HR driven process of some unspecified description, and if successful, return to their original seniority in the base and rank that’s vacant. (PER 787 SO). These are the facts. They may not be what we all want to hear. AIPA won’t be able to challenge it for risk of a ruling against seniority which won’t be great moving forward and that is pretty much that. The real concern is if every SO took LWOP, the oldies give the bird and stick around and the gators start snapping into the FO ranks. Whilst unlikely, (it’s unlikely anyone will exit the business involuntarily) it’s worth considering the ramifications (Tino has admitted this is a possibility) and perhaps tightening a few words and clauses in EBA11. LWOP as far as I can see it is insurance. You’re giving up 6-12 weeks of annual leave for a six digit salary and maintaining your position while avoiding a HR driven process going forward. You’re also maintaining your rank, base and fleet (provided it still exists). If you join the retrenchment list, you won’t. Most of that is correct. The only thing that was said contrary to what you just wrote is that if the junior SO that is on 12 months lwop opts to extend their lwop as the company have stated there will be CR at the, for arguments sake, 13 month point, that pilot will not be bypassed for CR. Tino doubled down and said that junior pilot is only covered by the discretionary bypass, at this stage, for the period of their initial lwop period applied for prior to August 7th. Therefore, the only way the junior pilot could avoid CR at that 13 month mark we are speaking about, would be to apply for more than 13 months lwop before August 7th. Eg. lwop for 2 years applied for prior to August 7th. It’s a disgusting thing they’re doing but as it states in the eba, bypass is at their discretion. They’re drawing a line by using their discretion to bypass. Appalling. |
Originally Posted by common cents
(Post 10839297)
So let’s say for arguments sake that 50 S/O positions become redundant. And let’s say that the pilots who held those positions are all on LWOP.
The company bypasses them and retrenches the next 50 in seniority. The LWOP pilots take those jobs. The 50 who were let go , were let go from positions that were not redundant. I’d say they were unfairly dismissed. Again, the LWOP pilots aren’t taking the redundant positions at that point in time. The positions are redundant. |
Originally Posted by common cents
(Post 10839297)
So let’s say for arguments sake that 50 S/O positions become redundant. And let’s say that the pilots who held those positions are all on LWOP.
The company bypasses them and retrenches the next 50 in seniority. The LWOP pilots take those jobs. The 50 who were let go , were let go from positions that were not redundant. I’d say they were unfairly dismissed. But as the positions become available again, you’d want to be on LWOP returning and not on the retrenchment list. One you work for the company and one you don’t. |
Originally Posted by stillcallozhome
(Post 10839302)
Most of that is correct. The only thing that was said contrary to what you just wrote is that if the junior SO that is on 12 months lwop opts to extend their lwop as the company have stated there will be CR at the, for arguments sake, 13 month point, that pilot will not be bypassed for CR. Tino doubled down and said that junior pilot is only covered by the discretionary bypass, at this stage, for the period of their initial lwop period applied for prior to August 7th.
Therefore, the only way the junior pilot could avoid CR at that 13 month mark we are speaking about, would be to apply for more than 13 months lwop before August 7th. Eg. lwop for 2 years applied for prior to August 7th. It’s a disgusting thing they’re doing but as it states in the eba, bypass is at their discretion. They’re drawing a line by using their discretion to bypass. Appalling. |
So little Johnny who's been a good chap and has been on LWOP, comes back from leave one day, and taps his senior mate on the shoulder.
He says G'day there Charlie move over I'm taking your position. Uncle Q smiles as he hands Charlie his CR notice. Charlie jumps up in a fit of rage, and says my job is being filled by another employee. Uncle Q says that's right you should have listened and gone on LWOP. Mr Fairwork Ombudsman comes along and asks what? Tell me uncle Q was this so called redundant position filled by another? Why yes . Then tell me how is it that Charlies job was redundant when it had to be filled by another? Uncle Q ponders the question and says I'm not sure but I acted within the EBA. Then asks why? have I dismissed Charlie unfairly? Charlie jumps with joy as he now takes his generous CR package and looks forward to his compensation package. In the meantime somewhere in a far off galaxy........................ |
Originally Posted by tenretni
(Post 10839311)
So little Johnny who's been a good chap and has been on LWOP, comes back from leave one day, and taps his senior mate on the shoulder.
He says G'day there Charlie move over I'm taking your position. Uncle Q smiles as he hands Charlie his CR notice. Charlie jumps up in a fit of rage, and says my job is being filled by another employee. Uncle Q says that's right you should have listened and gone on LWOP. Mr Fairwork Ombudsman comes along and asks what? Tell me uncle Q was this so called redundant position filled by another? Why yes . Then tell me how is it that Charlies job was redundant when it had to be filled by another? Uncle Q ponders the question and says I'm not sure but I acted within the EBA. Then asks why have I dismissed Charlie unfairly. Charlie jumps with joy as he now takes his generous CR package and looks forward to his compensation package. In the meantime somewhere in a far off galaxy........................ Nope doesn’t work like that at all. I suggest you read more posts above and or listen to some webinars. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.