|
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 ! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.