This is the issue with all forms of outsourcing. Much easier to say 'not my problem', with little regard or pride for the company itself.
The same thing happens in retail - "I don't work for Myer"

Qantas was all about it’s people. They made the airline what it was, an highly regarded international ambassador recognised by all.

Recent CEO’s and Board Members are going out of their way to get rid of those people. Before too long, there will be no one employed by Qantas Airways LTD.

:(

Shh🤫 you’ll give them ideas how to get around the pesky Qantas Sales Act😂

How about the TWU attack each board member separately, under the Corporation’s Act? The board must have known AJ’s actions would be borderline illegal but they didn’t act? Therefore breaching their duties? Then they each face fines, disqualification? Divide and conquer Just a thought.

Arent they all in bed together!!
They all tell each other how good they are & how hard they work.
U are correct though,they would have known & are as guilty as AJ & co.

Maybe AJ woke up one Saturday morning with this “master plan”. Has a familiar ring to it.

So after losing the initial Federal court case, then the appeal to that case, Qaint-arse is now taking their argument to the High Court. Here's hoping they get their arses handed to them again to prove their dog act was illegal.

In reality,is this surprising?
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else.

I said months ago, without any dog in the fight personally, that this is not over until it is heard in the High Court. Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal.

Good luck to both sides.

Anyone denigrating either side and suggesting (albeit in a veiled manner) as appears in some of the comments on this thread, that Qantas is somehow doing something illegal by pursuing its right to appeal, would be saying exactly the opposite if they'd been convicted of something and were exercising all their rights to appeal. Whether Qantas did the wrong thing or not is for the courts to decide.

I am happy to be proven wrong but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was the TWU, I find it hard to believe that the High Court will uphold any decision that removes the right of a company to determine who it employs to perform certain work, even if we don't agree with contracting out.

Certainly if Qantas win in the High Court, then that's the end of the matter. Unless Tony Abbott worms his way back into power and decides, a la his stupid 'Knights and Dames' decision, to re-introduce appeals to the Privy Council LOL (although I don't think that is possible constitutionally now due to the Australia Acts).

You’ve obviously never worked in the QF Group:rolleyes:

Actually, it is “illegal” unless and until the higher court overturns the lower court’s decision. What do you think the position would have been if the High Court had refused Qantas leave to appeal? The majority of judicial decisions are not appealed to any higher court and the great majority of applications for leave to appeal a decision to the High Court are refused. (Some stats on applications to the: High Court.)

A higher court can effectively delay the operation of a lower court decision, pending the outcome of an appeal, but I think that’s a matter of discretion in most if not all cases. Are you aware of any authority for the proposition that the grant of leave to appeal to the High Court ‘automatically’ stays the effect of the decision appealed against? I may have missed something.

But, as you say, the High Court could ultimately find that the Federal Court got it wrong.

Well, the court doesn't decide if something is illegal or not, that's already set out by the law. The court decides if the accused is guilty of the illegal act.

How can both sides have good luck in this matter?

I don’t see anyone denigrating either side or making such suggestions although to be fair my drivel filter is on.

Oh dear.

In this case the High Court won’t decide whether an “accused” is “guilty” or “not guilty”. The High Court will decide what “already set out by the law” means.

At least your misconceptions help to explain your weird statements in the thread about Romeo areas.

Either way sick leave is going gangbusters! Take the freebies! Lol

Pretty sure this is not about who they choose to employ, rather the process and manner in which a large section were dismissed and under what pretence. The court is deciding on whether the dismissals were conducted in an appropriate manner, and if not, what penalties/compensation is warranted. If it was about whether they have the right to dismiss them or not then there would be an argument for reinstatement.

Yes, you are correct, I was a little sloppy in my wording. Of course, the High Court decision will render it 'legal' or it will stay 'illegal' depending on their decision. What I was trying to say I guess is that it's not settled until the final decision now it has been accepted to be heard by the High Court.

Actually, the Court CAN decide whether something is legal or not. The High Court can and has struck down laws which have been used to prosecute a case on the basis they are unconstitutional. Not saying that is at play here, but the High Court can very much determine something that is 'illegal' to be 'legal' or otherwise. Australian Capital Television vs the Commonwealth is one such example. The Commonwealth sought to restrict political advertising, essentially making it 'illegal' to say certain things. The High Court struck the entire law down as unconstitutional because it breached an implied right to freedom of political thought and association in the Constitution. BTW, it wasn't just some esoteric legal argument as I understand, based on the Judges opinions of what the law should be, it was based on the character of the constitution, a la the entrenchment of popular sovereignty and ".... the people of the Commonwealth..." electing parliaments characterising the polity as a political democracy, which can't exist without said freedom. The only difference here is that no one was charged with breaching the law, it was rather appealed as a law.

LB. I've come to respect your opinion so I'm sure you can put what I'm trying to say less clumsily in a legal sense than I have.

I think we're in heated agreement, but using different words, AP! You are of course correct. The High Court's 'main' job is to decide whether 'something' is lawful or not (or, in layperson's language, "legal" or "illegal") contrary to Eclan's ridiculous assertion.

In this case, the High Court will decide whether the Full Court of the Federal Court's judgment contains errors of a kind that would justify allowing Qantas's appeal. That process necessarily entails the High Court first deciding what the applicable law is and means.

Are we to assume that the law itself will be applied lawfully?

That, by definition, is what the High Court does. What it pronounces to be the law, is the law in relation to the circumstances of the case, unless the High Court subsequently pronounces the law to be something different (or the Parliament passes a valid law making the law different).