Qantas Court Loss
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-...ties/101036724
This could cost them a few bucks. Qantas has lost its appeal against a Federal Court decision that found the outsourcing of about 2,000 ground crew workers was illegal. Last year, in one of the largest reinstatement cases ever heard, the Federal Court found in favour of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) against Qantas in challenging the outsourcing of about 2,000 jobs by the airline. It found Qantas' decision to outsource the baggage-handling and cleaning jobs was in breach of the Fair Work Act. Qantas appealed that decision, but the Full Federal Court on Wednesday dismissed the airline's attempt to overturn a ruling that it sacked workers illegally. Further remedy hearings will now take place to determine the compensation Qantas should pay to workers, as well as the penalties for the illegal sackings. In December, the Federal Court rejected TWU's application for reinstatement of workers' jobs. The TWU is now calling for a substantial compensation package for workers. It also has called on the Qantas board to sack its chief executive, Alan Joyce, and the key decision-maker in the outsourcing case, domestic and international chief executive Andrew David. |
Great news hopefully they be reinstated and we can all get our bags within 10mins of landing not like the 30 plus minutes now if at all.
|
QF are taking it to the high court, apparently the federal court judges weren’t sympathetic enough to the cause.
|
Further remedy hearings will now take place to determine the compensation Qantas should pay to workers, as well as the penalties for the illegal sackings. |
Are the High Court Judges in the Chairman's Lounge? If so then that is a serious issue.
|
hopefully they be reinstated |
So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots
|
So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots Not to mention that there is probably some psychology at play. Alan likes to throw his weight around the big end of town show them all who is boss. |
Originally Posted by Bootstrap1
(Post 11224808)
So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots
Maybe his initials should be changed to JC because thats what he thinks he is & his little puppy dog ass licking ex kiwi farmer is no better. Idiots is a very generous term for them,they are an insult to the airline that was once looked upon as an icon & the only spirit left is the 'mean' spirit they both excel at. |
Originally Posted by Bootstrap1
(Post 11224808)
So rather than copping it on the chin and excepting they they were wrong and what they did was illegal , Alan and Co are going to spend more of the company's money so that they don't have to spend more of the company's money. Idiots
accepting not excepting, their meanings are completely opposite. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 11224799)
They will put it down to the cost of "reform". Pay the fines, pay some compensation then carry on with a lower cost base which will recover the cost of the fines in five years.
|
Hello, Qantas? I'd like a ticket to Sydney, but I want my bags sent to Darwin.
"Sorry - we can't do that sir! Well, you managed to do it last time. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 11224919)
Bingo! You got it in one. The leprechaun is thinking ahead, beyond today. Shaft the rampies and use COVID as the cover for it. Then get fined in court and pay compensation. Nothing will change as those rampies won’t be returning. Use cheap outsourced ground handlers who will be cheaper in the long turn.
|
https://www.fwc.gov.au/unfair-dismissal
I am not sure that this is what will apply but as a guide in the case of unfair dismissal the MAXIMUM compensation is SIX months wages to a maximum of $79,250. |
Originally Posted by StudentInDebt
(Post 11224984)
Perhaps an appropriate penalty would be to pay the salaries of the sacked rampies including annual leave and other benefits until their nominal retirement date adjusted for inflation. Ought to stop them doing it again. Or they could get a slap on the wrist.
|
Begs the question of (Assuming QF lose the High Court appeal too) whether the ramp rats will have a civil claim against Qantas in addition to any legal penalty. I dunno what the TWU has put forward in their statement of claim nor do I know what the average salary would've been but if you're (for example) 30, on a good roster, have good performance reports and pretty good salary, there's no reason to assume you'd leave the job so that's 35 years ahead of you that you've lost that pay & conditions.
|
but if you're (for example) 30, on a good roster, have good performance reports and pretty good salary, there's no reason to assume you'd leave the job so that's 35 years ahead of you that you've lost that pay & conditions. How many ramp staff over fifty do you see? |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 11225197)
https://www.fwc.gov.au/unfair-dismissal
I am not sure that this is what will apply but as a guide in the case of unfair dismissal the MAXIMUM compensation is SIX months wages to a maximum of $79,250. While that may be the precedent for the amount payable to each displaced worker, the Court can award punitive damages for each and every infraction and - at the Court's discretion (and who would begrudge the Court for hammering them in their attempt(s) to overturn the verdict) that could be substantial. Assuming of course that there are not some hurried Chairman's Lounge renewals hurried through. No, never. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 11225270)
How many 64 year old ramp staff have you seen lately?
At SYD SIT (T1) there were plenty, prior to QF deciding that the business was in such bad shape that they needed to punt the lot!! How many ramp staff over fifty do you see? Please do not assume that SYD Ground Service Providers (GSPs as they are described in 2022) have been over-run with fresh young staff during the COVID-19, there were lots of "old" desperates also wanting a start. None of them happy about the diminished pay rates, but there are lots of shifts to fill and some reasonable money on doing big hours. Oh, they get to sniff JET A1 and hang around aeroplanes. Anyone working anywhere in this industry knows that it's a race to the bottom!! |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 11225270)
How many 64 year old ramp staff have you seen lately?
How many ramp staff over fifty do you see? Right now there is none of that & even if some of these guys are working for a contractor their job now is just to turn up,load or unload the baggage & leave the problem solving to somebody else thus its not hard to work out why baggage is often either not going or going somewhere it was never intended to go. |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11225345)
There probably werent any or many 64yr olds but there were lots in their 50's who had lots of experience & the 'knowhow' to identify & fix a problem quickly.
Right now there is none of that & even if some of these guys are working for a contractor their job now is just to turn up,load or unload the baggage & leave the problem solving to somebody else thus its not hard to work out why baggage is often either not going or going somewhere it was never intended to go. 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. :( |
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 11225781)
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. :( |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Vref+5
(Post 11226398)
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.
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.
Qantas given green light to appeal court ruling that outsourcing baggage handlers was illegal Qantas has been given the green light to fight a court ruling that its outsourcing of about 1700 ground crew workers during the Covid-19 pandemic was unlawful. The High Court granted the national carrier special leave to appeal against two earlier Federal Court rulings in a hearing on Friday. Qantas earlier this year vowed to take its case to the High Court after losing its appeal against a 2021 ruling that the outsourcing was unlawful. The Federal Court found the airline’s decision was partially motivated by many of the sacked workers being union members with stronger bargaining capability. The full bench of the Federal Court in May unanimously rejected Qantas’ first appeal against the decision. The Transport Workers’ Union says it will “mount the strongest possible case” in the High Court following the outcome of Friday’s hearing. Qantas has struggled with a shortage of baggage handlers since it outsourced its own ground crews and replaced many of them with staff contracted from labour hire companies. |
Originally Posted by KRviator
(Post 11332647)
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.
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else. |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11333130)
In reality,is this surprising?
U got to remember,they are never wrong,its always somebody else. 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). |
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
(Post 11333260)
Good luck to both sides.
|
Just because a lower court finds something illegal, doesn't mean that it is illegal until the final appeal. 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. |
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 |
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. 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
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11333703)
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. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11335026)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11335536)
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. |
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).
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.