JUSTICE SERVED!!
 

Qantas lost

Qantas case dismissed in High court

Just nowBy Liana Walker

Qantas has lost its High Court appeal over the sacking of 1700 workers during the pandemic.

The jobs of baggage handlers and cleaners at ten airports were outsourced, as the airline faced a dramatic decline in business.

Qantas maintained it made the decision for sound commercial reasons.

But the Transport Workers Union told the High Court the airline had also been motivated to head off industrial action when things returned to normal, in breach of the Fair Work Act.

Today the High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal by Qantas.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-...e=abc_news_web

https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption


it’s simple really. The whole house of cards are about to fall down. Things are going to get a lot worse before it gets better

Wonderful news!!

Surely now Joyce loses his OA and gets no bonuses, Hudson and Goyder both have to go and an outsider bought in. Well done the TWU a great day for Australian workers.

No never, Boston consulting to the rescue.

The Chairman’s Lounge ranks are about to get thinner!

Not only did they lose, it was unanimous.

Goyder and the board showing the ultimate characteristics of teamwork and leadership.
AFL needs to take note.

One page summary of judgment: here. You only need to read the last paragraph.

’Appeal again! We can’t possibly be wrong! Waaahhh!’

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED & ANOR v TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA
[2023] HCA 27
Today, the High Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a judgment of a full court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal concerned whether a decision by Qantas Airways Limited ("Qantas") to outsource its ground handling operations at ten Australian airports contravened s 340(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ("the Act"). The effect of the outsourcing decision was that ground handling services then being performed by employees of Qantas and Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd ("QGS"), many of whom were members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia ("the TWU"), would instead be performed by staff of third-party suppliers.
Section 340(1)(b) provided that a person must not take adverse action against another person "to prevent the exercise of a workplace right by the other person". A person has a workplace right "if the person ... is able to initiate, or participate in, a process or proceedings under a workplace law or workplace instrument" (s 341(1)(b)). It was agreed that Qantas took adverse action against the affected employees in making the outsourcing decision. At the time of the outsourcing decision the affected employees were prohibited from organising or engaging in protected industrial action under the Act because the affected Qantas employees' enterprise agreement had not reached its nominal expiry date and the affected QGS employees were practically unable to take protected industrial action. The TWU commenced proceedings in the Federal Court, with issues arising as to whether Qantas could prove that it did not make the outsourcing decision to prevent the exercise of workplace rights by affected employees and whether the outsourcing decision prevented the exercise of workplace rights.
The primary judge found that, while Qantas had "commercial imperatives" for making the outsourcing decision, Qantas had not discharged its onus under s 361 of the Act of disproving that the reasons for the outsourcing decision included preventing the exercise of workplace rights, namely preventing employees from engaging in protected industrial action and participating in enterprise bargaining. The primary judge found that Qantas had contravened s 340(1)(b) of the Act. The full court dismissed Qantas' appeal.
The issue before the High Court was whether s 340(1)(b) of the Act prohibited a person from taking adverse action against another person for the purpose of preventing the exercise of a workplace right that might arise in the future. The High Court unanimously held that it did and, in so doing, rejected Qantas' contention that s 340(1)(b) only proscribed adverse action for the purpose of preventing the exercise of a presently existing workplace right.

It’s a ‘sorry, but not sorry’ response.

They got what they wanted, which was a reduction in overheads. A few penalties is just a drop in the ocean compared to what they will save in the coming years and decades. That’s how they think and operate, and it’s still a victory in AJs playbook, illegal or not.

The fine and any compensation amounts will be viewed as simply the cost of doing business.

Guess what, who do you think pays for their decision in the end? Their passengers.

And the taxpayer because it’s tax deductible as are the costs.

FInes are not tax deductible. Compensation would be but fines are definitely not.

100% the fines would've already been factored in to a cost benefit analysis of outsourcing the work. They knew there were going to lose this one a while ago.

When one takes everything into account you realise just how fortuitous it was that Joyce woke up in June one morning and (just as he did when he had the epiphany to shut the airline down in 2011) decided to sell $17m worth of shares he accumulated over ten years instead of even just a few weeks later, or even today!!


Bluestar Airlines anyone??

When Slater and Gordon get involved for the class action….

It looks to me that some people were not paying attention at the informative and very interesting OSOB courses. 🤪🤪