Qantaslink Hiring Policy.......false advertising

[lil_blueberry]

Gday all,

A very interesting saga emailed to me yesterday from someone who went through all the Qantaslink testing......

I got accepted into QF.Link and received my start date.... the usual documents to sign and send back...... only problem was I have an indiscretion from a previous life about 9 years ago (No violent crime etc, very trivial)...... so I was honest with them as they do the police name check bizo on you (Mr X from QF Recruitment(good fella) said it should be fine). I was later rung by Mr X , who was told by Qantas ID Services that I could not get a QF.ASIC card......... Even though I posses one issued by DOTARS..... go figure.....

I then asked for a review and apparently the same manager from ID services that knocked it back reviewed it (Wow, was it really a review ) and some other manager too...... did dumb and dumber review it?........

They advertised "must be able to hold an ASIC card" (in which I have one issued ....two times now!) but what they really mean is someone in a cushy job decides whether you come in or not according to Qantas POLICY THAT IS NOT REVEALED to the candidate at any stage in the selection process...including whats in the "minimum criteria" on there website.

So after almost 3months wasting time with them and around $600 later, I was denied a start by some secret Qantas policy..... Even though I know someone on the course who has a worse history than my petty charge....just that his was 11 or so years ago!

Gee, 9 years without so much as a traffic offense, and that was not even considered.....I cant believe they cant think outside the square thank god I didn't start with them........... Now I work for there competition! Funny how things turn out!"

So if your thinking about applying, be very cautious before you go through all the drama and financial cost if you have even the slightest hiccup on your record.

Wow,

1: Do the people running QF realize they are short of experienced pilots!? ....and
2: I think there opening themselves to a lawsuit.......
3: Are QF.Link above DOTARS/Regulations? Seems like someone in QF.link's head is in the clouds!

like he said....... funny how things turn out.

I thought that was very interesting..... and worth sharing........
Please don't reply or comment if you are just going to nit pick.......

[Ultralights]

i would be following up on point number 2

[TROJAN764]

I wouldn't blame QantasLink. ID Services are owned and operated by the 'evil empire' itself.

[Scooter]

I remember some years ago Qantas had a no spectacles policy (for recruits - not line pilots) but one candidate (now a B747 Captain) took them to task because under CASA rules he was able to hold an SCPL and his eyes were fully correctable.

I believe discrimination was a word used and they changed their minds and policy since.

LIL Blueberry - if you are now a holder of an ASIC card and meet all the requirements under Federal Legislation, is not Qantas discriminating against you also?

Just the threat of legal action is often enough as Qantas hates bad press.

Besides - they just cant handle the "D" word.

Sick em Rex - and if you really want the job go for it!
Get a lawyer, threaten exposing them to the media on grounds of discrimination and see where the cards fall.

Stand up to these clowns!!!

[basementjaxx]

lil_blueberry et al.,

I agree, If QF (main or link) advertise a position, they should include all assessable items including criminal records (and how an adverse criminal record will be looked upon).

Anyone can usually get an ASIC as long they do not pose a security risk to aviation. If someone is not eligible for a QF ASIC, it is more to do with a QF requirement than a DITRDLG issue.

From QF point of view (Link or mainline) the issue could be your eligibility for entry into other countries (under the banner of work). An adverse criminal record may prevent you from getting a visa for entry into some countries or at the least make it a little harder. I think QF would rather not have the hassle.

"..... Even though I know someone on the course who has a worse history than my petty charge....just that his was 11 or so years ago!"

Funny(or maybe not funny) thing is if your criminal indiscretion was 10yrs ago it could have been made a "spent conviction", meaning that it would be a non-discloseable item on your record if it was a minor conviction (as long as it meets other spent conviction eligibility items). Further info, See.

You did the right thing by letting QF know of your indiscretion, hell that shows how upfront and honest you are rather than trying to hide it. If you had not told them about it, and it came to light further down the line they could have terminated employment due to deceit on you part as the conviction may have a bearing on how you do you job (however unlikely).

But i guess it doesnt matter now anyway..

IMO.

BJ

[lil_blueberry]

Thanks for the replies.......

Yeah he has had legal meetings and may still push the issue but he seems quite happy that he gets to fly for there competition so I don't know what will come of it....

But I do agree it is truly some form of DISCRIMINATION........ QF know how to fudge up properly!

Wonder if QF management read PPRUNE? haha..... start calling the lawyers and covering your arses!

[captncannot]

come on lil_blueberry, do your mate a favour and don't forward his private correspondence on a public forum when legal action is pending! the basic concept when lawyers are involved is, learn the way of the clam. shut the hell up...

if he is pursuing this you should do the right thing and get this thread deleted immediately. Really really dumb idea posting this on the prune. Best of luck to your mate.

[Tidbinbilla]

Hmmm,
I think you've blown "your mate's" chances of any legal recourse considering QF management in fact DO read PPRuNe.

Well done!

TID

[tipsy2]

Tiddles the Mod says:

QF management in fact DO read PPRuNe.

That may be the case, however it's quite obvious they DO NOT understand it.

tipsy

[flyitboy]

Well said 'tipsy2'

'Tid' you obviously know that this forum is open to the public & as long as the contents of any thread are within the guidelines then this particluar post is allowable however harmful it may seem.At the expense of perhaps being negative for any pending claim it does bring to the forefront if the management do in fact read this rubbish the fact that we are not impressed with their double standards!
I belive that to pursue such an action thru the legal channels although obvioulsy justafiable would do more harm than good for the individual. Airline boffins have loooooong memories & in their feable eyes there are many ways to skin a cat!

Tread with caution when dealing with large Co's, just how much do you really want to feel as though you have won? Like the little indescretion here of the original thread story such things can follow a person all the way to their grave!


F

[lil_blueberry]

Thanks for the responses

I feel that all the replies here have been great even the ones that are not quite supportive of the intent of the original post.....and that was to inform potential applicants of a hidden policy that will apply to them when they do a QF history check.

The person that this happened too did give permission to publish this with some details removed.......So once again I will ask him to decide if he still wants this discussion here and his decision is what will happen.....

However, the fact remains, this policy is very strange and seemingly unfair, and that my friend works for there competition is a reason that he has not taken action against them because highlighting the issue amongst pilots was the better way he thought to deal with it.

In terms of companies that have long memories..... i agree....... and potentially damaging to you, yes.......

But even more damaging to the companies if they were found to be interfering with a persons free speech, there employment and other indirect ways of colluding to damage a persons reputation/career etc.

At the end of the day, airlines need pilots now, so if an airline wants to play there game like QF.link then pilots will ultimately make the decision to apply/stay/leave...etc

My friend found new employ that was very congruent with him than QF.link was (and a step up too) and hey that worked out fine.....(karma at work????)Also I am not advocating legal action will take place, he has received his advice and has chosen his path......he doesn't need to, as he is happy where he is now.

Thanks for reading and remember ............ "its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog!"

[Ideal Line]

lil_blueberry,

The simple fact is that QantasLink don't want to hire past criminals. There is nothing wrong with that. Your "friend" is just going to have to accept that and get over it.

[splinter11]

does anyone know what it is exactly that they look for? Blueberry says it was for a "minor traffic infirngement". Surely this tpe of thing would not show up on a criminal history check would it?

[Mr Cat]

can we ellaborate a little as to "what type of criminal history he has" ???????

[Zhaadum]

Hmmm,
I think you've blown "your mate's" chances of any legal recourse considering QF management in fact DO read PPRuNe.

Well done!

TID

Why the hell would this have "blown it"? QF dopes would already know all of the info posted on the thread. So why would it hinder his case should he decide to pursue it? Anyone can sue anyone else at anytime for anything!. If QF management have indeed commited an offense by discriminating, the fact that they also read this thread will not in any way erase their guilt. They can still be sued successfully years later.

I think his best course is not to clam up but to SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS! QF will then be more willing to compensate him to protect their name/reputation etc in the public eye.

[lil_blueberry]

Thanks for the replies......

Ideal line............. - criminal he is not..... thanks for the implication..........

Summarizing again...... he is over it....., its a fact worth sharing, he now works somewhere that makes him happy..... and pilots should know about it to make there own decision..... If you read the posts i have put here clearly you can deduce that........

Also, I agree, it is fine for a company to have their policy...... but its stupid to not include the nessasary policy in the 'minimum criteria'...... the criteria only states that you should be eligible for an ASIC card...once again that was explained in the original post....so if DOTARS/CASA can award the ASIC card to my collegue then gee, hidden policy is being applied and not revealed to the candidate.

I dont think entry to other countries is a problem as he has travelled extensively.....

Dont reply to this thread if there will be personal judgements of character as all the facts are not known to you and wont be divuldged here..... .....As stated in earlier posts it wasnt a violent crime or drunk thing.... quite trivial and resulted in a fine only...... Sorry guys thats all the info you will get unless posted by the actual person (who is not a member of pprune......... and sometimes I can see why)

Just be aware...once again, the point of this thread is to make you aware of the posssible implications of a police history. Also that you may or maynot be o.k even if your outside of the 10year period (spent conviction)....... remember the not revealed policy!

Thanks......


"Knowledge + action = power"

[Counter-rotation]

I'm reading this thread with interest, and would like to remind other readers / posters that:

The issue here is not who QF want to hire, or why (that is an issue but not what this thread is about...)

The issue is that their "policy" was not initially disclosed to the candidate, but wheeled out after time and $$$ spent on their recruitment process.

IMHO the person affected has every right to feel aggrieved, it's NOT discrimination, QF can set their own criteria (yes, within reason), but it is not cricket to take a person through it all, when it becomes clear at the end that they were never going to be accepted regardless of their actual aptitude / performance.

There you are, my 2c in the jar...

CR.

[notmyC150v2]

Without looking at the legislation I think from memory that in NSW it is unlawful to discriminate based upon a past criminal conviction.

The only lawful basis for discrimination in this instance would be the fact that a potential employee cannot meet the requirements to receive an ASIC.

This chap clearly had an ASIC and QANTAS just didn't care. They didn't like the look of his police record (albeit for a minor matter, possibly traffic related). This would fall into the classification of unlawful discrimination.

Given that the chap has clearly decided to move on with his life there is no point "not discussing" this issue. It is certainly good information for someone else who may be in a similar position and decides that they are not going to accept the outcome.

In relation to the concerns about posting this if he did want to take it further can I just say that there is nothing identifying the rejected person so they could take action without any problems. I think though that naming the QANTAS employee could give rise to a defamation claim on that person's behalf so their name should be removed.

[flog]

Interesting reading. Sorry to side with the dark side, but...

Short or discrimination (and it's a VERY hard case to prove discrimination against a criminal conviction while that conviction is not spent) an employer can hire or reject anyone for any reason they see fit.

You don't see IBM stating a policy of blue pin-striped suits with tie, but if you turn up in ripped jeans and a t-shirt to the interview you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of landing a job with them.

If they don't like your resume, you don't get the job. Too bad, so sad.

Flog.

[notmyC150v2]

Flog,

IBM is indeed discriminating on that basis but it is not unlawful discrimination. Unlawful discrimination can only occur if they use an attribute which is specifically mentioned in one of the myriad pieces of anti discrimination legislation.

Some examples of attributes that would be a basis for unlawful discrimination include: sex, sexual orientation, race, country of origin, marital status, union membership, membership of a political party, religion, impairment (physical or mental), family responsibilities, past criminal convictions, etc.

(please note that all of the above may be defended against if the discrimination is based on an "inherent requirement for the position" i.e. you can refuse to employ a muslim at a jewish school).

You can discriminate against someone if they don't wear the right clothes (unless it is related to their race or religion), if they are late for an interview or if they worked for the wrong company in the past. All of these would be lawful. Not very nice, but lawful.

It would appear to me (not having all of the facts at my disposal) that QANTAS could indeed be participating in unlawful discrimination on the basis outlined in the initial post.

It will have to wait to be tested however when Chopper Reid goes for his First Officer position with QANTAS Link.