s.394—Unfair dismissal - Richards v Regional Express Holdings Ltd T/A REX Airlines
this stupid issue that should have been resolved in-house one way or another.
XXX. I assume you are joking.
When one re-reads the Commissioner's report you simply can't overlook his or her interpretation of what's fair. Its a bizarre and idiotic finding.
Let's not see the guy lashed, imprisoned, fined or executed........... but for goodness sake: you can't keep your job!!!
This is not a school, Richards is not a kid facing expulsion. He chose to commit an offence to property. Now, go and take your chances back out in the real world, find a new job and think long and hard about damaging company property! YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Tough love maybe, but when you jeopardise company operations of course you jeopardise your own employment.
Get with the programme FWA. Genuine employee mistakes - part of life. Wilful damage - you're out! Don't back the little guy just beacause he's the little guy, back the guy that got kicked.
Let's not see the guy lashed, imprisoned, fined or executed........... but for goodness sake: you can't keep your job!!!
This is not a school, Richards is not a kid facing expulsion. He chose to commit an offence to property. Now, go and take your chances back out in the real world, find a new job and think long and hard about damaging company property! YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Tough love maybe, but when you jeopardise company operations of course you jeopardise your own employment.
Get with the programme FWA. Genuine employee mistakes - part of life. Wilful damage - you're out! Don't back the little guy just beacause he's the little guy, back the guy that got kicked.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If aircrew behave in that manner towards an old clunker car they take a dislike to, what could they do to an airplane that annoys them? The only place most self-respecting guys would abuse machinery is on the race track. The judge used the word 'petulant' in there somewhere. About sums it up. What the world does not need is petulant pilots.
When one re-reads the Commissioner's report you simply can't overlook his or her interpretation of what's fair.
Once that conclusion had been reached, Rex's dismissal of this Captain, and their position that the dismissal was because they couldn't trust him after these actions was unfair (as it only applied to one of the accused, not the others.).
It was clear that the Commissioner thought the Captain in question was an idiot, risking the safety of the other passengers in the car (and indeed, by prematurely wearing out the brakes, risking those who drove the car after!) If Rex had followed decent HR practice (good documentation, standardised punishment), the dismissal would have stood.
As to the "self drive vs taxi" issue - it's no imposition to drive 2 km to a hotel. It's an advantage to have free access to a car for the night - and driving your self is probably safer than a taxi in any case.
As to the "self drive vs taxi" issue - it's no imposition to drive 2 km to a hotel. It's an advantage to have free access to a car for the night - and driving your self is probably safer than a taxi in any case.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except when you're involved in some sort of accident and it comes out in court that you have been awake since 0400 worked for 14 hours without any form of rest or break.
Given the nature of some of the complaints in this instance though, that might be making a big assumption.
Except when you're involved in some sort of accident and it comes out in court that you have been awake since 0400 worked for 14 hours without any form of rest or break
I would hope if not one of the crew was feeling up to doing a 5 minute 2km drive after a shift, at least the captain would be responsible enough to recognise it and take a taxi.
- if they're THAT tired, perhaps they should have refused the entire duty!
On the surface Ckeckboard that seems a fair comment, but where do you draw the line? Flight and duty limits are just that, limits. Quite often rostering will plan to those limits simply because they can! It doesn't only happen at REX, in fact some other airlines seem to make an obsession of it. Just ask how hard the Jetstar boys and girls work.
The point is, some duties are longer and harder than others. Just because you are fit at the beginning, doesn't mean to say you are not at your "personal limit" at the end. It's that limit that all responsible and professional crews need to understand.
The introduction of crew cars has come under a fair amount of critizism, but mostly for the way in which it was introduced in the first place! Also the manner in which pilots now have to justify their "personal limit" or in fact whatever reason they choose not to use the car on any given day. Then there is the issue of personal liability, not only for the driver, but for the rest of the crew as well. Although we are professional pilots, few of us are professional drivers, and certainly none are employed as such. It's against this background that most of the angst has been generated.
Does this in any way justify the actions of some people? Absolutely not! But when you have a management style that pushes headlong into a system of operation with no consultation, and little or no regard for the possible consequences, is it any wonder they F@rked the rest of it up!!!
The point is, some duties are longer and harder than others. Just because you are fit at the beginning, doesn't mean to say you are not at your "personal limit" at the end. It's that limit that all responsible and professional crews need to understand.
The introduction of crew cars has come under a fair amount of critizism, but mostly for the way in which it was introduced in the first place! Also the manner in which pilots now have to justify their "personal limit" or in fact whatever reason they choose not to use the car on any given day. Then there is the issue of personal liability, not only for the driver, but for the rest of the crew as well. Although we are professional pilots, few of us are professional drivers, and certainly none are employed as such. It's against this background that most of the angst has been generated.
Does this in any way justify the actions of some people? Absolutely not! But when you have a management style that pushes headlong into a system of operation with no consultation, and little or no regard for the possible consequences, is it any wonder they F@rked the rest of it up!!!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would you want to be in the f/o or f/a shoes when they go into work??
Good trust building exercise it would seem.
AS for Mr Richards maybe not the smartest decision he has made.
Good trust building exercise it would seem.AS for Mr Richards maybe not the smartest decision he has made.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here is the senario, you return to your home base after a long duty, do you hop in your own car and drive home in this manner?We do know that quite a number of crew in Syd live a fair way from the airport. I think it may be an attitude issue here rather than any fatigue problem.
The Dog
The Dog
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: a long way South
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good on you Tony
Fantastic news and hope it all works out for you Tony.
You were (are) great to fly with and always professional. This is the most just outcome most of us ex-Rex employees have been hoping for!
If the whole car usage was discussed appropriately with the crew in the first place, instead of being thrusted on them, they wouldn't have been abused in the first place.....and boy do we know you were the scapegoat amongst the many who have done so.
Fly safe and all the best!
You were (are) great to fly with and always professional. This is the most just outcome most of us ex-Rex employees have been hoping for!
If the whole car usage was discussed appropriately with the crew in the first place, instead of being thrusted on them, they wouldn't have been abused in the first place.....and boy do we know you were the scapegoat amongst the many who have done so.
Fly safe and all the best!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I am rather surprised at Rex introducing the idea of crew driven cars for use at overnight locations. It raises a rats nest of legal implications for the driver should there be a crash on the way to or from the motel.
For example; has the pilot/driver's duty time ceased?; are the passengers covered by workers compensation?; who is legally responsible for the vehicle overnight? These are just a few I can think of immediately and I am sure there are far more than this.
For example; has the pilot/driver's duty time ceased?; are the passengers covered by workers compensation?; who is legally responsible for the vehicle overnight? These are just a few I can think of immediately and I am sure there are far more than this.
A number of valid points raised by PLovett, regarding the legal side of using the company car.
But why would REX go down the company car thing anyway?
The age old thing who puts petrol in it, who gets it serviced, what happens when you get a flat battery, flat tyre, who changes the windscreen wipers or replaces the knackered fan belt,when is the oil checked, what about the tyre pressures, who puts the rego sticker on etc?
Does Rex management specify a certain brand of fuel, do the pilots need to bring their own shopper dockets for that 4 cent discount or do management supply the shopper docket?
Does REX management allow for the pilot hitting a pot hole and knocking the steering out of alignment?
What about getting pulled over by the Police for driving a vehicle with a defect such as a brake light out, who pays the fine?
What's it really cost really REX in running costs, depreciation, insurance, rego, servicing etc?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a taxi pickup your crew each morning and night, to save the problem of the flat battery or flat tyre at 05:30 am?
Best of luck Tony, love to be a fly on the wall in the simulator!!!
Hope the dobbers realise that aviation is a small community in this country, never know who know's who as they say!
Now REX management must think that pilots are real dumb trying to damage a company car by the means listed in the court documents, I can think of at least a dozen more sinister things to do a car that would result in far more costly damage and be very hard to pin on a pilot!
But why would REX go down the company car thing anyway?
The age old thing who puts petrol in it, who gets it serviced, what happens when you get a flat battery, flat tyre, who changes the windscreen wipers or replaces the knackered fan belt,when is the oil checked, what about the tyre pressures, who puts the rego sticker on etc?
Does Rex management specify a certain brand of fuel, do the pilots need to bring their own shopper dockets for that 4 cent discount or do management supply the shopper docket?
Does REX management allow for the pilot hitting a pot hole and knocking the steering out of alignment?
What about getting pulled over by the Police for driving a vehicle with a defect such as a brake light out, who pays the fine?
What's it really cost really REX in running costs, depreciation, insurance, rego, servicing etc?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a taxi pickup your crew each morning and night, to save the problem of the flat battery or flat tyre at 05:30 am?
Best of luck Tony, love to be a fly on the wall in the simulator!!!
Hope the dobbers realise that aviation is a small community in this country, never know who know's who as they say!
Now REX management must think that pilots are real dumb trying to damage a company car by the means listed in the court documents, I can think of at least a dozen more sinister things to do a car that would result in far more costly damage and be very hard to pin on a pilot!
So, if the concerns about insurance, excess, liability, servicing etc etc weren't automatically addressed by the company when the cars were introduced (and I can't think why - it would have to be pretty incompetent management who took this course of action without addressing these basics!) then you list those concerns in a letter, send it to the management, and until it is answered use the taxi option provided.
If I saw crew deliberately damaging company equipment, I would tell them to stop, and if they didn't, report it. Dobber? I prefer to think of it as integrity.
If I saw crew deliberately damaging company equipment, I would tell them to stop, and if they didn't, report it. Dobber? I prefer to think of it as integrity.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't imagine its anything different to a normal company car lease, where fuel, tyres, maintenance, fleet insurance, rego are all part of a package. Fleet insurance is pretty broad, typically as long as the company gives the ok for someone to drive it and they can do so legally, it is covered - with the normal clauses for deliberate damage, dangerous driving or illegal driving. If they are booked by the law for any reason, that's the problem of the driver in question, not the company.
Workplace laws are pretty clear that you are still on company time in transit to or from work, so from a liability perspective Rex is responsible OH&S wise (insert not a lawyer disclaimer, but has been made clear to me on several occasions in my employment after doing marathon shifts).
All in all, that is beside the point. The company provided them the car and a taxi alternative for travel. Maybe the policy was implemented badly, maybe it was never a good idea, it doesn't matter. I agree the investigation smelt like a witch hunt and that Rex stepped over the line in firing him. None of it is an excuse for the actions he was found to have done or accused of doing, particularly for someone in the position of Captain.
Workplace laws are pretty clear that you are still on company time in transit to or from work, so from a liability perspective Rex is responsible OH&S wise (insert not a lawyer disclaimer, but has been made clear to me on several occasions in my employment after doing marathon shifts).
All in all, that is beside the point. The company provided them the car and a taxi alternative for travel. Maybe the policy was implemented badly, maybe it was never a good idea, it doesn't matter. I agree the investigation smelt like a witch hunt and that Rex stepped over the line in firing him. None of it is an excuse for the actions he was found to have done or accused of doing, particularly for someone in the position of Captain.
It's obvious that there are two schools of thought here & that's fine we live in a democratic society where justice is blind. What puzzles me though is what brought this pilot to the point where he needed to vent his anger out on Co property?
This is nothing new there would be zillions of cases where employees have vented their anger out on Co property for a whole lot of reasons. Kicking a door, throwing the phone across the room, scratching a Co car etc etc etc. No rational person given the responsibility to CMD a plane would do such a thing without a deeper & perhaps more underlying problem within.
Find this out & just maybe the few motor vehicle incidents here would pale into insignificance. There has to be a lot more to this than some auto vandalism.
Wmk2
This is nothing new there would be zillions of cases where employees have vented their anger out on Co property for a whole lot of reasons. Kicking a door, throwing the phone across the room, scratching a Co car etc etc etc. No rational person given the responsibility to CMD a plane would do such a thing without a deeper & perhaps more underlying problem within.
Find this out & just maybe the few motor vehicle incidents here would pale into insignificance. There has to be a lot more to this than some auto vandalism.
Wmk2