s.394—Unfair dismissal - Richards v Regional Express Holdings Ltd T/A REX Airlines
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the last couple of posts regarding legallity, and especially PLovett as I worked with you once.
There was not long ago a few ports that we were told not to drive the crew cars, this was because they were already being driven with no current rego.
There was not long ago a few ports that we were told not to drive the crew cars, this was because they were already being driven with no current rego.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't have a problem driving myself to a hotel after a long shift in a crew car. I would have a problem with driving the crew in a crew car after a long shift.
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either. After all, your duty ends when you sign off at the airport.
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either. After all, your duty ends when you sign off at the airport.
Personally I've never seen company cars at remote bases (except mine 
)that were NOT inexorably on their way to SimsMetal, for the reasons of either neglect or malice mentioned above. In fact my guess is that the purchase cost of a replacement company car should not exceed the equivalent of 3 years taxi fares minus fuel and rego, ie., the economic break-even point....
Dobbing people in ? To be fair on the witnesses here, few people have any idea of how an investigative process works and how information can be elicited in an interview, when the pressure is on the interviewee and time seems short. In other words, they may feel that they don't have any choice except to dob in someone, ie., the interviewer's target, in written format. Studying this process is something everyone should do, just for future reference. Google phrases such as "cognitive interview", "Police interview techniques" and "accusatory question".
In the end, you want the interviewer to think he's looking through the dunny window of an empty house.
Sure, if a pilot needs a good swig of JD at TOD then it would be a good idea to tell someone.
However, for non-aviational matters perhaps total amnesia is a safer course of action for people asked to contribute to the company's cause, because everyone else does have a long memory.
Another problem with making a written statement against someone else, or even having your name on a substantial set of interviewer's notes, is that they can come back to haunt you in digital form years later, in someone else's hands.
The old GA maxim of "Tell no one nuffink" is at odds with the SMS-era, however in some circumstances the SMS-era may, sometimes, be at odds with you !
)that were NOT inexorably on their way to SimsMetal, for the reasons of either neglect or malice mentioned above. In fact my guess is that the purchase cost of a replacement company car should not exceed the equivalent of 3 years taxi fares minus fuel and rego, ie., the economic break-even point....Dobbing people in ? To be fair on the witnesses here, few people have any idea of how an investigative process works and how information can be elicited in an interview, when the pressure is on the interviewee and time seems short. In other words, they may feel that they don't have any choice except to dob in someone, ie., the interviewer's target, in written format. Studying this process is something everyone should do, just for future reference. Google phrases such as "cognitive interview", "Police interview techniques" and "accusatory question".
In the end, you want the interviewer to think he's looking through the dunny window of an empty house.
Sure, if a pilot needs a good swig of JD at TOD then it would be a good idea to tell someone.
However, for non-aviational matters perhaps total amnesia is a safer course of action for people asked to contribute to the company's cause, because everyone else does have a long memory.
Another problem with making a written statement against someone else, or even having your name on a substantial set of interviewer's notes, is that they can come back to haunt you in digital form years later, in someone else's hands.
The old GA maxim of "Tell no one nuffink" is at odds with the SMS-era, however in some circumstances the SMS-era may, sometimes, be at odds with you !
For all budding Rex pilots may be a good idea to do one of the following courses
www.ianluff.com.au,
www.murcotts.com.au
www.cams.com.au
may help get that dream job on the swedish valiant!
Notice on the Rex website no requirement to hold a car drivers licence, when applying for a pilot position.
www.ianluff.com.au,
www.murcotts.com.au
www.cams.com.au
may help get that dream job on the swedish valiant!
Notice on the Rex website no requirement to hold a car drivers licence, when applying for a pilot position.
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either.
Gee! You don't want to be doing anything with real formal responsibility in the event of an accident then - like commanding an aeroplane!
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either.
Gee! You don't want to be doing anything with real formal responsibility in the event of an accident then - like commanding an aeroplane!
The major issue I believe is that Rex would be breaching their occupational health and safety obligations by having one of the flight crew drive the others to their overnight accommodation. I know it sounds stupid given the driving talents of some taxi drivers but legally all would be in a much better position to have a licensed driver at the wheel rather than a crew member.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either.
Gee! You don't want to be doing anything with real formal responsibility in the event of an accident then - like commanding an aeroplane!
It would not take much of a lawyer to twist it into a negligence case in the event of a bingle and seek to have you personally liable for any injuries sustained. It would also not take much for the companies lawyers to pin it back on the driver either.
Gee! You don't want to be doing anything with real formal responsibility in the event of an accident then - like commanding an aeroplane!
The same cannot be said driving a crew car with crew after your duty ends.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 44
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At at least two jobs, I have been told travel on work hours, even commuting, is still under the cover of OH&S laws. This was specifically related to driving home after pulling an all nighter due to a crisis. A quick google backs this up:
http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/form...ation_4228.pdf
The section on Non-workplace accidents specifically includes:
I think it would take some very fancy footwork for a lawyer to argue if the company supplied you a car and accommodation and had a policy expecting you to use said car to get to accommodation, that the company was no longer liable simply because you were not doing your primary job function. Of course deliberate negligence or illegal actions tend to throw that out the window.
http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/form...ation_4228.pdf
The section on Non-workplace accidents specifically includes:
Non Workplace Injuries
These types of injuries involve accidents that have occurred away from the workplace but where the worker is considered to be on duty. There are three categories:
• Road traffic accidents (arising out of or in the course of employment but not
whilst commuting)
• Commuting accidents (where an injury occurs during travel between home and work
...
These types of injuries involve accidents that have occurred away from the workplace but where the worker is considered to be on duty. There are three categories:
• Road traffic accidents (arising out of or in the course of employment but not
whilst commuting)
• Commuting accidents (where an injury occurs during travel between home and work
...
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what you're saying Bundy, but then when does your duty start and end as a Pilot?
It could be argued that you chose to drive the crew car fatigued after a long tour of duty, the company provided taxis for this particular reason (however frowned upon the use) and you chose to drive in such a condition regardless, injuring your fellow workers.
I would feel uncomfortable in such a situation as can be attested by the actions of the crew. I don't however condone sabotage of company equipment. I would have addressed my concerns to the company (via the Chief Pilot) hoping for resolution, but if a resolution was not forthcoming as a union member I would have the right to representation of my concerns via industrial channels.
It could be argued that you chose to drive the crew car fatigued after a long tour of duty, the company provided taxis for this particular reason (however frowned upon the use) and you chose to drive in such a condition regardless, injuring your fellow workers.
I would feel uncomfortable in such a situation as can be attested by the actions of the crew. I don't however condone sabotage of company equipment. I would have addressed my concerns to the company (via the Chief Pilot) hoping for resolution, but if a resolution was not forthcoming as a union member I would have the right to representation of my concerns via industrial channels.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: adelaide
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
company driving requirement
somewhat late in this thread, I know. quick assumption is (1) if you are "required to drive a company car prior to or after a tour of duty, then your duty time either starts or finishes when you park said vehicle at airport or hotel. Pretty sure that duty time is when you finish or start duties associated with your employment.?? (2) question that someone should have asked, is the designated driver ? legally , in company parlance , able to drive said vehicle with passengers. Has a formal test or observation taken place? With no disrespect to anyone, what is the legal implication of a crew member acting as a company car driver with staff? What if a P plater is the driver? As for damaging the car, either the company and staff person have larger issues that open up the holes in the cheese or maybe not driving was a good idea.
Of course deliberate negligence or illegal actions tend to throw that out the window.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard I think your missing the point,
The commissioner found that 2 of the 7 allegations to be true and based on the way it was handled (immediate dismissal) was 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' and therefore shall be reinstated, considering there is still a captain flying at the moment with complaints as serious.
The chief pilot stated he had lost trust with Mr Richards, yet obviously not with the other captain who have the same allegations...?
The commissioner found that 2 of the 7 allegations to be true and based on the way it was handled (immediate dismissal) was 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' and therefore shall be reinstated, considering there is still a captain flying at the moment with complaints as serious.
The chief pilot stated he had lost trust with Mr Richards, yet obviously not with the other captain who have the same allegations...?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia - (far away from Mum and her wooden spoon)
Age: 55
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this guy the same Tony Richards now advertising in the "seats wanted" section of the Fieldair website?
Our company is recruiting and I'm thinking his chances of a start are pretty slim.
In a few seemingly small acts most likely done with very little thought to the consequences he has certainly done some damage to his prospects.
R*X may well be Australia's sh**tiest regional to work for but actions that see these types of court proceedings take place never end well.
Our company is recruiting and I'm thinking his chances of a start are pretty slim.
In a few seemingly small acts most likely done with very little thought to the consequences he has certainly done some damage to his prospects.
R*X may well be Australia's sh**tiest regional to work for but actions that see these types of court proceedings take place never end well.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REX should not expect crew to drive to and from the accomodation at an out port on a minimum rest overnight.
As a Captain, I would refuse to drive under those circumstances due to OH&S and liability issues.
As a Captain, I would refuse to drive under those circumstances due to OH&S and liability issues.
