s.394—Unfair dismissal - Richards v Regional Express Holdings Ltd T/A REX Airlines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Queensland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s.394—Unfair dismissal - Richards v Regional Express Holdings Ltd T/A REX Airlines
[51] It should be noted that Mr Richards is a trained pilot. Part of that training involves ‘situational awareness’ training and it is a thing against which a pilot is regularly assessed. 41 Situational awareness was described by Mr Richards as ‘keeping an eye on the big picture, thinking ahead of the aircraft, potential problems. So it’s just being aware of the surrounding environment, anticipation’42 and includes an awareness of instruments under the pilot’s control.43
Situational awareness was described by Mr Richards as ‘keeping an eye on the big picture, thinking ahead of the aircraft, potential problems.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: away...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is really quite a tawdry little tale, isn't it? Quite telling of the mind-set of the individuals involved.
Many of the places I've worked, I would have been grateful for the provision of even the most modest ****-box at an away port!!!
Many of the places I've worked, I would have been grateful for the provision of even the most modest ****-box at an away port!!!
Well let me tell you not everybody has the same attitude as you. I work at a place where some have said they would not drive any car supplied by the boss unless it was new, or near new. Tossers!!!!
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
Too right Jober
Nothing worse than having to walk (with the bags) the 3 k's to the motel in 40 degree heat after a full duty/7.5 flight day.
I wonder if R#X have a car at YCDU?
Nothing worse than having to walk (with the bags) the 3 k's to the motel in 40 degree heat after a full duty/7.5 flight day.
I wonder if R#X have a car at YCDU?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL350
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now I only skim read that transcript, but why the hell should he be reinstated? If you deliberately damage company property, common sense says your employer should be allowed to sack you....
Then again another point of view is perhaps the underlying reasons/frustration for which an experienced captain would be driven to do such a thing needs to be addressed. If captains are demoralized to the point of damaging company property out of anger/frustration, could be a serious safety issue.
Then again another point of view is perhaps the underlying reasons/frustration for which an experienced captain would be driven to do such a thing needs to be addressed. If captains are demoralized to the point of damaging company property out of anger/frustration, could be a serious safety issue.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have recently returned to the joys of GA after an extended break from it for counselling and therapy. I gave the review a good read and agree with jober - like something from a kindergarten. Clearly things haven't changed much with attitudes. Give them a pair of walking boots and a stint in the real world!
Conclusion
[172] Ultimately what has been established is that Mr Richards deliberately drove a crew car with the handbrake on and/or in low gear for a distance of between 600 metres and two kilometres.
[173] Whilst finding that these two incidents of misconduct by Mr Richards, as outlined by the Respondent, did occur and that the conduct constituted a valid reason for his termination, taking into account all of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the matters and the effect of the termination on Mr Richards, I consider the termination of Mr Richards’ employment to be harsh in that the penalty imposed on Mr Richards is disproportionate to the misconduct which I have found occurred.
[174] This is not to say that Mr Richards should be immune from any penalty for his conduct, just that dismissal is disproportionate.
[175] In all of the circumstances I find the dismissal of Mr Richards to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable. On this basis I find that Mr Richards was unfairly dismissed.
Commissioner Bissett: you cannot be serious?
Let me see if I get this right. An employee can wilfully mistreat company property and do so with total confidence that he or she cannot be sacked? I just don't get it!
"just that dismissal is inappropriate?" - surely its not, Commissioner.
Let's get 'ken serious for a moment. We're not talking 99 lashes, imprisonment or execution. This guy wilfully mistreated company property....... and he keeps his job. Of course he should be sacked and of course he will find that harsh and no it's not unreasonable or unjust.This country's a basket case for common sense if we accept this stupidity from FWA.
I bet he would have learnt a huge lesson between jobs on how to professionally express his concerns if that was his intention by all of this! Let's face it, if you don't like what's on offer, and you can't get it changed by means within the law, leave!
[172] Ultimately what has been established is that Mr Richards deliberately drove a crew car with the handbrake on and/or in low gear for a distance of between 600 metres and two kilometres.
[173] Whilst finding that these two incidents of misconduct by Mr Richards, as outlined by the Respondent, did occur and that the conduct constituted a valid reason for his termination, taking into account all of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the matters and the effect of the termination on Mr Richards, I consider the termination of Mr Richards’ employment to be harsh in that the penalty imposed on Mr Richards is disproportionate to the misconduct which I have found occurred.
[174] This is not to say that Mr Richards should be immune from any penalty for his conduct, just that dismissal is disproportionate.
[175] In all of the circumstances I find the dismissal of Mr Richards to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable. On this basis I find that Mr Richards was unfairly dismissed.
Commissioner Bissett: you cannot be serious?
Let me see if I get this right. An employee can wilfully mistreat company property and do so with total confidence that he or she cannot be sacked? I just don't get it!
"just that dismissal is inappropriate?" - surely its not, Commissioner.
Let's get 'ken serious for a moment. We're not talking 99 lashes, imprisonment or execution. This guy wilfully mistreated company property....... and he keeps his job. Of course he should be sacked and of course he will find that harsh and no it's not unreasonable or unjust.This country's a basket case for common sense if we accept this stupidity from FWA.
I bet he would have learnt a huge lesson between jobs on how to professionally express his concerns if that was his intention by all of this! Let's face it, if you don't like what's on offer, and you can't get it changed by means within the law, leave!
I'm not so sure Krusty.
I suspect the Commissioner would have arrived at the same conclusion even if Rex proved all 7 acts of alleged misconduct.
Appeal Rex! (If that's possible?)
Captain Ross is laughing no doubt.
I suspect the Commissioner would have arrived at the same conclusion even if Rex proved all 7 acts of alleged misconduct.
Appeal Rex! (If that's possible?)
Captain Ross is laughing no doubt.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An inconsistent approach may have been a factor in the decision, why single out Richards ?
[165] With respect to the misuse of crew cars at Rex I note that there is no one else who has been investigated for misuse of crew cars who has been subject to investigation and disciplinary action. As mentioned above one captain has been stood down but the investigation into his conduct has been suspended pending completion of medical treatment. With respect to Captain Ross, the other pilot mentioned in a number of the reports referred to above, he remains at work and not stood down. One meeting with Captain Ross about his misuse of crew cars occurred one week prior to the hearing of this matter but the investigation is ongoing and Captain Ross remains at work, flying aircraft. The reasons for delay in investigating Captain Ross’ conduct are disingenuous to say the least. The complaints against Captain Ross are as serious as those against Mr Richards. That they were ‘very new’ is no different to the status of the alleged conduct of Mr Richards. Delays in the investigation because the company was dealing with defending itself against Mr Richards’ claim under the Act suggests that the conduct is not of such seriousness to warrant urgent action. That there was no need to take immediate action against Captain Ross because the action (misuse of cars) was no longer occurring defies logic. Mr Richards’ behaviour was so grave that it warranted summary dismissal and Mr Richards had lost the trust and confidence of Mr Hine. Captain Ross, against whom it would appear there is some evidence, remains at work and remains captaining aircraft with all of the attendant responsibilities that go with that function.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nulli - I think the Commissioner is saying disciplinary action is warranted, and an official warning or similar would have been more appropriate. In the case that the action continued after that there would have been no way he could have claimed unfair dismissal.
That said, what he did was immature and irresponsible, especially for someone of the position of captain, regardless of the reasons behind it. His denials rang of "can't prove it" and there seemed to be a pattern to it. I can't imagine life is going to be comfortable for him after reinstatement.
For Rex, it smells of a witch hunt to hang someone out for wider actions related to the cars. I agree with Krusty, sounds like they wanted to play Dick Tracey and did not do a good enough job of it and as a result shot themselves in the foot.
That said, what he did was immature and irresponsible, especially for someone of the position of captain, regardless of the reasons behind it. His denials rang of "can't prove it" and there seemed to be a pattern to it. I can't imagine life is going to be comfortable for him after reinstatement.
For Rex, it smells of a witch hunt to hang someone out for wider actions related to the cars. I agree with Krusty, sounds like they wanted to play Dick Tracey and did not do a good enough job of it and as a result shot themselves in the foot.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest a re-read of :
para 131 .. the interview conducted by Rex was less than acceptable.
para 134 - the requirement for and expectation of natural justice not being provided by Rex also didn't help their cause.
IMHO the decision and subsequent remedy conclusion is correct and fair.
para 131 .. the interview conducted by Rex was less than acceptable.
para 134 - the requirement for and expectation of natural justice not being provided by Rex also didn't help their cause.
IMHO the decision and subsequent remedy conclusion is correct and fair.
[I]Why single out this pilot???[I]
Dumb question indeed. No different to speed traps,,,,not everyone gets pulled over. Do the crime, do the time....
Should an juvenile irresponsible clown like this be allowed to Captain an aircraft full of pax....NO
Dumb question indeed. No different to speed traps,,,,not everyone gets pulled over. Do the crime, do the time....
Should an juvenile irresponsible clown like this be allowed to Captain an aircraft full of pax....NO
Nasty!
What a nasty company to work for!
It looks like people backstabbing each other left, right and centre! A good team environment
? I think not 
The managers should be embarrashed (and crews) that something like this has ended up in court and could not be resolved by other methods prior.
This company that calls itself an "Airline," when it acts like a two bob charter outfit in the middle of no where! Replacing taxis with cars that crew can drive after a duty? I am sure that the duties are long and crews become fatigued, whether they realise it or not, and managers have a duty of care to its' employees. If there is a Safety Management System (SMS) in place here, it surely looks like window dressing to me.
Bl00dy cheap skates!
This two bob airline needed to get its' ducks in a row first, before wasting everyone's time with this stupid issue that should have been resolved in-house one way or another.
There is an old saying, "the sh!t always floats to the top." Certainly evident with the mangement in this two bob operation
.
It looks like people backstabbing each other left, right and centre! A good team environment
? I think not The managers should be embarrashed (and crews) that something like this has ended up in court and could not be resolved by other methods prior.
This company that calls itself an "Airline," when it acts like a two bob charter outfit in the middle of no where! Replacing taxis with cars that crew can drive after a duty? I am sure that the duties are long and crews become fatigued, whether they realise it or not, and managers have a duty of care to its' employees. If there is a Safety Management System (SMS) in place here, it surely looks like window dressing to me
.Bl00dy cheap skates
!This two bob airline needed to get its' ducks in a row first, before wasting everyone's time with this stupid issue that should have been resolved in-house one way or another.
There is an old saying, "the sh!t always floats to the top." Certainly evident with the mangement in this two bob operation
.
It would be interesting sitting in the box at the next check. I would not want to be in the right seat to him with the impending double engine failure, avionics failure, volcanic ash, standby failure, in flight fire with cloud and acid rain below ILS landing minima......
It's going to be a fun one :d
It's going to be a fun one :d