Jetstar Engineering Enterprise Agreement

TWU`s negotiating requests limited Qantas` ability to assign work functions, for example. B by limiting the share of contractors to 20% of staff; and the extension of wage rates and terms of enterprise agreements to all sub-treated or temporary workers. [28] The latter type of provision is commonly referred to as the „site rate” clause. For its part, ALAEA has asked the airline to commit to maintaining maintenance functions by licensed aeronautical engineers; and carrying out maintenance checks on the new fleet of A380 aircraft „in-house.” [29] ALAEA was also concerned about the introduction of „on-demand maintenance” technology, which reduces the need for more regular manual checks. [30] In 2011, there were new signs that Qantas would expand its offshore activities, particularly in Asia, and reduce the number of employees[31] – calls by the three unions to strengthen job security protection were at the centre of the Qantas conflict. As far as trade unions are concerned, their tactics in the litigation have increasingly focused on taking protected trade union measures. Pt 3-3 of the FW Act allows workers and their negotiators to organize and follow such measures to support the claims raised in negotiations on a new enterprise contract. [35] In the absence of such legal protection, a labour dispute is still illegal, both under the common law and other legal provisions. [36] The restricted right to strike or take other forms of trade union action, such as work bans and „slowness”, is subject to numerous procedural requirements, including the adoption of the measure proposed by the majority of workers concerned by secret ballot. [37] Employers may also take „lockout” measures in the form of a „lockout” but only in response to worker protection measures. [38] This framework for the taking of legitimate trade union measures by the parties involved in the negotiations, although somewhat agitated, goes beyond the obligation to negotiate in good faith under the Act`s S 228. [39] The authors also argued that established or „legacy” airlines such as Qantas have a disadvantage in terms of labour costs compared to recent competitors in the Australian aviation industry. Like Virgin Australia and Tiger Airways.

This is because Qantas` terms of employment were originally defined in bonuses and agreements when the company was public and operated in a „protected” market. [16] This is why, together with labour costs, which are a key component of its overall cost structure, Qantas had for some time adopted a strategy to reduce labour gaps with its competitors, with real wages increasing to 3% per year. [17] With some prior knowledge, the authors found that [190] See z.B North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2010] FWA 1112 (February 15, 2010); Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Cobham Aviation Services Engineering Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 9444 (November 21, 2012).