 |
 |
 |
Breaking News
Court fines Qantas $5,000, says agreement breach understandable
31st October, 2008
The Federal Magistrates Court has fined Qantas $5,000 out of a possible $33,000 and ordered it pay one of its pilots $6,094 plus interest for three breaches of its long-haul flight crew certified agreement in an underpayment case that stemmed from a disagreement with the APIA over the meaning of two lengthy provisions in the deal.
Federal Magistrate's Philip Burchardt found the union was right in arguing the pilot had been underpaid, but not for the reasons it submitted, and said that Qantas's conduct, though unlawful, was "very understandable and does not, in my view, attract significant criticism".
The 600-page long-haul certified agreement - described by Federal Magistrate Burchardt as "a chunky doorstop of an agreement" - contains an overtime/penalty clause that runs "for a mere four pages", and which intersects with a lengthy hours of work clause.
The case followed the pilot's flight pattern being disrupted through no fault of his own or the airline's (the Federal Magistrate noted that Qantas kept "downline disruptions" to a minimum) on three of his journeys, and his subsequent payment for extra hours, but not at overtime rates.
Despite the airline's arguments, Federal Magistrate Burchardt found that while the agreement "plainly" allowed Qantas to reduce its obligations where it was practicable to do so, nothing in the relevant clauses said that work caused by downline disruptions was not work that ought to be credited and paid in the ordinary way.
In setting the penalty, Justice Burchardt said he found the evidence given by Qantas witnesses "to have been given honestly".
"I have no doubt that those in Qantas who took the decisions that have given rise to this proceeding did so because of a genuine, albeit as I have found, misconceived view that what they were doing was consistent both with past practice and with the terms of the agreement itself."
He continued that while he did not accept that Qantas's course of action was dictated, as the union submitted, by "high-handed disregard" for its lawful obligations, it was nonetheless conduct that "involved Qantas management as a very senior level and although it sprung from a genuinely-held view as to what the position was, the position has turned out to be incorrect and the conduct complained of it unlawful."