Managing Employees And Relations At Qantas: Industrial Action And Its Consequences

Background Of Qantas 2011

Discuss about the Managing Employees and Relations for Qantas.

The Qantas unions represented three main divisions of staff. The unions represented mainly the three divisions of staff in Qantas. Due to the launch of new “enterprise bargaining agreement” the unions were trying to come into a negotiation. The main issues of the agreement are as follows:-

1. Transport Workers Union of Australia
2. The Australian and International Pilots Union
3. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association

In each case the matter was different but the common cause remained the same for all including levels of pay, opportunities of outsourcing and securities regarding job. There were various negotiations done between Qantas and three other unions due to which each union asked their members to vote secretly then deployed relatively mild industrial-relations sanctions. These kinds of actions were taken under the law of “protected industrial action. As mentioned earlier, on Saturday 29 October 2011 Qantas gave notice to its three unions and other employees who were falling under the enterprise agreements. The agreement stated that the employees who are representing the unions shall be lockout from 8.00pm on Monday 31 Oct. Usually lockout can be implemented under FW Act s 19(3), which states that whenever any particular worker prevent other workers or employees from accomplishing their task when the employees are already under the contract of employment and without terminating those contracts he cannot refuse to work. These actions are generally taken by the workers who are under enterprise agreement negotiations. The employees usually take help of these industrial actions in order to protect themselves. Majorly the key stake holders include the employees representing the unions and the three main unions. Under the act 411, these activities are usually arranged to revert the industrial action by employees or the representatives. While protected industrial action taken by employees or unions must be preceded by the giving of three clear working days’ written notice to the employers a lockout can take place with immediate effect following the provision of written notice (Scribd. 2016)

In return , the CEO of Qantas Alan Joyce on October 29, 2011,  finally decided to ground Qantas’s worldwide fleet immediately further it was also declared by him that , the staff members who are members or represented by these three unions will be lockout .The lockout ones would not be given their salary. This announcement spread like wild fire throughout the entire nation and finally harnessed the company’s reputation. After this incident Qantas lost many of its employees and customers. The CEO of Qantas was left out with no other alternative and his main agenda was to hit government intervention. While announcing the lockout CEO stated that in order to get solution for this particular situation the following step is been taken. The main motive of the higher authorities is put an end to entire crises thereby the company is using its protected industrial action in order to make the unions serious about their actions and further to get company a better deal from them. According to CEO basically it was introduced to bring back peace in the organization (Scribd. 2016) 

Stakeholders And Their Outlined Actions

This particular action turned successful as it resulted in national crises. A country like Australia is basically an island which is surrounded by water .Thus airlines is the main mode of communication to other countries for goods and passenger travelling. Apart from that Australian road and rail connectivity is not so good in its other cities thus the Federal government urged FWA to intervene immediately( Cahan, J., 2003)

After the airline company grounded its fleet throughout the entire on October 29, 2011. A three men committee was formed by Fair Work Australia (FWA) to listen the entire scenario. Finally FWA decided to terminate all the industrial actions taken by Qantas and its three unions. Further it offered the respective parties a time period of 21 days in order to negotiate and settle the entire issue.. The parties were obliged to engage in bargaining “in good faith”. Finally on Monday midnight deadline passed and the parties were asked to shift to binding arbitration determined by FWA. These kinds of settlements are usually valid for maximum four years. FWA is actually Australian national work-place relations tribunal. It is not at all biased and it often termed as the umpire of industrial relations. Moreover the decision taken by this body still had faced a legal challenge by the unions namely: the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Transport Workers Union. But at the same time this kind of legal challenge was strictly opposed (Floyd & Fowler, 2009)

Each of the unions had different claims but the common demand was regarding their common concerns of income and employment security. Hence they were trying to enter an agreement which include their reassurance with such matters but Qantas was not ready to help them as it was focusing on cost cutting by outsourcing within and outside Australia. If the company would have reached a negotiation regarding employee security then this entire incident could have been avoided; it is always the company’s responsibility to secure its employees. Apart from that it would have given them more “ownership” of settlements in case arbitrator implements settlements; it’s very clear that both the parties would not be satisfied with the proposed outcome. But the relationships have reached such low level of trust, thus in this case it was unlikely for both the parties to negotiate further without FWA intervention (Green, et al., 2011)

In this particular assignment we will discuss 1998 Australian Waterfront dispute. The main points which will be covered in further paragraphs will be to explore the relations of employment, effective and proper workforce for the management reformation and finally evaluating stakeholder’s roles. The 1998 Waterfront dispute is one of the greatest event and crucial industrial reforms which took place in the history of Australia. It laid a major impact on the whole waterfront and also re-examining the traditional roles of the MUA and other trade unions. The Australian waterfront dispute of 1998 took place as the Patrick corporation was trying to restructure its management .Due to this illegal restructuring it sacked the entire work force of the company. All the employees were lockout so that the recruitment of new employees can be done without union formation (Helfat, & Martin, 2014. )

Actions Taken By Qantas Ceo

The main events in this  dispute took place in four main parts , where the Patrick Corporation had its main and crucial operations.  Melbourne, Brisbane, Fremantle and Sydney were its main offices. Finally on 7^th April 1998 Chris Corrigan sacked all the employees and locked them out so that the company can recruit non-unionized employees who are trained from Dubai. It was hard struggle for the employees for 14 days after the lockout took place; eventually after all this troubles they got relief when justice Tony North finally declared reinstatement rights for the 1,400 sacked Maritime Union of Australia waterside workers. The judgment further stated that company should divide its functions within its two major companies. Apart from that Patrick group should divide the business of its two companies which will also make it easier for them to terminate its employees. It is arguable on the evidence that this was done because the employees were members of the union. Further the company came up with judgment that after two days on April 23 ‘ but two days later on April 23, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld Justice North’s decision. This lockout was actually a serious challenge for the cooperation and trade union. Further the support of Howard government started the Workplace Relations Act 1996 as a substitute of national industrial agreements based on the salaries  and situations along with particular contracts  between workers and employees. This was a judgment in which both the parties were satisfied. On one side  Patrick made crucial and efficient changes in its practices of work and on the other hand the employees got certain benefits like voluntary redundancies and the contracting out of some work (Randolf, J.J., 2009)

Due to the emergence of Australia as an economical power in 1988 the docks imported and exported 64% of cargo .Which was very high as compared to the last years. Apart from that the era was of technological development which was brought by Containerization & the WIRA, (Waterfront Industry Reform Authority) .They were responsible for changing the practices of work of he marine companies. These companies required less workforce and. But due to Howard Govt Workplace Relations Act (1996) again the labors and workers became important and productive (Hutchison,  & Boxall,  2014)

Patrick Stevedores on April 7^th terminated its whole workers and employees including1400 employees who were permanent and 600 casual employees. Due to this lockout – all the employees were suspended from the company with a immediate termination .Apart from that this process was continued throughout a month. In this particular policy Federal government which was the running government at that time was totally supporting the workers because at the same time government was also interested to reduce the impact of union in the industries. as  this led to the termination of many security guards who were armed with dogs entered Patrick’s 17 wharves across Australia, forcing unionists off the job (Jones, 2001)

Results Of Lockout

There were strikes done raised like wildcat due to these issues and rolling (in intervals of 48hrs to avoid fines from the Workplace Relations Act) strikes occurred. Further the unions were also very careful that they do not react or do violent activities which can cause harm to the company members (Lislie,  2011)

 Pickets were finally arranged by the MUA which further blocked the ports of Patrick so that any export or import cannot be done through those areas. The company finally managed to get the court approval in order to barricade the union members who were preventing them to use their respective dock areas.

 Sabotage – The CEO of Patrick’s clearly announced that the employees were not productive and they were working very poorly intentionally. 

Usually the dispute of Waterfront was majorly a victory of three stakeholders. After this entire scenario MUA managed to survive as a union on the waterfront which also helped to prevent the termination of large no of employees. On the other hand Patrick was able to reduce its workforce and cost cutting agenda was fulfilled. The Howard Govt. of the time also benefited from improved international trade capabilities ( Purdue University).

It is very evident from all these issues of waterfront that the conflict took place earlier but was waiting for the correct opportunity to explode. Apart from that it was Patrick’s poor management and industrial relation with its union members which created the whole issue but at the same time with the help of government the company was able to negotiate in a proper manner. This also clearly shows the impact of minor issues can generate dangerous conflicts if they are not taken care or treated through proper communication and sensitivity.,

Further in conclusion it would  can stated that the reforms of the docks wouldn’t have been possible without this  agitation and conflict Eventually the Airc should have been invited to  stop this conflict so that the cost of the courts and  negativities could have been avoided.

References

Uk Essays , 2015. The Historical Waterfront Dispute Management Essay .[Online] Available at: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/the-historical-waterfront-dispute-management-essay.php

Scribd. 2016 .The Qantas Dispute : An industrial Action Case Study .[Online] Available at: https://www.scribd.com/doc/97167470/The-Qantas-Dispute-An-Industrial-Action-Case-Study 

Cahan, J., 2003. Mini-lecture on writing a critique- effective acade. [Online] Available at: https://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/b/j/bjj6/ENGL015-2001Critique.html [Accessed 22 September 2016].

Floyd, J. & Fowler, J., 2009. Survey Research Methods. 4th ed. Nashville: SAGE.

Green, R.R. et al., 2011. Management matters in New Zealand: How does manufacturing measure up? Wellington.: Ministry of Economic Development Ministry of Economic Development.

Helfat, C.E. & Martin, J.A., 2014. Dynamic Managerial Capabilities: Review and Assessment of Managerial Impact on Strategic Change. Journal of Management, 41(5), pp.1281-312.

Hutchison, A. & Boxall, P., 2014. The critical challenges facing New Zealand’s chief executives: implications for management skills. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52, pp.23-41.

Jones, B.J., 2001. Rhetoric and composition. [Online] Available at: 22 [Accessed September 2016 2016].

Lislie, J.D., 2011. The Benefits And Challenges Of Mixing Methods And Methodologies:Lessons Learnt From Implementing Qualitatively Led Mixed Methods Research Designs in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Curriculum, 18, pp.87-120.

Metcalfe, M., 2002. Preparing a critique of an article: Using argument as an inquiry. [Online] Available at: https://godot.unisa.edu.au/register/articles/5.doc [Accessed 22 September 2016].

Purdue University, 2016. Writing a thesis Staement: Available at: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/print/general/gl_thesis.html [Accessed 16 September 2016].

Randolf, J.J., 2009. A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 13, p.14.