Qantas hit with $90 million penalty for illegal sacking of 1800 workers
The penalty is in addition to the $120 million Qantas has already agreed to pay in compensation to the illegally fired workers.
Monday's penalty hearing concludes a saga that began in 2020 when, facing the onset of the pandemic lockdown, Qantas announced it had decided to outsource ground handling operations at 10 Australian airports, culling more than 1800 employees.
The TWU immediately challenged the decision in court, and it was found the following year that Qantas had acted illegally 'in part motivated by a desire to prevent the employees taking protected industrial action in the future'.
Qantas appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which unanimously dismissed it, in a win for the TWU.
In May, the court heard that Qantas, before it began outsourcing the workers in 2020, had sought to devise a plan for who should be named as the sole decision maker, essentially shielding the other executives from responsibility.
Justice Michael Lee said at the time: 'The message must be sent to the broader corporate community that you can't play the court for a fool and try to fashion your evidence in a careful way in order to try to dissemble what went on.'
In December 2024, Qantas agreed with the TWU to pay $120 million in compensation to the 1820 ground staff whose contracts were terminated, including 1700 workers who lost their jobs outright, as well as 120 who were redeployed within Qantas but suffered non-economic losses.
At the time, Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson, said: 'This is an important step in bringing closure to these individuals and I want to reiterate our sincere apologies to those impacted and their families.'
Hudson served as chief financial officer during the time the illegal sackings took place, before replacing Alan Joyce, who stepped down in 2023.
Loading
Since Joyce's exit, Hudson has laboured to rehabilitate the airline's reputation, seeking to restore consumer trust, improve on-time performance, and promote a general calm throughout the company.
On Thursday, Joyce appeared to break his silence on his handling of Qantas' staffing. In a speech at the Australian Aviation Summit in Sydney, he said: 'It's well known that, during COVID, Qantas, like many airlines, also faced very challenging decisions about its workforce. I acknowledge that.'
While it's a far cry from an apology, it marks his first public reckoning with his legacy at the iconic airline.
Joyce's pay for his last year at the helm of Qantas could have been as high as $23.6 million, taking in a base salary of $2.2 million plus short-term and long-term incentive plans.
After his exit prompted a board-commissioned review of the airline's leadership, the board voted to cut Joyce's pay by $9 million.
Joyce is still eligible for $4 million more through a long-term incentive plan, which depends on Qantas' performance and share price. During Joyce's 15-year tenure at Qantas, he earned about $125 million.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
16 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
ASX set to slide, Wall Street steady; BHP results ahead
Wall Street is holding near its record heights on Monday, ahead of a week likely to be dominated by updates from the head of the Federal Reserve and from some of the biggest US retailers. The S&P 500 is virtually unchanged, coming off its first loss after setting an all-time high in three consecutive days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 28 points, or 0.1 per cent, with a little more than an hour remaining in trading, and the Nasdaq composite was roughly flat. The Australian sharemarket is set to retreat, with futures at 4.53am AEST pointing to a slide of 33 points, or 0.4 per cent, at the open. The ASX added 0.2 per cent to close at a record high on Monday. Reporting season continues with BHP, the standout on Tuesday. The Australian dollar WAS 0.2 per cent lower to US64.92¢ at 5.12am AEST. Novo Nordisk's stock that trades in the United States rose 4.2 per cent after the Danish company said US regulators approved its Wegovy drug as part of a treatment for a liver disease found in many overweight and obese people. Soho House, a membership club with locations around the world, jumped 15.1 per cent after announcing a deal where an investor group led by hotel-operator MCR would pay $US9 in cash for its shares. Loading Several of the country's largest retailers, meanwhile, were mixed ahead of their profit reports that are scheduled for later in the week. Home Depot, which will report on Tuesday, slipped 0.9 per cent. Target rose 1.9 per cent ahead of its report on Wednesday, and Walmart added 0.6 per cent before its report on Thursday. They, along with companies like Estee Lauder and Ross Stores, could offer a look at how different types of US households are holding up when the job market seems to have morphed into one where relatively few workers are getting fired but also hired.

Sydney Morning Herald
16 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?

The Age
16 minutes ago
- The Age
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?