Qantas claims it made ‘a mistake' in illegally sacking 1820 ground workers
Qantas says it has 'learnt its lesson' after unlawfully sacking more than 1800 ground workers, claiming the decision was a 'mistake' rather than deliberate.
The airline was thrice found to have acted unlawfully when it fired 1820 staff in favour of outsourced contractors during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.
While an earlier compensation hearing before Justice Michael Lee found Qantas should pay $120 million to impacted workers, now a hearing will decide the added penalty Qantas must pay for the 2020 decision.
The hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney continued on Wednesday for its third day before Justice Lee, where Barrister for Qantas Justin Gleeson SC continued his submissions.
Mr Gleeson told the court Qantas's decision was 'a mistake' and not 'intentional'.
'Going forward your honour can be comfortably satisfied Qantas has learnt its lesson,' he said.
'Through Ms Walsh's division and the board … the risk of making this error again is low.
'Qantas is coming to your honour as a first offender … and it would be oppressive to say you should pay close to the maximum penalty.'
Various meetings between senior managers at Qantas, a GMC meeting and a board meeting came under the microscope in court on Wednesday.
Mr Gleeson contended the problem with the outsourcing decision was not exposed to the GMC or board members during the meetings.
'Effectively the green light was given (to the board) … the problem was there but it was not exposed to the GMC or to the board and that's to be taken into account when assessing the liability,' he said.
Mr Gleeson said the process 'fell down' when it had not come to the attention of anyone at the GMC level that a red flag needed to be put up when making the decision.
Earlier in the hearing, Mr Gleeson said the airline is seeking a penalty between $40-$80m.
'We submit the penalty should be in the mid-range,' he said.
Mr Gleeson said any penalty close to the maximum would be 'manifestly unfair'.
'Qantas has accepted the seriousness of its conduct,' he said.
'The court can and should impose a significant deterrent penalty. However, it is in effect a first contravention (of the fair work act).'
The maximum penalty Qantas can be ordered to pay is $121m, on top of the $120m compensation fund that is now in the process of being administered to workers.
Earlier the Transport Workers Union called for the maximum penalty be inflicted upon Qantas, and said the flying kangaroo was faced with a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' during the pandemic to save more than $100m per year.
Noel Hutley SC said the airline had the 'temptation of the potential to produce a massive profit'.
In his submissions on Tuesday, Mr Hutley said Qantas had acted with 'arrogance and a dismissive and self-justified attitude towards these events' that it was 'dragging out'.
While Justice Lee is yet to decide exactly who will receive the money from the penalty imposed upon Qantas, there are three likely parties proposed.
The TWU is seeking a large majority of the penalty, and also argued effected workers should receive further compensation.
Otherwise, the funds could go directly to the commonwealth.
The Federal Court earlier found that Qantas had acted against protections in the Fair Work Act in its outsourcing and was partly motivated by a desire to prevent industrial action.
The airline appealed the decision to the full bench of the Federal Court and later the High Court, both of which were unsuccessful.
After losing the appeal, the union and Qantas went to mediation to determine how much Qantas would have to pay the outsourced workers for economic losses linked to lost wages.
The hearing before Justice Michael Lee is expected to span over five days, ending on Friday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Foyer fights: How top-tier towers are trying to get you back – or keep you
Foyers in top-tier office towers are getting million-dollar facelifts as landlords focus efforts on keeping workers in their buildings or luring them back from remote work locations. The ground floor entrances of skyscraper towers in Sydney and Melbourne are being remodelled with hotel-style concierge desks, restaurants, cafés and uber-cool lounge settings, a trend driven by landlords vying to retain key tenants and stubbornly high office vacancy rates in both cities. The Property Council of Australia's last January survey of Sydney and Melbourne CBDs shows office vacancy rates were at 12.8 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively. The high rates plaguing some office towers are a legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic, when leasing activity slowed dramatically as workers stayed at home. After COVID, as economic activity picked up, the slump in rents encouraged companies to negotiate new leases, moving up the property ladder into better digs in a more desirable location. 'It's very much a buyer's market,' said Elizabeth Carpenter, the NSW chapter president of the Australian Institute of Architects and a managing principal of architecture firm FJC Studio. 'Owners are trying to keep their big tenants.' 'They're not building big towers at the moment. It's highly competitive out there. You can get some very good rates for rents, so they [landlords] have to work out how to attract people,' she said. 'It's about making people's lives easier when they're in the building, and also making it easier for them to connect.' Bronwyn McColl, a principal at Woods Bagot Property giant Mirvac has just finished a $25 million lavish reboot of the lobby, facade and end-of-trip facilities at 55 Collins Street, one of two towers it manages in Melbourne's Collins Place. Architecture firms Grimshaw and Norman Disney & Young installed elegant wood-toned finishes and tied in the new foyer's design to its twin tower at 35 Collins Street, which was refurbished five years ago when the popular Dame eatery was added.
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
The government can print money. So, why can't it keep borrowing?
So, why do governments borrow money in the first place? Why are countries such as Japan (with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 240 per cent) aren't freaking out? And what's stopping governments – including the Australian government – from just continuing to borrow? Well, borrowing a bit of money is generally a good thing. As independent economist Saul Eslake puts it, most households want to pay off their debt at some point in their life so as not to leave debts behind for their children. But it's a different matter for governments and well-run companies because they don't (usually) die. Australia, right now, is better positioned than most countries when it comes to the money our government owes. In fact, he says funding some infrastructure spending – such as on a new railway, hospital or renewable energy technology – is a reasonable way of making sure future generations contribute something to the cost of creating something they will benefit from, rather than the entire burden falling on the current generation. Of course, it also depends on what that borrowed money is spent on. Relying on it to pay for day-to-day expenses such as salaries and wages is probably less fruitful than investing it in big projects like a new train line that people can use for years to come. It also depends on the state of the economy. When growth is weak or receding, there's a stronger case for the government to borrow money to pump into the economy. But when things are going well and business is booming, borrowing can drive up demand and push up prices. It's also less worrying for the government to be borrowing when interest rates are low. When the cost of borrowing starts to creep up, that's when a big pile of debt can be problematic. Then, there's also the question of whether the government is borrowing from within the country, or outside it. The Japanese government, for example, borrows mostly from its own Bank of Japan, Japanese financial institutions and Japanese citizens. That means, despite its huge debt, it tends to pay lower interest rates because there's a huge supply of savings within the country and lower transaction costs than if they were to borrow more from overseas. It also takes out loans in its own currency: the Japanese yen. By comparison, only about one third of Australian government debt is held domestically. Most debt crises, including the infamous Greek debt crisis in 2009, came to a head partly because those countries were borrowing from outside their borders or in currencies that weren't their own. That left them vulnerable to sudden global movements and also meant they couldn't just print off money to pay down their debt. Of course, it's not really a strategy at all for governments to just print money. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, a larger supply of money floating around the economy pushed down its price, or value. In other words, printing too much money leads to inflation because everyone's money becomes less valuable and, therefore, they are less able to buy things. But back to the Australian government's debt, which Treasurer Jim Chalmers managed to trim back to 38 per cent of GDP, then 34 per cent, before this year letting it creep back up to 36 per cent. This year, the federal government has set aside $28 billion towards interest payments. That works out to about $1400 per Australian taxpayer. But it's also only $3 billion shy of one of our most expensive government programs: Medicare. There's no hard and fast rule for how much debt is optimal. And for now, with an AAA credit rating – the best possible mark for a country's ability to repay its debts – the Australian government can borrow at lower interest rates than many other countries. If anything, it's our state governments that have received a warning from one of the world's biggest ratings agencies that their rating could be dropped to AA if they don't rein in their spending. And while Australia's government debt is far from being at crisis level, it is important to keep in mind that it comes at a cost. We know that printing money comes with its own problems. But higher debt also means the government will have to hike taxes, reduce spending, or a combination of the two, to pay it off. Loading Losing that AAA rating is not the end of the world for the states or for the federal government. But it does mean our borrowing options will shrink a bit, and the interest costs will pick up. Our government does most of its borrowing through the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), which sells loans (also known as bonds or bills) on behalf of the government. These loans are then bought mostly by huge asset managers, including pension funds and insurers, hedge funds and central banks, including the Reserve Bank – with some of it bought by non-professional individual investors. As Eslake points out, some of the big borrowers will be barred (by their own rules) from taking on more Australian government debt if our rating is knocked down a notch. However, pressures on government spending will probably only rise in years to come as the population ages, the energy transition becomes more urgent and housing demands intensify. Loading While a debt ceiling such as the one in the US is an arguably silly concept, it's not a bad idea to have a debt-to-GDP target to measure up against.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Foyer fights: How top-tier towers are trying to get you back – or keep you
Foyers in top-tier office towers are getting million-dollar facelifts as landlords focus efforts on keeping workers in their buildings or luring them back from remote work locations. The ground floor entrances of skyscraper towers in Sydney and Melbourne are being remodelled with hotel-style concierge desks, restaurants, cafés and uber-cool lounge settings, a trend driven by landlords vying to retain key tenants and stubbornly high office vacancy rates in both cities. The Property Council of Australia's last January survey of Sydney and Melbourne CBDs shows office vacancy rates were at 12.8 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively. The high rates plaguing some office towers are a legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic, when leasing activity slowed dramatically as workers stayed at home. After COVID, as economic activity picked up, the slump in rents encouraged companies to negotiate new leases, moving up the property ladder into better digs in a more desirable location. 'It's very much a buyer's market,' said Elizabeth Carpenter, the NSW chapter president of the Australian Institute of Architects and a managing principal of architecture firm FJC Studio. 'Owners are trying to keep their big tenants.' 'They're not building big towers at the moment. It's highly competitive out there. You can get some very good rates for rents, so they [landlords] have to work out how to attract people,' she said. 'It's about making people's lives easier when they're in the building, and also making it easier for them to connect.' Bronwyn McColl, a principal at Woods Bagot Property giant Mirvac has just finished a $25 million lavish reboot of the lobby, facade and end-of-trip facilities at 55 Collins Street, one of two towers it manages in Melbourne's Collins Place. Architecture firms Grimshaw and Norman Disney & Young installed elegant wood-toned finishes and tied in the new foyer's design to its twin tower at 35 Collins Street, which was refurbished five years ago when the popular Dame eatery was added.
