Qantas to outsource ground handling across Australia

[jrfsp]

He is gone this month anyway - albeit on his own terms unlike AJ.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-group-announces-group-management-team-changes/?print=1

another one walking away scot free

 

[Quickstatus]

Should step aside before he is pushed out.

Apparently QF previously announced his retirement - will occur in 2week

 

[jpp42]

I would have thought potential to lose a court case would be a contingent event?

Not necessarily, if they deem it to be non-material, i.e. not a big enough impact on the bottom line to be of concern. They may have assessed that they can get away with paying very little compensation, even though they have lost. They will do doubt continue to fight hard to reduce the compensation to the minimum.

Should step aside before he is pushed out.
For the legal counsel to lose these cases shows he is not fit for his position.

That's not how lawyers work necessarily. The legal counsel would have provided legal advice to the executives/Board. The executives/Board are the ones who decide to proceed with a certain course of action. The lawyers most certainly wouldn't have promised that an appeal was going to be successful - they would have estimated the chances and risks of proceeding with the appeal. The legal team might even have said there was a very low chance of winning, but the hubris of the executives caused them to go ahead anyway. It's the lawyer's job to fight their case in the best possible way to meet the business goals of the executive, their client, even if the chances of winning are low.

I'm not necessarily saying Qantas' lawyers did a good or bad job here - I'm not a lawyer myself and can't evaluate that. But I do understand the basics of how the profession works and while losing a case is not great for a lawyer, it is by no means evidence of them doing a bad job, if the case was unwinnable to start with. And in the case of High Court appeals, it's likely a feather in their cap that they presented a case that was accepted - if there was no merit at all to the arguments then the High Court wouldn't have heard the case to start with.

 

[eastwest101]

Not necessarily, if they deem it to be non-material, i.e. not a big enough impact on the bottom line to be of concern. They may have assessed that they can get away with paying very little compensation, even though they have lost. They will do doubt continue to fight hard to reduce the compensation to the minimum.

That's not how lawyers work necessarily. The legal counsel would have provided legal advice to the executives/Board. The executives/Board are the ones who decide to proceed with a certain course of action. The lawyers most certainly wouldn't have promised that an appeal was going to be successful - they would have estimated the chances and risks of proceeding with the appeal. The legal team might even have said there was a very low chance of winning, but the hubris of the executives caused them to go ahead anyway. It's the lawyer's job to fight their case in the best possible way to meet the business goals of the executive, their client, even if the chances of winning are low.

I'm not necessarily saying Qantas' lawyers did a good or bad job here - I'm not a lawyer myself and can't evaluate that. But I do understand the basics of how the profession works and while losing a case is not great for a lawyer, it is by no means evidence of them doing a bad job, if the case was unwinnable to start with. And in the case of High Court appeals, it's likely a feather in their cap that they presented a case that was accepted - if there was no merit at all to the arguments then the High Court wouldn't have heard the case to start with.

I'll just leave this here - an extract from The Australian's coverage of the recent court hearings (my highlighting):

 

[jrfsp]

I'll just leave this here - an extract from The Australian's coverage of the recent court hearings (my highlighting):


View attachment 343606

conscious decision so that no minutes can be brought into a court as evidence.......

 

[Quickstatus]

Minutes are an essential part of good corporate governance. Minutes are not normally kept during the day to day running of a company by the executive C-suite but they are kept for meetings.

Evidence of interactions can come in other forms such as emails, electronic messages, letters and other forms of communications.

The question is whether any communication was recorded?. I can't believe that nothing was recorded for such a change in direction for a company. If nothing was recorded then the corporate governance smells and/or that it was deliberately kept off the books

Our little department of medicine meetings are minuted - kept by unpaid members of the department who do it in turn. We minute it then take it home and type it up. And we are not even the executive. If we can do it, why can't executives whose remuneration are in most cases more than most of the members of our little department.

 

[jpp42]

If we can do it, why can't executives whose remuneration is in most cases more than most of the members of our little department.

Because they specifically don't *want* to. They can easily hire a qualified secretary to do it, even one experienced enough to practice very good discretion in terms of what is actually written down, but no minutes at all makes it easier to practice selective memory in court, no?

 

[Quickstatus]

but no minutes at all makes it easier to practice selective memory in court, no?

I'm not sure if the HCoA provided any opinion about the lack of meeting minutes or if that was viewed favourable or unfavourably. But in my world a lack of documentation is poor medical practice and will never be of assistance if the case ever goes to court. The Medical tribunal pings Drs all the time for poor record keeping. I suppose it's different for an airline...

 

[RooFlyer]

conscious decision so that no minutes can be brought into a court as evidence.......

Fair enough. I abide by the maxim of "Don't put anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't want read out in court".

 

[RooFlyer]

I'll just leave this here - an extract from The Australian's coverage of the recent court hearings (my highlighting):

When I read that, I thought Jones and Hughes must be company legal. But no - Jones was Chief Operating Officer and Hughes was and is Executive Manager Airports.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I really wish charges of a criminal nature could be brought against the responsible parties among executives and board here, though I know not possible. I know that's not how it works but these actions were so egregious and illegal in nature that Qantas dare not even record the discussion in the boardroom regarding what they were doing.

I hope (but I obviously highly doubt) they are privately ashamed of their actions. The case was never going their way from the start, blind Freddy the plumber could have told you that. Wonder if the shareholders will ask the board how much in legal costs this fruitless pursuit of trying to bury the issue of totally illegal IR decisions cost them.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

conscious decision so that no minutes can be brought into a court as evidence.......

This reminds me of a lesson I learned from the CFO of a company, it's best to say everything over the phone or in person versus sending out an email or chat message. That way there is no evidence!

 

[TheRealTMA]

This reminds me of a lesson I learned from the CFO of a company, it's best to say everything over the phone or in person versus sending out an email or chat message. That way there is no evidence!

That’s what Richard Nixon thought!

 

[kangarooflyer88]

That’s what Richard Nixon thought!

Yes but he was not a crook!

 

[jb747]

conscious decision so that no minutes can be brought into a court as evidence.......

Which sounds like an admission of guilt, and should be treated that way. There is no way on this earth that Joyce didn’t approve of this action. Having a fall guy might be MBA 101, but that does not remove complicity.

 

[arrow]

That’s what Richard Nixon thought!

Nikon’s mistake was recording the conversation which defeats the purpose of not leaving a paper trail

 

[BAM1748]

There may be no minutes, but each member would have kept a diary note of actions I would think. I don't keep minutes in my meetings but more an action in my diary.

 

[jpp42]

Nikon’s mistake was recording the conversation which defeats the purpose of not leaving a paper trail

I think Nikon photographed the situation actually.

 

[RooFlyer]

The hearing into the compo Qantas must payt for the outsourcing debacle continues.

Some reporting by The Oz on-line Court blow for Qantas in compensation hearings for outsourced workers

Probably pay-walled, sorry, so just a couple of snippets

Qantas’ case in Federal Court hearings to determine compensation for unlawfully outsourced workers has been dealt a blow after the judge appeared to dismiss the evidence of a key witness.

Former chief operating officer Colin Hughes has argued he would still have recommended the outsourcing of the workers in 2021, if it had not occurred in 2020.

The argument is critical to Qantas’ case, which seeks to minimise its liability for compensation to a 12-month period, rather than the much broader time frame sought by the Transport Workers Union.

Evidence presented by TWU barrister Mark Gibian SC showed Qantas was expecting flying to increase considerably in 2021, making a mass outsourcing exercise less likely.

A statement by then chief executive Alan Joyce made on March 11, 2021, announcing further federal government assistance, talked about domestic flying returning to 80 per cent by mid-year.

Justice Michael Lee then weighed in, telling the court he would “work on what Mr Joyce said to the market”.

“I’m going to work on the basis that what Mr Joyce was saying at the time, reflects the true position of Qantas at the time,” said Justice Lee.

“You’ve got no basis to disagree with what Mr Joyce was saying?”

“No,” replied Mr Hughes.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Given he was entirely wrong to recommend it in 2020, I'm sure he'd recommend it in 2021, last month, yesterday, today and tomorrow as well. And still be wrong.