Melburnian1
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Posts
- 24,673
JobKeeper was quickly introduced by the Federal Government in light of coronavirus.
The payment from March until late SEptember 2020 was set at $1500 a fortnight, higher than the former Newstart Allownace that rose to $1100 per fortnight concurrent with its renaming to JobSeeker.
Lately, some have been critical of ASX-listed companies that received JobKeeper payments for staff yet still paid CEOs a bonus because 'they met performance targets'.
Closer to aviation, this Federal Court decision (reviewable in the High Court) has not found in QF's favour:
(part of article from 'Business Insider'):
(note that there is a link to the Federal Court;s decision that includes complex tables showing earnings of four employees, and even includes their names, presumably by consent. The Court assumed that the records of actual earnings were correct):
'...Since the wage subsidy was introduced, Qantas had implemented the subsidy in such a way that overtime wasn’t paid until the following fortnightly pay cycle. Such an arrangement, however, reduced the pay of airport staff, baggage handlers and cabin crew, and has been heavily criticised by the unions.
“This is an important win for Qantas workers who have had their pay raided by senior management in a disgraceful abuse of the JobKeeper scheme,” the Transport Workers Union national secretary Michael Kaine said.
“These workers have endured systematic wage theft at the hands of an out of control management.”
To understand the point contention, consider this example used in court. A baggage handler earns $1,500 in wages and $1,500 in overtime in one fortnight before being stood down in the next one.
Rather than receive $3,000 in the first fortnight and be paid $1,500 in the next, courtesy of JobKeeper, they would be paid $1,500 in both. In other words, Qantas came out $1,500 in front and the worker $1,500 behind.
While Qantas maintains this squared with a long-held enterprise agreement, Justice Geoffrey Flick ruled on Thursday that it was inconsistent with way JobKeeper was to be administered.
“The overtime… and the amount received by the employee during the second fortnight being the JobKeeper payment, cannot be ‘set off’ or otherwise called to account by Qantas to relieve it of its obligation to also pay the JobKeeper payment,” Flick said.
While orders have not yet been finalised, Flick said that if the ruling meant that Qantas workers would have to backpay workers, “so be it”.
Qantas told Business Insider Australia that the airline is “carefully considering” whether it will appeal the judgement, and that “it is misleading of unions to suggest employees should expect a sudden windfall”.
“Qantas has based all of its decisions on JobKeeper on the legislation and guidance provided by the ATO and made sure all employees receive a ‘safety net’ payment of $1500 per fortnight. That ‘safety net’ assurance is a central part of the Government’s JobKeeper policy. Today’s judgement appears to cut across that principle,” a company spokesperson said.
“The judgment will likely have adverse implications for all companies receiving JobKeeper, who are already reeling from the impacts of COVID.”
While Flick noted the unions hadn’t argued that Qantas’ interpretation had been made with an ulterior motive, the TWU certainly hasn’t shied away from the allegation outside the courtroom.
“[Workers] have worked overtime, public holidays and weekends and Qantas management has deliberately manipulated JobKeeper so they don’t have to pay workers a dollar more than the public subsidy,” Kaine said...'
“Qantas management has had the full support of taxpayers during this crisis, receiving $800 million in public funding. It has taken that money and abused our systems, ripping workers off and planning to outsource workers whose jobs the airline admits are needed.”
The payment from March until late SEptember 2020 was set at $1500 a fortnight, higher than the former Newstart Allownace that rose to $1100 per fortnight concurrent with its renaming to JobSeeker.
Lately, some have been critical of ASX-listed companies that received JobKeeper payments for staff yet still paid CEOs a bonus because 'they met performance targets'.
Closer to aviation, this Federal Court decision (reviewable in the High Court) has not found in QF's favour:
(part of article from 'Business Insider'):
(note that there is a link to the Federal Court;s decision that includes complex tables showing earnings of four employees, and even includes their names, presumably by consent. The Court assumed that the records of actual earnings were correct):
'...Since the wage subsidy was introduced, Qantas had implemented the subsidy in such a way that overtime wasn’t paid until the following fortnightly pay cycle. Such an arrangement, however, reduced the pay of airport staff, baggage handlers and cabin crew, and has been heavily criticised by the unions.
“This is an important win for Qantas workers who have had their pay raided by senior management in a disgraceful abuse of the JobKeeper scheme,” the Transport Workers Union national secretary Michael Kaine said.
“These workers have endured systematic wage theft at the hands of an out of control management.”
To understand the point contention, consider this example used in court. A baggage handler earns $1,500 in wages and $1,500 in overtime in one fortnight before being stood down in the next one.
Rather than receive $3,000 in the first fortnight and be paid $1,500 in the next, courtesy of JobKeeper, they would be paid $1,500 in both. In other words, Qantas came out $1,500 in front and the worker $1,500 behind.
While Qantas maintains this squared with a long-held enterprise agreement, Justice Geoffrey Flick ruled on Thursday that it was inconsistent with way JobKeeper was to be administered.
“The overtime… and the amount received by the employee during the second fortnight being the JobKeeper payment, cannot be ‘set off’ or otherwise called to account by Qantas to relieve it of its obligation to also pay the JobKeeper payment,” Flick said.
While orders have not yet been finalised, Flick said that if the ruling meant that Qantas workers would have to backpay workers, “so be it”.
Qantas told Business Insider Australia that the airline is “carefully considering” whether it will appeal the judgement, and that “it is misleading of unions to suggest employees should expect a sudden windfall”.
“Qantas has based all of its decisions on JobKeeper on the legislation and guidance provided by the ATO and made sure all employees receive a ‘safety net’ payment of $1500 per fortnight. That ‘safety net’ assurance is a central part of the Government’s JobKeeper policy. Today’s judgement appears to cut across that principle,” a company spokesperson said.
“The judgment will likely have adverse implications for all companies receiving JobKeeper, who are already reeling from the impacts of COVID.”
While Flick noted the unions hadn’t argued that Qantas’ interpretation had been made with an ulterior motive, the TWU certainly hasn’t shied away from the allegation outside the courtroom.
“[Workers] have worked overtime, public holidays and weekends and Qantas management has deliberately manipulated JobKeeper so they don’t have to pay workers a dollar more than the public subsidy,” Kaine said...'
“Qantas management has had the full support of taxpayers during this crisis, receiving $800 million in public funding. It has taken that money and abused our systems, ripping workers off and planning to outsource workers whose jobs the airline admits are needed.”
Last edited:
