Qantas boss accused of misleading committee

[SeatBackForward]

Surprised this hasn't been posted on here yet today:

Qantas boss accused of misleading committee
By Michael Vincent

Updated June 01, 2012 09:41:18

Qantas chief executive officer Alan Joyce has been accused of misleading a Senate committee about his decision to lock out workers last year.

The committee's chairman, Labor Senator Glenn Sterle, says evidence given by Qantas chief financial officer Gareth Evans to Fair Work Australia this week is different to that given by Mr Joyce.

Senator Sterle says there are serious consequences for misleading a Senate committee and Mr Joyce may want "to correct the record".

Senator Sterle says Mr Evans revealed a lockout was discussed at the executive committee level last year, two weeks before it happened.

But Senator Sterle says Mr Joyce told the committee the lockout decision was made by him only on the day it occurred.

Link

I wouldn't be surprised it was thought out ahead, its not the kind of thing that realistically can happen at a snap anyhow.

 

[markis10]

It was all across the news this morning and as per the QF PR person, the story is consistant, decision made by Joyce on the day, consideration by the board beforehand.

 

[eastwest101]

I forsee some furious PR spinning from both sides in the future! Would need to go back to the exact question and the actual evidence that AJ provided the senate comittee before we take Sen Sterle's word for that.

Did anyone get to the bottom of exactly when the couriers were booked to deliver the lockout notices? I know that it could be argued that it was a form of contingency planning.

(Opening bag of popcorn)... let the hair splitting begin.

 

[anat0l]

(Opening bag of popcorn)... let the hair splitting begin.

I think that is exactly what is happening.

I'm actually surprised the government seems to be "taking this seriously". All this for a company that the government gladly washed its hands of so long ago.


I take no pride in mentioning that Senator Sterle is a lifetime member of the TWU, but...........

 

[NM]

"it was discussed" and "making a decision" are two very different things and will fit into very different parts of the timeline. In my work place, we often discuss many options a long time before any decision is made as to which option is going to be used.

 

[anat0l]

"it was discussed" and "making a decision" are two very different things and will fit into very different parts of the timeline. In my work place, we often discuss many options a long time before any decision is made as to which option is going to be used.

In layman's terms, it's still splitting hairs. Particularly as it seems to be commonly (if, albeit, misconstrued) assumed that a "discussion" has the intent of implementation, which isn't helped in this case as the event really did happen and hence the intent is very much assumed to be there post factum.

 

[markis10]

In layman's terms, it's still splitting hairs. Particularly as it seems to be commonly (if, albeit, misconstrued) assumed that a "discussion" has the intent of implementation, which isn't helped in this case as the event really did happen and hence the intent is very much assumed to be there post factum.

What a tosser of a concept, plenty of things are discussed in the real world that are never implemented, and it would be a brave CEO to do something that has not been discussed of this magnitude, its not splitting hairs in the least!

Edit: Here is the comment from QF on AM this morning http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3515727.htm:


OLIVIA WIRTH: I clearly think it's a simple misunderstanding. And I think that if one goes back and reads the six hours of transcript that the Qantas CEO answered, we did indicate that Qantas had always known that a lockout was an option because in fact it's the only option under Fair Work Australia - the only option for industrial action that an employer can actually take under this legislation.

And that we did make the case that there are a range of options that were under consideration. That's the case that the Qantas CEO made at the Senate inquiry. That's the evidence that Mr Evans provided in court only a couple of days ago.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Mr Evans said I believe in that Fair Work Australia hearing that it was discussed, a lockout was discussed at executive level two weeks before the actual lockout occurred.

OLIVIA WIRTH: Absolutely. That's what Mr Evans said. And the case that Mr Joyce had made, which is the point of dispute here, he said that when the decision was made, a decision was made by the Qantas CEO - as has been said ad nauseam by the Qantas CEO - it was made on the day that the lockout took place.

One is a conversation, one is a consideration and one is when the decision point was made.

 

[NM]

In layman's terms, it's still splitting hairs. Particularly as it seems to be commonly (if, albeit, misconstrued) assumed that a "discussion" has the intent of implementation, which isn't helped in this case as the event really did happen and hence the intent is very much assumed to be there post factum.

I fail to follow your logic. If 5 different options are "discussed", are you suggesting that the CEO should report all of the options then and there? Surely the plan/action is only expected to be reported once the decision is taken as to which option is going to be implemented. I don't see any hair-splitting going on at all.

 

[anat0l]

What a tosser of a concept, plenty of things are discussed in the real world that are never implemented, and it would be a brave CEO to do something that has not been discussed of this magnitude, its not splitting hairs in the least!

...

One is a conversation, one is a consideration and one is when the decision point was made.

I fail to follow your logic. If 5 different options are "discussed", are you suggesting that the CEO should report all of the options then and there? Surely the plan/action is only expected to be reported once the decision is taken as to which option is going to be implemented. I don't see any hair-splitting going on at all.

This is exactly the problem. It is, in reality, not splitting hairs, but if we had all realised that in the first place then this story would never have come to light.

Obviously, someone is thinking it is so, or rather is trying to muddle the line with intent to mislead, which is why we are here (someone has taken a simplistic, "face value" and selective view of the proceedings and this is the result).


The argument at hand is a perception based one, not a rational one. But the former writes news articles and generates political circus more than the latter.

 

[SeatBackForward]

OMG, for once, can't we all just disagree on agreeing?

 

[markis10]

OMG, for once, can't we all just disagree on agreeing?

But what would all the committees do then!

 

[SeatBackForward]

But what would all the committees do then!

To quote from Life of Brian "RIGHT THIS CALLS FOR IMMMMMEDIATE DISCUSSION!"

 

[Noob]

But what would all the committees do then!

Oh gosh

 

[amaroo]

TWU spin!.....filler, filler