Speaker 1: Already and this is this is the Daily This is
Speaker 1: the Daily. Ohs oh, now it makes sense. Good morning
Speaker 1: and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday, the nineteenth
Speaker 1: of August. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2: I'm Tamkovlaski.
Speaker 1: A landmark federal court decision has hit Quantas with Australia's
Speaker 1: largest workplace penalty in corporate history. The airline has been
Speaker 1: ordered to pay ninety million dollars for illegally sacking more
Speaker 1: than eighteen hundred workers during the pandemic. Money that comes
Speaker 1: on top of a one hundred and twenty million dollar
Speaker 1: compensation deal that the airline has already agreed to. It's
Speaker 1: been nearly five years since we first began hearing about
Speaker 1: this case, and there have been plenty of twists and
Speaker 1: turns in the years since. So today we are going
Speaker 1: to take you through everything you need to know about
Speaker 1: this case. But first a quick message from our sponsor, So.
Speaker 2: M this is being described as the largest case of
Speaker 2: illegal sackings in Australian history. That is not something you
Speaker 2: say on the podcast every day, yep, So why don't
Speaker 2: you take us right back? This is a COVID story.
Speaker 2: So let's go back to that time where did this
Speaker 2: all start.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you might remember a series of I suppose Quantus
Speaker 1: would maybe frame them as bad pr headlines coming out
Speaker 1: about the airline in that COVID era, And this one
Speaker 1: is really at the core of that big media storm
Speaker 1: of the COVID era.
Speaker 2: So we're talking right the beginning of the pandemic, like
Speaker 2: twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Yep, so COVID nineteen. We're right in the thick of it,
Speaker 1: and airlines are losing money rapidly, So borders are closed,
Speaker 1: flights are canceled. Every airline is doing it tough, and
Speaker 1: Quantus in particular claims that it is bleeding cash. They
Speaker 1: were the words that the carrier used at the time. Now,
Speaker 1: in November twenty twenty, Quantus made a decision to outsource
Speaker 1: more than eighteen hundred staff, So we're talking baggage handlers, cleaners,
Speaker 1: ground crew, all the people who keep the planes and
Speaker 1: the airport's running for Quantus. Now, the company at the
Speaker 1: time said that this was a cost saving measure, that
Speaker 1: it was trying to survive the pandemic, and that by
Speaker 1: outsourcing these jobs to contractors, it could save about one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars per year.
Speaker 2: And so how do we get from a cost saving
Speaker 2: measure during the height of the pandemic to a court case.
Speaker 1: So this is where it gets quite interesting and where
Speaker 1: we start to hear from the Transport Workers' Union. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a major union that represents a lot of
Speaker 1: the staff that were involved in the sackings, and the
Speaker 1: union argued that this wasn't just about money. They actually
Speaker 1: claimed that Quantus deliberately timed these sackings to prevent the
Speaker 1: workers from exercising their industrial rights, so that included their
Speaker 1: right to collectively bargain for better wages and conditions, as
Speaker 1: well as go on strike to demand better wages. The
Speaker 1: TWU argued that Quantus deliberate and illegally sacked the workers
Speaker 1: at a time when they couldn't take any of that
Speaker 1: kind of action interesting, and so it launched legal action
Speaker 1: in the federal court in twenty twenty. Now, in July
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, Justice Michael Lee, who was the same
Speaker 1: judge that handed down this week's penalty, he found that
Speaker 1: Quantus had indeed acted illegally, siding with the TWU.
Speaker 2: A big finding. What were Justice Lee's reasons for getting there?
Speaker 1: So he ruled that while Quantus may have had legitimate
Speaker 1: commercial reasons for outsourcing these staff, a substantial reason for
Speaker 1: the decision was to curb the union's bargaining power or
Speaker 1: to curb staff's ability to exercise their industrial action. Under
Speaker 1: Australian workplace law, you actually can't sack workers to prevent
Speaker 1: them from exercising those rights, from doing things like striking,
Speaker 1: and Justice Lee found that Quantus basically couldn't prove that
Speaker 1: it wasn't motivated by that factor, so it couldn't prove
Speaker 1: that it was purely motivated by law full or financial
Speaker 1: reasons rather than ones prohibited by the Fair Work Act. Essentially,
Speaker 1: the burden of proof was on Quantus to show that
Speaker 1: they weren't trying to weaken the union, and Justice Lea
Speaker 1: ruled that they couldn't.
Speaker 2: Do that, and so that decision was handed down in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one. We're now here in the second half
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five, we're still talking about it. What
Speaker 2: happened next in the last let's say, almost four years
Speaker 2: since then.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're absolutely right. Quantus appealed that first decision in
Speaker 1: the federal court. They actually ended up taking this fight
Speaker 1: all the way up the court system. So first they
Speaker 1: appealed to what is known as the Full Federal Court.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, three judges unanimously there upheld the
Speaker 1: original ruling against the airline, and then Quantus took its
Speaker 1: appeal to the High Court. So this is Australia's highest
Speaker 1: legal authority, the final place of appeal, and in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, the High Court unanimously dismissed Quantus's appeal. That's
Speaker 1: three separate courts, seven different judges, all finding that Quantus
Speaker 1: did act illegally by sacking these workers.
Speaker 2: And so it went all the way up the court ladder.
Speaker 2: It was rejected at every stage, and then it almost
Speaker 2: got sent back down for this sentencing decision or kind
Speaker 2: of a financial penalty being handed down, which is why
Speaker 2: we're talking about it today. So then that's the focus.
Speaker 2: What was the process in working out exactly how much
Speaker 2: Quantus needed to pay to remedy this mistake.
Speaker 1: So there were essentially two separate issues that Quantus and
Speaker 1: the union have been working in the courts to resolve
Speaker 1: since that point. First, there's this issue of compensation for
Speaker 1: the workers who lost their jobs. Then separately, there are
Speaker 1: the penalties against Quantus for breaking the law. So a
Speaker 1: twofold issue here. In October last year, Justice Lee in
Speaker 1: the Federal Court ordered compensation for the eighteen hundred affected workers,
Speaker 1: and the court found that Quantus should compensate them not
Speaker 1: just for economic losses like lost wages, but also for
Speaker 1: non economic losses, including what the court called hurt and suffering. Now,
Speaker 1: before landing on a figure, how do you determine, you know,
Speaker 1: the value of what these eighteen hundred workers should be awarded,
Speaker 1: There was a bit of a test case in the
Speaker 1: Federal court now that involved three of the impacted workers.
Speaker 1: These were three Quantus staffers aged in their fifties. Two
Speaker 1: of them had worked for the company for twenty years,
Speaker 1: and we heard firsthand from them about what the sacking
Speaker 1: had done to them mentally, physically, the emotional fallout, relationship fallouts,
Speaker 1: the whole kind of gamut of negative experiences were on
Speaker 1: display from those three representatives. Justice Lee awarded those ex
Speaker 1: Quantus workers a total of one hundred and seventy thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: and that became a sort of blueprint for broader compensation
Speaker 1: to figure out a scheme that would include all eighteen
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty workers.
Speaker 2: So they had those test cases, they came up with
Speaker 2: a bit of a figure. There has that now been
Speaker 2: resolved and is every worker going to receive a check
Speaker 2: for the damage and the lost wages? Yeah?
Speaker 1: In short, yes, So in December, based on that case
Speaker 1: with the three workers, Quantus agreed to pay one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty million dollars in total into a compensation fund
Speaker 1: for all affected former employees. But that still left us
Speaker 1: with this question of penalties. So, yep, you're going to
Speaker 1: compensate the workers that you were found to have illegally sacked.
Speaker 1: But what is the price that you should pay for
Speaker 1: making that mistake, for breaking the law in that way?
Speaker 2: And that's why we're talking about it today. So in
Speaker 2: that two part equation you were talking about earlier of
Speaker 2: compensating the employees and then the penalties were now at
Speaker 2: that penalty's bit. Yep, what did Justice Lee rule?
Speaker 1: So Justice Lee ordered Quantas to pay ninety million dollars
Speaker 1: in penalties, and as we've explained, that is on top
Speaker 1: of the compensation payment that it's required to pay.
Speaker 2: So we're now over two hundred million dollars exactly.
Speaker 1: The TWU was seeking the maximum penalty, which would have
Speaker 1: been one hundred twenty one million dollars. Quantus had argued
Speaker 1: for a mid range penalty, of course, something between the
Speaker 1: forty and eighty million dollar mark, so we were loosely
Speaker 1: expecting a pretty high figure. But Justice Lee said that
Speaker 1: he wanted to come up with a number that was
Speaker 1: going to essentially deter other major corporations from behaving similarly,
Speaker 1: you know, setting a bit of an example here, and
Speaker 1: he was pretty scathing about the conduct of the airline.
Speaker 1: He said that quote, to deprive someone of work illegally
Speaker 1: is to deprive someone of an aspect of their human dignity.
Speaker 1: And this is not assuaged simply by expressions of regret.
Speaker 2: It's pretty strong language from the judge there. Tell me
Speaker 2: about how he characterized Quantus's behavior, because the focus of
Speaker 2: this penalty bit is really about assessing their role in
Speaker 2: this process, and obviously it's worth ninety million dollars in penalties. Yeah,
Speaker 2: how did you describe Quantus as a kind of corporate citizen?
Speaker 1: It was really interesting and just as Michael Lee is,
Speaker 1: as you can imagine, a very articulate judge. He was
Speaker 1: particularly critical of how Quantus handled the case. Immediately after
Speaker 1: the outsourcing came to light. He criticized them of a
Speaker 1: lack of transparency, of kind of a dishonesty with the
Speaker 1: community about what was going on, and the judge also
Speaker 1: noted that while the airline did eventually apologize publicly that
Speaker 1: it had attempted to deny compensation payments to affected workers
Speaker 1: and that it had been quote the wrong kind of sorry.
Speaker 1: So Lee suggested that the remorse shown by quantus quote
Speaker 1: more likely reflects the damage this case has done, rather
Speaker 1: than unique remorse for the damage done to the affected workers.
Speaker 2: Let's get a quick response from the TWU. How have
Speaker 2: they responded to the penalty?
Speaker 1: So the union has said that they're not necessarily happy
Speaker 1: about this penalty, but that they do welcome it as
Speaker 1: vindication for workers. Their argument all along has been, you know,
Speaker 1: we never should have been here having these conversations and
Speaker 1: the damage has been done. But National Secretary for the
Speaker 1: union Michael Kin described the penalty as a ninety million
Speaker 1: dollar message to corporate Australia that workers will stand up
Speaker 1: for what's right. The union has consistently argued throughout this
Speaker 1: case that the human cost was enormous. The impact on
Speaker 1: the workers who suffered financially you know, family breakdown's mental
Speaker 1: illness as a result of suddenly losing employment, especially during
Speaker 1: the early scary stages of the pandemic. Cain also touched
Speaker 1: on the fact that the Transport Workers Union brought this
Speaker 1: case and took on a company with quote almost limitless resources,
Speaker 1: knowing it was a long shot. Now, I thought it
Speaker 1: was interesting that Justice Lee actually acknowledged what the TWU
Speaker 1: did here, saying that the TWU quote has alone borne
Speaker 1: the burden of prosecuting this litigation. Now, with that in mind,
Speaker 1: he's actually ordered fifty million of the ninety million dollars
Speaker 1: that Quantas must pay to be paid to the union's
Speaker 1: so some of that penalty will go towards the union's
Speaker 1: legal cost.
Speaker 2: And have we heard from the airline in all of this?
Speaker 1: So Quantus has accepted the federal court decision. There's a
Speaker 1: statement from the airline this week that said the judgment
Speaker 1: holds them accountable for their actions which caused real harm
Speaker 1: to employees. We've heard from the group's CEO, Vanessa Hudson,
Speaker 1: who said the airline apologizes to each and every one
Speaker 1: of the sacked workers and their families, and she added
Speaker 1: that quote over the past eighteen months. We worked hard
Speaker 1: to change the way we operate to rebuild trust with
Speaker 1: our people and our customers. This remains our highest priority
Speaker 1: as we work to earn back the trust we lost.
Speaker 2: And so what happens now, I mean, where do we
Speaker 2: go from here? And I'm interested, particularly if any of
Speaker 2: the money has actually been paid out yet.
Speaker 1: Yes, so the airline Quantus has noted that it has
Speaker 1: paid out that one hundred and twenty million dollars, but
Speaker 1: that has gone to a fund that's being managed by
Speaker 1: the Morris Blackburn lawyers, the law firm representing all the workers. Now,
Speaker 1: the law firm is still working to send those individual
Speaker 1: payments out. It started issuing payments in April this year.
Speaker 1: But it is a really lengthy process and the compensation
Speaker 1: amounts for the workers actually vary, so they're ranging from
Speaker 1: between thirty thousand to one hundred thousand dollars based on
Speaker 1: individual circumstances. So the scale of those payments in accordance
Speaker 1: with the court's orders against the individual circumstances. You can
Speaker 1: understand why it might continue to be a lengthy one.
Speaker 1: But the money is in the bank for all intents
Speaker 1: and purposes from Quantus, and it will pay the penalty
Speaker 1: from this week in accordance with court orders. According to Quantus.
Speaker 2: A really significant employment case that comes to an end
Speaker 2: after many, many years and many tiers of the court system. Emma,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for that. Thank you, and thanks
Speaker 2: so much for joining us on the Daily Ods this morning.
Speaker 2: If you enjoyed what you listens to, we'd love you
Speaker 2: to share with a friend or leave a comment. You
Speaker 2: can listening on Spotify, Apple or watching us on YouTube.
Speaker 2: We'll be back in the afternoon with your head. Until then,
Speaker 2: have a wonderful day. My name is Lily Maddon and
Speaker 2: I'm a proud Arunda Bunjelung Kalkudin woman from Gadighl Country.
Speaker 2: The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
Speaker 2: the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
Speaker 2: all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay
Speaker 2: our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
Speaker 2: past and present.