National Bargaining Update
Perth PIA Ballot Result
To start this Update, the AFAP wishes to confirm the very strong PIA Ballot result for Perth-based members employed by Alliance Airlines, that closed on Friday (20/12).
Very simply, there was a great response from AFAP members! Over 97% of Perth members voted in the ballot.
Further to that, of the twelve (12) different PIA actions that Perth-based members had to support or reject, at least 97% (and more commonly 100%) of members voted ‘Yes’, in favour of each and every action!
The AFAP understands that TWU members in Perth voted in a very similar fashion.
Overall, a great result!
Even more so, when you consider that whilst the ballot was still open, Alliance Group management wrote to all Perth Pilots stating that there may be the need for some Pilot redundancies.
Management Email to Perth Pilots 21/12
Unfortunately, Alliance Group management has now come up with a new antic.
An email was sent around to Perth Pilots on Saturday (21/12), requiring all Pilots to individually advise Mark Quintano by email by 1700 (AWST) today, whether they intend to participate in any of the possible threatened industrial actions over a period starting this past Saturday up until 16 January 2025. The email then goes on to say that if no response is received from an individual Pilot, then that Pilot will be assumed to be participating in the threatened PIA.
The AFAP would firstly highlight that there is no PIA scheduled as yet. As such, it’s difficult for any AFAP member (or even a TWU member) to actually state that they intend to take any PIA, because that is something that they will decide at the appropriate time.
All the ballot result on Friday actually meant was that for now, AFAP members (and separately TWU members) can legally take PIA action, at some point in the next thirty (30) days). Whenever, at some point, there is a decision to take PIA, Alliance Group management will need to be provided at least three (3) days’ notice.
A critical point in this matter is that Alliance Airlines already knows the overall number of Pilots with the AFAP (and/or the TWU). Under the FW Act, even though no details are provided to Alliance management about how individual Pilots voted, they are informed of the overall number of Pilots who were involved in the two ballots. As such, they know that nearly all of their Perth Pilots voted for the 12 forms of PIA. That overall number would have undoubtedly concerned them!
Queensland and South Australian EA Ballots
The AFAP is hopeful that all AFAP members in the two States have been closely looking at what the draft EAs actually say, before you vote this coming Tuesday (24/12).
As already stated in previous AFAP Updates, each and every AFAP member needs to closely consider the terms and conditions that Alliance Group management is offering in the draft EAs, and decide whether what is offered is sufficient.
To assist members in Queensland and South Australia with that task, in the past week we have provided all affected members with copies of:
- the original joint AFAP and TWU Log of Claims for each State; and,
- the proposed VARA EA (voted down by their Pilot group, only a few weeks ago).
We hope that those documents have been helpful in giving all members some perspective before the two ballots tomorrow, of what the AFAP (and TWU), and your Pilot Representatives, had hoped to achieve in the current bargaining processes, and what other Pilot groups have been pushing for in their negotiations, at the same time.
Further to that, the AFAP remains very keen to understand what Alliance Group management has actually been saying to Pilots in Queensland and South Australia, in any meetings conducted over the past week, to explain the content of the proposed EAs. In fact, as mentioned in the AFAP’s last Update, we would appreciate a copy of any comprehensive notes that any members may have taken, in any of those meetings.
Chance to Provide Feedback
The AFAP is aware of an email sent out by Alliance Group management on Saturday (21/12), stating that the AFAP’s 20/12 claim that Alliance Group management effectively excluded the AFAP Bargaining Teams, in both Queensland and South Australia, from having any input into the drafting process for the latest versions of either of the proposed EAs was “factually incorrect”.
That is wrong! The AFAP needs to clarify that:
- On Thursday (12/12) and again on Friday (13/12), the TWU bargained alone with Alliance Group management, in relation to the two EAs;
- Alliance Group management then sent out their draft Queensland EA, by email to the TWU and the AFAP, at 15:20 (AEST) on Sunday 15/12;
- Alliance Group management subsequently then sent out their draft Adelaide EA, by email to the TWU and the AFAP, at 19:46 (AEST) on Sunday 15/12;
- In both cases, the emails specified that feedback had to be provided to Alliance Group management no later than noon (Monday 16/12);
At no time was a phone call made to the AFAP, or any confirmation sought of any kind from the AFAP, on either Sunday evening or Monday morning, confirming that the AFAP had actually received the documents, and that the AFAP was actually in a position to meet the stipulated time limits.
By contrast, it’s not too hard to imagine that Alliance Group management, in the wrap up to their meetings on 12/12 and 13/12 with the TWU, are likely to have forewarned the TWU that they were planning on releasing the draft EAs for ballot on Monday. If that is correct, is it any wonder then that the TWU was subsequently in a position to submit further claims and information by the following Monday (16/12).
The AFAP would further draw the attention of all members to the content of our Queensland EA Update, dated 5/10/2024. The scenario that it covers is eerily similar to what happened last Monday (16/12). It also highlights the tendency of Alliance Group management to repeatedly fail to adopt a wide variety of changes during EA negotiations:
...
What's the Major Problem?
Where do we start ???
Perhaps a good point is to discuss the version of the draft EA sent to the AFAP and TWU by Alliance Group management just over a week ago (on Friday 27/9). The Alliance Group wanted your AFAP representatives (along with those from the TWU) to hastily review that draft EA, and provide any response earlier this week.
When we provided our response on Thursday (3/10), we clearly noted that in the Alliance Group's 27/9 version of the draft EA, they had actually rejected over 200 changes that both your AFAP representatives (along with those from the TWU) had previously sought!
At the same time, they only agreed to approximately 50 of the changes the AFAP and TWU wanted! And some of those weren't major changes. So, overall, Alliance Group management had decided to reject outright at least 4 of every 5 changes that your representatives had sought.
Think about that!
Even after 16 or so months of negotiations, Alliance Group management were still only prepared to rectify about 50 or so problems in their draft EA,
...
Proposed EAs – Signatories
The AFAP has received several queries concerned about the AFAP not being mentioned in either draft EA.
Firstly, should either of the two proposed EAs receive the support of the majority of Pilots in Tuesday’s ballots, the AFAP will subsequently apply to the FW Commission (as per normal), so that we are covered by each EA, if/when the FWC subsequently approves the EA(s). Not having the AFAP listed in the EA does not prevent that occurring.
As for the AFAP potentially signing one or both EAs, it should be made clear that when any EA is to be approved by the FW Commission, only a single signature from the employees’ side is required, and that is usually arranged with an employee that will be covered by the proposed EA. Other signatories can sign the document, but as indicated, that is not a legal requirement.
One important problem that will arise though is that, as the Queensland and Adelaide EAs are currently drafted, there will not be any AFAP representative on either of the Pilot Consultative Committees. That’s certainly a problem, given that Alliance Group management are clearly aware that there are far more AFAP members than TWU members in each State.
As such, it’s very obvious that the absence of any mention of the AFAP is not simply an unlucky oversight …
If you have any questions, please contact AFAP Senior Industrial Officer James Mattner (at james@afap.org.au).