Source : THE AGE NEWS
Qantas’ illegal sacking of more than 1800 workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by its need to cut costs in an attempt to survive “calamities” facing the business, and senior officers did not realise it was breaking the law, the airline’s lawyers told the Federal Court.
Proceedings to determine Qantas’ penalty for wrongfully terminating 1820 ground staff, which the airline believed would save $100 million a year, continued on Wednesday before Justice Michael Lee.
Justin Gleeson, SC, representing Qantas, denied the airline intentionally took advantage of a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity in the pandemic, as Counsel for the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) argued on Tuesday.
Qantas’ lawyers are arguing for a mid-range penalty instead of the maximum $121 million.Credit: Wolter Peeters
“We do reject the submission that Qantas exploited the crisis to get rid of its employees. Your honour has found that Qantas was facing business calamities. Qantas had duties to everyone, [to] those employees it could manage to keep, to its shareholders, perhaps even to the wider Australian community,” Gleeson said.
During the three-day proceedings, the TWU is requesting Lee award the maximum penalty of $121 million. Qantas is hoping for a mid-range fine between $40 million and $80 million instead, owing to the suggestion that senior officers did not know dismissing the workers was illegal, that they have expressed remorse and have undertaken significant culture changes to prevent a similar error from occurring.
The airline, which received $2.7 billion in taxpayers subsidies during COVID-19, last year agreed to pay $120 million in compensation to the workers it illegally sacked during the pandemic.
Gleeson asked Lee to consider the case as though he were sitting as a “criminal sentencing judge” and to consider Qantas as a first-time offender, with a low risk of reoffending who had cooperated and expressed remorse.
“The risk of making this error again is low and coming to your honour as a first offender, it would be oppressive to say you should pay close to the maximum penalty,” Gleeson said.
“Your honour should find that unlike recalcitrant offenders who need the highest penalty for deterrence, this is a case where the failure was in the territory of mistake, rather than deliberate breach of the law,” he said.
Lee expressed concern at this suggestion, saying a voice recording sent by a senior officer at Qantas was evidence the officer knew “certain things he ought not to record in writing”.
Gleeson asked Lee to consider changes made to Qantas since 2020 that show the company has recognised structural and cultural errors which facilitated the error.
“There was a top-down culture which impacted empowerment and a willingness to challenge or speak up on issues or decisions of concern,” he said, adding Catherine Walsh’s appointment as chief people officer last year was a further indication that the company had changed as she has a personal commitment to “focus on listening [and] creating safe spaces” inside Qantas.
Both TWU’s counsel, Noel Hutley, SC, and Lee have repeatedly criticised Qantas’ decision to call Walsh as the only witness to be cross-examined in these proceedings, with Lee saying the decision shows a lack of remorse from the airline.
“One would have thought, if you were truly contrite, you would put someone in the witness box who was there at the relevant time,” he said.
The Market Recap newsletter is a wrap of the day’s trading. Get it each weekday afternoon.
