Case Study: Managing Workplace Relations in the Qantas Dispute

This report provides an analysis of the Qantas workplace relations case, focusing on the legal and practical aspects of the dispute. It begins by identifying the relevant laws and acts, primarily the Fair Work Act 2009, and how they informed the decision-making process. The report examines the significance of labor unions, the concept of a lockout, and the importance of good faith bargaining. It then delves into the application of the Good Faith Bargaining Theory and explores the negotiation tactics employed by both Qantas and the unions involved, highlighting elements of good guy/bad guy strategies. The report references key provisions within the Fair Work Act, such as those related to protected industrial action and the government's response to the dispute. It concludes by analyzing the effectiveness of negotiation tactics and the overall implications of the case, supported by references to academic sources.

Managing workplace relations 1
MANAGING WORK PLACE RELATIONS
Name
The Name of the Class
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State where it is located
The Date

Managing workplace relations 2
The Relevant Laws and Acts to the Case and How They Relate
There were several provisions that were relevant to this case and informed the decision
making in the case. These provisions primarily came from the major federal industrial statute;
the Fair Work Act 2009. However, there were also notable statutory provisions which informed
the ruling in the case, namely: the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), and the
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
Generally, the dispute arose out of negotiations between Qantas and the three unions,
under pt 2-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (herein referred to as ‘FW Act’), for new
enterprise agreements to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of relevant Qantas
employees. The significance of the provision is that it recognizes labor unions (as the three
unions were part of the ones recognized) and connotes the significance of unions in labor laws.
A lockout of employees was in the very foundation of the suit. It was key that statutory
provision which backs up and explains the move be cited in the course of the dispute resolution.
In the commencement of the dispute this provision was cited as s 19, 3 of the FW Act which
states that “An employer locks out employees from their employment if the employer prevents
the employees from performing work under their contracts of employment without terminating
those contracts.” Qantas CEO Alan Joyce relied on the provision in locking out the employees
and justly so.
The unions sought to rely on pt. 3-3 of the FW Act which provide that “employees and
their bargaining representatives are permitted to organize and engage in such action in support of
claims made in negotiations for a new enterprise agreement.” Another important provision with
this regard was s 409 and s410 of the Act which provided that “The permitted forms of protected

Managing workplace relations 3
industrial action by employees are ‘employee claim action and ‘employee response action” The
bargain in good faith provision under s 228 of the FW Act was also imperative in ascertaining
that the parties to the negotiations had good intentions in their bargain.
As for the government’s response, it made an application to FWA under s 424 of the
FW Act. The government elected not to use its powers under Section 431 of the Fair Work Act
2009, which enabled a minister to unilaterally make a declaration to terminate industrial action.
And the application sought termination by FWA of the protected industrial action being taken, or
proposed, by all parties to the dispute relying on s 424(1)(d) of the FW Act which states that the
protected action was threatening, or would threaten, ‘to cause significant damage to the
Australian economy or an important part of it’ (McCrystal, 2010).
The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) came into play because of its
provision that , the federal industrial tribunal could only deal with disputes concerning ‘industrial
matters’, a term defined in s 4 of this Act to include ‘all matters pertaining to the relations of
employers and employees’. Therefore, it was an imperative provision to justifying the
jurisdiction of the tribunal in the case.
Another Act that was pertinent to the issue in place was the Workplace Relations Act
1996 (Cth) s 356 in particular, as inserted by Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices)
Act 2005 (Cth) sch 1; Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 (Cth) ch 2 regs 8.5–8.7. As
commentators have observed, the prohibited content rules betrayed a telling mistrust of
employers, and were scarcely consistent with the ‘freedom’ of agreement-making that the
Coalition professed to support:

Managing workplace relations 4
Application of Theory
The Good Faith Bargaining Theory
The Good Faith Bargaining Theory provides that negotiations should be done in good
faith (Campbell, 2014). as such, would be the application of the new bargaining principles have
always been applied in a flexible and responsive manner, much as the law on good faith
bargaining is still developing. In the foregoing case, the deal between Qantas and the three
unions –parties to the dispute- was a good one. Conversely, in the case of ALAEA, there were
elements of dubious negotiation tactics. 47 formal bargaining sessions were recorded in a span of
15 months (Forsyth and Stewart, 2016). Besides, 18 conciliation conferences had been convened
from the moment ALAEA started taking industrial actions to the termination six months later.
Yet no mention was made on the issue of bargaining with good faith in the course of the
bargaining process even though the parties were always complaining about the other’s behavior
and tactics. This was proof that there was a lack of good faith in the negotiations among the
parties and it was unlikely to succeed.
Negotiation Tactics
Qantas appeared to be employing the good guy/bad guy negotiation tactic with the three
unions. The company negotiators took a hard stance prior to the negotiations and held on them.
For instance, Qantas made it clear that it would not be giving in to the unions’ job security
claims. They were the bad guys. They made extreme demands and backed them up vehemently.
Conversely, the unions appeared to be the good guys. Good guys give a more rational approach
to the situation, insisting for a new enterprise agreement (O'Rourke and Collins, 2008).
Throughout the course of negotiations, their tactics in the dispute increasingly came to revolve

Managing workplace relations 5
around the taking of protected industrial action. They looked to be more reasonable and
understanding and therefore easier to work with.

Managing workplace relations 6
References
Campbell, D., 2014. Good faith and the ubiquity of the ‘Relational’contract. The Modern Law
Review, 77(3), pp.475-492.
Forsyth, A. and Stewart, A., 2016. Of ‘Kamikazes’ and ‘Mad Men’: The Fallout from the Qantas
Industrial Dispute Melbourne University Law Review 36 pp. 785-830
McCrystal, S., 2010. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the right to strike. Australian Journal of
Labour Law, 23(1), pp.3-38.
O'Rourke, J. and Collins, S., 2008. Module 3: Managing conflict and workplace
relationships (Vol. 3). Cengage Learning.
Stewart, A., Forsyth, A., Irving, M., Johnstone, R. and McCrystal, S., 2016. Creighton &
Stewart's Labour Law. The Federation Press.
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)