Qantas fined $58 million for illegally sacking staff during pandemic

Qantas Airways has been fined A$90 million ($58.64 million) for illegally firing 1,800 ground staff during the COVID-19 pandemic and replacing them with contractors, the Federal Court of Australia said on Monday (August 18).

In imposing the penalty, the largest ordered by a court on a company in the history of Australia’s labour laws, Federal Court Judge Michael Lee also inveighed against the airline's litigation strategy.

While Qantas made changes to its board and management team, Lee said subsequent expressions of regret seemed more aligned with "the damage" the case had done to the company than remorse for the harm caused to workers.

"I accept Qantas is sorry, but I am unconvinced that this measure of regret is not, at least in significant measure ... the wrong kind of sorry," he added.

Lee said the size of the penalty, about 75% of the maximum he could have set, was important to ensure it "could not be perceived as anything like the cost of doing business".

He said A$50 million of the fine would be paid to the Transport Workers' Union (TWU), which brought the case against Qantas.

After the decision, Michael Kaine, the national secretary of the TWU, said, "Against all the odds, we took on a behemoth ... that had shown itself to be ruthless, and we won."

This penalty of $90 million, an unprecedented amount for an industrial breach, reflects the gravity of this. This is the largest breach in industrial relations history, and it devastated these workers and their colleagues and their families," Kaine said outside the court.

Monday's decision follows a December agreement on a compensation fund of A$120 million struck by the airline and the sacked workers.

Qantas said it was a commercial decision but the Federal Court in 2021 held the move to be "adverse action", preventing staff from exercising their workplace rights and unionising, in breach of Australia’s Fair Work Act.

Assessing Qantas’ actions, Lee said he was unconvinced it was truly contrite and criticised its culture, public relations approach and litigation strategy.
 

Copied