The TWU’s millions: How much will sacked Qantas workers get?

The Transport Workers’ Union will be able to spend the $50 million it was awarded in the Qantas penalties case however it sees fit, say lawyers and labour specialists.

The TWU’s National Council, made up of elected officials and rank-and-file members, is expected to meet “in due course” to discuss how best to deploy the funds towards advancing campaigns across road and aviation sectors.

The $90 million in penalties announced on Monday, along with the $120 million in workers compensation agreed to last year, combined are worth more than five times the union’s total revenue of $39.5 million across all its branches.

The penalty judgment handed down this week includes $50 million awarded directly to the union and a further $40 million that is intended as pay for the workers, but that will be decided through a later legal process.

The TWU told the court the balance of any penalty paid to it “would be used to advance the workplace rights, pay, conditions, wellbeing and welfare of transport workers consistently with” union rules and the Fair Work Act. Justice Michael Lee characterised the promise as having “dubious utility” because it requires the TWU only to obey an aspect of the law.

Former Qantas baggage handler Damien Pollard said the time it was taking to receive compensation was difficult.

“Of course it’s frustrating to all of us how long this process has taken,” Pollard said. “The last five years has felt exceptionally long. There have been relationship breakdowns, people have had to sell their houses.”

The reality was that the blame lay on Qantas, he said. “If Qantas had accepted its wrongdoing the first time it would not have been such a long road. But it’s a huge relief to be getting to the end of it.”

“Obviously, no amount of compensation will mean we get our jobs back,” he said, noting that compensation for the economic loss and pain and suffering will help, as “many of us have struggled financially since we were outsourced”.

Pollard said after being fired by Qantas, he tried to stay in aviation. “But the reality of returning to work in aviation, with another company, with different standards, was hard to adjust to, so I left that employment.”

Other Qantas workers received no compensation after the 2020 lay-offs because they had recently signed an EBA, which meant they weren’t eligible for the lawsuit.

A Qantas employee, who left in 2020, said: “We all saw it coming and many were prepared for it and knew the writing was on the wall.

“That being said, yeah, I’d like a handful of cash; however, I’d never return.

“I’m disgusted at the airline’s treatment of hard-working employees who sacrificed so much for the company,” he said.

The $90 million penalty to be paid by Qantas is on top of a $120 million in compensation that Qantas agreed to pay in 2024. The $120 million compensation figure includes a $9000 uniform payment for all the affected 1820 workers.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is determining how much additional compensation the illegally sacked 1820 ground crew workers will get for their economic losses. This comprises money they lost from being made redundant.

It will be decided on an individual basis with the total based on the impact in each case, which has a range of variables, including whether the employee could find work again. Sacked workers will also be eligible for compensation for non-economic loss, or hurt and suffering, from their abrupt 2020 firing by Qantas.

In assessing the level of compensation, Maurice Blackburn will also consider if the ex-Qantas employee found work soon after losing their job or struggled to find suitable work. For those close to retirement, considerations are different again.

While handing down the penalties ruling on Monday, Judge Michael Lee wrote: “Let us ponder the circumstances of one sacked, healthy and motivated 60-year-old man who very much wanted to continue work, had a mortgage and other living expenses to pay, a wife to support, and who still wished to provide some measure of financial support to his children. He wanted to remain a baggage handler until he was much older but cannot now secure such a role.”

This sacked worker could take a course of vocational training to retrain for a different role, said Lee, but those costs wouldn’t be “properly recoverable as statutory compensation”.

In the penalties case, the TWU submitted that, after paying down its own legal costs, the $50 million would probably be used to “‘test cases or other significant litigation’ which affects a large cohort of members or has wider significance for workers the union is eligible to represent”.

The TWU would also be likely to fund industry-wide campaigns for the employment and industrial interests of members, legislative reform campaigns, and campaigns requiring large-scale public engagement “to achieve systemic change or improved conditions for a large number of members”.

“Additionally, the union is said to be focused on achieving greater protections and entitlements for many workers in the ‘gig’ economy”, according to court papers.

Sources close to the TWU say that at the outset of the case, the union didn’t think it would prevail, but felt it had to at least put up resistance to Qantas’ seemingly opportunistic sacking of the ground crew in 2020 amid the COVID-19 response.

Professor of Work and Regulation at Queensland University of Technology Andrew Stewart said the TWU could use the $50 million as it liked, and that included training, lawsuits and new campaigns.

“If there are cases to be run, they will run,” Stewart says. “How many cases are out there? I don’t know.”

While Stewart expects the Qantas case to have an impact on the litigation strategy of the TWU and other unions, the nature of firings during COVID make the lawsuit unique.

The Qantas case could be a “one-off” in part because of Qantas’ relationship with its employees, which it has sought to outsource for some time.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.