TWU slams Qantas for not putting CEO Vanessa Hudson on stand in outsourcing penalty hearing

Qantas is facing heat for not putting CEO Vanessa Hudson on the stand in hearings to determine what penalty the airline should pay for unlawfully outsourcing workers.

Qantas is facing criticism in the Federal Court for failing to put CEO Vanessa Hudson on the witness stand in hearings to determine what penalty the airline should face for the unlawful outsourcing of 1820 ground handling workers in late 2020.

Rather than Ms Hudson, or another executive who was at Qantas when the decision was made, chief people officer Catherine Walsh gave evidence despite only joining the airline in February 2024.

The Transport Workers Union wants Justice Michael Lee to impose the maximum penalty of $121m on Qantas for the outsourcing, arguing there is little evidence the airline’s culture has changed since the event, or that there is genuine contrition.

Qantas is seeking a penalty in the “mid-range” but has not specified a figure.

Barrister for the TWU Noel Hutley, SC, said by putting Ms Walsh on the stand, “it had the look of choosing a person who couldn’t be the subject of true investigation”.

“Ms Walsh had nothing to do with the events (of the outsourcing) and Your Honour will have noticed every time I cross-examined her about a particular event she said ‘well I wasn’t there, I can’t speak to that’,” Mr Hutley said.

“She was put forward by Qantas as speaking on behalf of Qantas but one would have thought if you were truly contrite, you would put someone in the witness box who was there at the relevant time, who could say ‘I was part of the organisation when this decision was made, and it’s now changed its tune’.”

Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson was in a relevant position at the time of the outsourcing decision. Picture: Qantas/NewsWire

Justice Lee said he had given Qantas “every opportunity to call Ms Hudson”.

Mr Hutley also criticised Ms Walsh’s lack of familiarity with the case, after she conceded she had read the court judgments but not affidavits submitted by the various parties.

“It’s our respectful submission that an organisation truly concerned about the culture that produced this catastrophe, would want a thorough investigating into all aspects of that which had transpired to see how it should address those concerns,” he said.

Staff training was undertaken in response to the case but not until March this year, with a second session held on May 12, Mr Hutley told the court.

He suggested the training was a cynical exercise, given it took place 4.5 years since Justice Lee’s original judgment which found Qantas was partly motivated by a desire to avoid industrial action when it outsourced the ground handling workforce.

“At one level Qantas is saying ‘we want to get better’ but there is an absence in this organisation, as is reflected in their contrition, of coming to terms with how serious the events were,” Mr Hutley said.

Barrister for Qantas Justin Gleeson SC is expected to deliver his submission later on Tuesday, with the airline seeking a penalty in the “mid-range”.

Qantas remorse

Federal Court judge Michael Lee on Monday questioned the sincerity of Qantas’ remorse for illegally outsourcing the jobs of more than 1800 ground-handling workers, pointing out that the airline had sought to pay zero compensation to those affected.

The long-running case brought by the Transport Workers Union is now in its final stages, almost four years after Justice Lee found Qantas was motivated by unlawful reasons when it outsourced its below-the-wing workforce.

In the first day of hearings to determine what penalty the airline should face, Qantas chief people officer Catherine Walsh stressed how “deeply sorry” she was for the outsourcing which occurred before her appointment.

Ms Walsh said that view was one she held when she began in the role in February 2024, and continued as she came to understand the background of the matter.

“You understand the primary case put before me (by Qantas) at the compensation hearing, was that I should accept the ‘logical counterfactual’ and that would’ve meant that no compensation would’ve been payable to the workers?” Justice Lee asked.

“Yes,” Ms Walsh responded.

“Were you aware of that as of March 2024 – at the time when you were deeply, very sorry for the workers and the impact to employees – that was the primary case being advanced by Qantas in court?” Justice Lee continued.

“I can understand the view at the time was the need to put all matters before the court, and the court made the appropriate determination,” Ms Walsh said.

“Hopefully you can see from the size of the compensation payment ($120m) that in fact we are very sorry; we do wish for the workforce to be properly remediated.”

Baggage handlers loading a Qantas aircraft at Brisbane Airport after the airline outsourced the work to third-party companies. Picture: Dan Peled

The TWU, whose representation of Qantas workers was dramatically reduced as a result of the outsourcing, wants the court to impose the maximum penalty of $121m.

In his submission to the court, barrister for the TWU Noel Hutley, SC, said the unlawful outsourcing was the “largest ever contravention of the general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act, and the preceding legislation dating back to 1904”.

“The contravening conduct was engaged in solely for money, and in pursuit of Qantas’ economic self interest,” Mr Hutley said.

“Qantas prioritised its commercial interests over those of its loyal employees by we say clearly and demonstrably, breaching the norm prescribed by Section 341b of the Fair Work Act.”

Mr Hutley said the TWU submitted that Qantas attempted to “reverse engineer” the decision-making process by crafting reasons for the outsourcing that would survive scrutiny by the court.

“The processes deployed by Qantas made detection of its contravention all the more difficult,” he said.

The court heard that weeks before the outsourcing was first announced in August 2020, Qantas held meetings with lawyers, drafted affidavits and discussed who should be named as the sole decision maker.

“A strategy was being put in place … to effectively, cynically create a trail which disguises what in truth is happening,” Mr Hutley said.

Justice Lee asked whether the attempted cover-up by Qantas warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty.

He made the point that it was a standard discovery order he issued which turned up a single handwritten document that “gave a window into what was happening”.

It was revealed that the original document was never found – only a scan that was part of an email.

“The message must be sent to the broader corporate community that you can’t play the court for a fool and try to fashion your evidence in a careful way, in order to try to dissemble what went on,” said Justice Lee.

Originally published as TWU slams Qantas for not putting CEO Vanessa Hudson on stand in outsourcing penalty hearing