It is a cynicism commonly expressed that some safety issues raised by unions are more about bargaining tactics or power plays than genuine safety concerns. Of course, one has to be careful about alleging such a lack of sincerity, because safety is a serious issue and your words may come back to haunt you should the allegedly "artificial" risk come to pass.
However, in a recent case involving Qantas, a Federal Court judge held just this. Six maintenance engineers working for Sunstate Airlines (QLD) found defects with aircraft doors. This had the effect of grounding the planes, and occurred immediately after developments (about which the union was not happy) in the course of bargaining for a new enterprise agreement. The alleged safety issues were found to be groundless by the Office of Transport Security and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The engineers were disciplined.
Justice Logan in the Federal Court dismissed the engineers' claims to have been unfairly treated, because while maintenance engineers were actively encouraged by Qantas to report faults, "it is subversive of such a [safety] culture and antithetical to the public interest for what are, in reality, industrial actions to be cloaked as aviation safety issues".
Justice Logan acknowledged that the engineers might have acted due to being "sorely tested" in negotiations, but found that their actions were not those of "men faithful to their trade responsibilities".
As noted above, one needs to think very carefully before taking a stance such as Qantas did, but this case illustrates that when the circumstances are right, taking an assertive stance about false safety issues may receive support where it matters.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
