General Manager Resigns

[Oscar]

Let's not muck around here - either Clayton was 'dismissed' by decision/agreement of the Board - as stated unequivocally by Millard - or he resigned for his own reasons.

 

If the first proposition is true, then the statement by the Chairman vice the Board is at the best ingenuous and basically deceitful to the membership. If the second is true, then the direct imputation of some sort of deficiency in the discharge of his duties is very probably legally actionable - at cost, I suspect, to RAA - and an example of the utter lack of fitness of its promulgator to be in any position of responsibility in the RAA.

 

The situation is no damn joke. As aircraft owners and operators, we are constrained to the RAA - yet it seems as if either: a) it cannot recruit and retain quality staff - except, it would seem, by happy accident; or b) the 'democratic' requirement for election of the controlling body - the Board - ensures the election in some cases of people who would be manifestly incompetent to run a pay-per-squat ablution facility in Uzbechistan.

 

Which is it? We need to know, because we need to change the paradigm.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Gents

 

As I understand it the decision to leave was Mark's entirely and no one had their hand on his back pushing.

 

It is nothing more than has been officially reported, and I understand that the role Mark will be taking on is one that is very close to his interests and family.

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

Then, FFS, someone tell Millard to STFU before RAA is paying lawyers to sort out the mess.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Sorry for my misunderstanding, your first couple of posts suggested (to me) that the board may have asked Mark to step aside because of differences in "styles" and that the board approved the "dismissal" in Marks case.Could you clear this up for me and confirm that it was indeed Mark's decision to step down and the board did not request or encourage him to do so?

The decision for Mark to step down was conciliatory between both parties, and handled primarily between Mark and Micheal Monk the President...............Maj......

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

As mole hills go this seems to be well on approach to mountainous proportions and made entirely of vaccumium........

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Yes I would agree Andy,...some people need to accept that Mark has moved on and move on themselves. Although I have been as truthfull as I can without casting negative assertions on anybody, there are those you continue to try and twist what I say into something it is not. So as far as I'm concerned the subject matter is closed for now. They will have to wait until the President makes his statement on the subject, if he hasn't already done so.

 

Everytime there is a new recruitment the opportunity exists for somebody new to excel and make their mark on the future of the organizations for us. I look foward to meeting and getting to know that new person............Maj....

 

 

[Aldo]

Johnm,I believe the current vacancy is being advertise with a $130 k package. I'm sure president Michael Monck will be on the interview committee so we will end up with the right person with the right talents and direction...........Maj....

Maj

 

I can understand why you are not able to attract someone who will remain in the position if this is all we are paying, this position is worth 250K + expenses (including accommodation, travel etc) and if that means we as members need to pay more then so be it. We need people who know what they are doing and you are not going to get them with 130K pa.

 

To use myself as an example, I'm an electrician by trade and I have spent 25 years in the drilling industry (the last 15 not as an electrician), an electrician on a land based rig is now paid around $160K with 6 months at home. An electrician on an offshore rig is paid around 230K with 6 months at home, and the responsibility for the electricians is nowhere near what the GM of this organisation takes on, who would want to stick their hand up for this job for 130k even if they do have the experience required, you would have to have rocks for brains.

 

Personally I wouldn't get out of bed for $130k a year.

 

Aldo

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Gee Aldo I'm glad your not in the aviation business !!..........

 

 

[Aldo]

Gee Aldo I'm glad your not in the aviation business !!..........

Maj

 

Me too, but I still expect the organisation that I belong to (in aviation) is run professionally and effectively, other wise I may as well just go back to GA, I have done over 150 hrs since December 100 of which is in my Jab (which I think is a fantastic aircraft) but if we are not able to get our act together I may as well ditch the Jab (while I still can) and RA-Aus and go buy a Bonanza/Barron or something of the sorts, the cost may be higher but the long term viability may be much better. An RA aircraft will be worth nothing if we don't have an organisation and we are unable to fly them.

 

Aldo

 

 

[rankamateur]

Before it gets to there, a merger with SAAA will have become much more palatable.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Anyone interested in restraint of trade might do no better than read this article from Corrs:

 

http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/restraints-of-trade-cautionary-tales-for-former-and-future-employers/

 

My take is that there is probably nothing that RAAus has that it could reasonably restrain the departing employee from engaging in with another employer

 

Kaz

 

 

[Aldo]

Anyone interested in restraint of trade might do no better than read this article from Corrs:http://www.corrs.com.au/publications/corrs-in-brief/restraints-of-trade-cautionary-tales-for-former-and-future-employers/

 

My take is that there is probably nothing that RAAus has that it could reasonably restrain the departing employee from engaging in with another employer

 

Kaz

Kaz

 

We sign as part of our contracts non poaching agreements, i.e. if we are working for or under a company/organisation we are not able to engage their employees in our operation and vise/versa for an agreed period of time, I believe (even though I'm no expert, Andy may have a different legal opinion) this could easily be written into our contracts. While we don't work for CASA we effectively work under them.

 

 

[kaz3g]

An employer can put all sorts of things in an employment contract. The question is, "is it enforceable?"

 

To be enforceable, it must be reasonable and it must be to protect trade secrets, particular confidential knowledge, skills or connections not otherwise possessed by the new employer.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Aldo]

Kaz

 

It is a signed agreement by both parties (employers) i.e. neither party will take an employee for the other regardless of anything else, it has nothing to do with the employee.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Aldo

 

Im not a lawyer just a IT specialist commercial manager. Kaz on the otherhand is a lawyer. I suggest that you take her guidance over mine, though I note that nothing I said in my earlier post was repudiated in the link Kaz supplied, in fact it generally agreed.

 

As far as contracts go, I draft these regularly, but for big $ contracts the in house legal team review them.

 

No poaching clauses are very much a standard part of contracts between entity's where there is definite crossover in what they do. A builder doing work for a dressmaking company is probably, other than by inclusion as a standard term in the template, unlikely to need a no poach clause, but an IT contractor providing IT services to a high tech company, you can guarantee that there will be very specific no poach clauses and poaching will be clearly defined, usual so that a tap on someones shoulder with an invitation to work for them is absolutely not allowed, but a public advertisement in seek or career one etc, which the other partys employee find's through expected (unassisted)means and they then apply for on their own without that tap on the shoulder should be Ok...generally......its all about the reasonableness of the clause to the circumstances. If you don't try and overly restrain beyond protecting yourself from damage then you'll generally be Ok.......which is interesting but should not be construed as legal advice by me......

 

Andy

 

 

[kaz3g]

KazIt is a signed agreement by both parties (employers) i.e. neither party will take an employee for the other regardless of anything else, it has nothing to do with the employee.

Also, I'm confused. Is it an employment contract...ie an agreement between the employer and employee? Or is it an agreement between 2 employers?

 

If the latter, it seems unusual but I have no idea if it is lawful.

 

These things usually don't become an issue until an employee has left his employer and is attempting to find alternate work..then all hell breaks loose and there are threats of litigation and even writs flying around.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Spriteah]

An interesting thread. I would like to point out that the position for GM is now advertised on Seek http://www.seek.com.au/job/26545165 Please forward to any Skilled Managers you may know.

 

In the interests of clarity I stress that Mark Clayton was performing well and the board were happy with his progress with repairing past damages and getting the Office back on track. His work ethic was excellent and he spent too many hours working!!! He has chosen to leave to pursue another option and will be returning to Queensland to be closer to family members.

 

In answer to another question there is a master plan for the RAAus which is being followed as best as possible with regard to resources.

 

It is the opinion of the Executive that the General Manager needs to be based in Canberra. Mark made that commitment when he joined our association. To run a virtual office for the GM at this time would not benefit the group. There are 13 staff that require management, numerous meetings require attendance (mostly Canberra) and daily issues that need to be combated. Perhaps into the future other options might become suitable but not at this time.

 

At present I believe there is no intention of relocating the office. It has been discussed (and will continue to be so) however as pointed out by a member we are currently under significant financial pressures and still working to protect our rights. We have many challenges to face in the coming months and relocating would add stresses that at this time are not needed.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock

 

RAAus Treasurer.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Also, I'm confused. Is it an employment contract...ie an agreement between the employer and employee? Or is it an agreement between 2 employers?If the latter, it seems unusual but I have no idea if it is lawful.

 

These things usually don't become an issue until an employee has left his employer and is attempting to find alternate work..then all hell breaks loose and there are threats of litigation and even writs flying around.

 

Kaz

Kaz, The oil and gas industry are doing this at the moment. It's an agreement for a period of time that they will not poach each others employees (an attempt to control wages and manning). I have heard of it but never seen it written. Colusion at its best if it is truly happening.

 

Jim

 

 

[Aldo]

Also, I'm confused. Is it an employment contract...ie an agreement between the employer and employee? Or is it an agreement between 2 employers?If the latter, it seems unusual but I have no idea if it is lawful.

 

These things usually don't become an issue until an employee has left his employer and is attempting to find alternate work..then all hell breaks loose and there are threats of litigation and even writs flying around.

 

Kaz

Kaz

 

Firstly my apologies i didn't realise you were a lawyer, but yes it is an agreement between employers (employees don't have a say), we sign no poaching agreements between employers and as such each employer will not employ an employee from either company for the stated time in the contract. I have no idea whether it would stand up in court if contested but I have never seen it get to that stage as we (as employers) will not accept applications from employees from the other company.

 

 

[Keith Page]

GentsAs I understand it the decision to leave was Mark's entirely and no one had their hand on his back pushing.

 

It is nothing more than has been officially reported, and I understand that the role Mark will be taking on is one that is very close to his interests and family.

 

Andy

Hello Andy

 

First of all:- Congratulation to you putting your self up for the board.

 

Secondly :- You have reported everything in a very good way regarding Mark leaving.

 

Why should he stay with an organisation and when a better position comes up at home with the family and interests he would naturally grab that employment.

 

Well put Andy.

 

Reagrds

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Kaz, The oil and gas industry are doing this at the moment. It's an agreement for a period of time that they will not poach each others employees (an attempt to control wages and manning). I have heard of it but never seen it written. Colusion at its best if it is truly happening.Jim

A fair chunk of the major IT companies in Silicon Valley (San Francisco) had similar clauses....just recently I believe that the employees have started (or perhaps concluded with an out of court settlement) a class action against the companies......

 

It would seem to me to be relevant to the industry you talk of Jim, USA court actions and outcomes are very relevant to Australia, as are English outcomes and other common law countries.

 

http://www.benefitspro.com/2014/03/12/workers-sue-over-silicon-valley-anti-poaching-pact has the details

 

Andy

 

 

[Aldo]

Kaz

 

PS to my last post our legal advisers don't seem to have an issue with this process

 

 

[turboplanner]

Aldo an employee's legal advisers may have an entirely different point of view.

 

I don't know, but would think this would contravene the Trade Practices Act.

 

 

[Aldo]

Kaz, The oil and gas industry are doing this at the moment. It's an agreement for a period of time that they will not poach each others employees (an attempt to control wages and manning). I have heard of it but never seen it written. Colusion at its best if it is truly happening.Jim

Jim

 

I don't know that collusion is correct, the employees are able to go work for any other company if they so choose other than the one/ones you are dealing with during the period of the contract, as you stated previously it is a way of containing wages to a reasonable level, we already pay between 2.5 and 3 times the award for the personnel we require.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hello AndyFirst of all:- Congratulation to you putting your self up for the board.

Secondly :- You have reported everything in a very good way regarding Mark leaving.

 

Why should he stay with an organisation and when a better position comes up at home with the family and interests he would naturally grab that employment.

 

Well put Andy.

 

Reagrds

 

Keith Page

Keith there's been a lot of inventive speculation on this thread about what actually happened with the GM position. Both board members are saying the same thing, and those who were prepared to sack the board because they couldn't keep good staff should read the two statements in conjunction before going off half cocked, when in fact this board appears to have acted in a much more decisive way than previous boards.