One of the most important turning points in Australian business and industrial relations history has been the sanctions levied on Qantas Fines Airways during the last two years. After a number of court decisions that revealed illegal working practices and deceptive customer behaviour, the airline, once seen as a symbol of national pride and operational excellence—has come under unprecedented judicial scrutiny.
The Federal Court’s A$90 million punishment for unlawfully terminating 1,820 ground handling employees in the early phases of the COVID-19 outbreak is at the core of this calculation. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s action over “ghost flights,” in which Qantas sold tickets for flights it had previously chosen to cancel, resulted in a separate A$100 million punishment.
When combined with further consumer restitution and a labour compensation fund of A$120 million, Qantas has suffered a total financial and reputational loss of over A$200 million. More significantly, the cases have called into question long-held beliefs regarding the treatment of non-financial corporate wrongdoing under Australian law.
The Decision on the Pandemic That Started a Legal Battle
When domestic travel collapsed and international borders closed in 2020, Qantas acted swiftly to reduce expenses. The outsourcing of ground handling operations at major Australian airports was one of its most important choices. 1,820 luggage handlers, ramp workers, and ground personnel nationwide were let off as a consequence of this action.
In the public eye, Qantas presented the outsourcing as a necessary financial measure. The airline said that outsourcing was necessary to preserve the company’s existence since aviation had essentially come to a stop. Travel refunds, border restrictions, and airline bailouts dominated the public discourse at the time, with little attention paid to the industrial ramifications.
But the ensuing court dispute painted a more nuanced picture. The Federal Court determined in 2021 that Qantas’ outsourcing choice was not only motivated by cost savings. According to the court, the airline has partially prevented its workers from exercising their rights at work, such as engaging in protected industrial action. A large number of the impacted employees belonged to the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU).
Qantas was found to have violated the Fair Work Act, which led to one of the biggest and longest labour conflicts in contemporary Australian history.
Enterprise Bargaining and the Laws That Made Outsourcing Possible
Examining the larger legal context in which the outsourcing took place is essential to comprehending why the Qantas case was so significant.
The Hawke-Keating administration implemented Australia’s enterprise bargaining system, which was intended to decentralise wage setting and tie compensation to worker productivity. But as time went on, it also limited the range of acceptable strike action, rendering the majority of industrial action unlawful outside of certain criteria of “protected action.”
The system made it simpler for firms to outsource work completely or replace permanent employees with labour hires, sometimes at lower pay and worse working conditions. Despite being legal, this paradigm strongly encouraged outsourcing, especially in situations where it compromised bargaining leverage and job security.
The court determined that outsourcing in the Qantas case went beyond legal restructuring to illegally discriminate against workers’ rights.
The Near-Maximum Penalty of $90 Million
Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court fined Qantas A$90 million in civil penalties in August 2025. The punishment is among the highest corporate fines for a non-monetary infraction in Australian history and the biggest ever levied under the country’s labour regulations.
The punishment was purposefully set at a level meant to discourage, Justice Lee made plain. He cautioned big companies against adopting the mindset that they could just decide it was worth the risk by balancing the advantages of illegal activity against the possibility of prosecution. The court made it clear that businesses cannot think they can “get away with it.”
The court said that the punishment was almost at the highest amount permitted under the Fair Work Act, indicating a move away from symbolic fines and towards sanctions that really have an effect.
“The Wrong Kind of Sorry”: Criticism of Corporate Culture
In addition to the hefty penalties, the ruling was noteworthy for criticising Qantas’ business practices throughout the court proceedings. Justice Lee questioned if the airline’s apologies were a sincere attempt to take responsibility or whether they were mostly intended to preserve its reputation.
In light of Qantas’ public apologies to employees, the court chastised what it called a “unrelenting and aggressive” litigation tactic. Justice Lee’s statement, which struck a chord with many, said that the airline had expressed “the wrong kind of sorry.”
This criticism raised more serious concerns about how big businesses react when their actions are questioned, going beyond legal issues.
The Distribution of the $90 Million Penalty
The penalty’s structure was noteworthy and unique in and of itself.
Regarding the A$90 million penalty:
- The Transport Workers’ Union, who filed the lawsuit, was ordered to receive a direct payment of $50 million.
- Supporting the fired employees is the purpose of the remaining $40 million.
After losing many appeals, Qantas decided to create a separate A$120 million compensation fund in 2024, which is in addition to this penalty. Through late 2025, payments from that fund and dividends related to the penalty will be handled; some employees may get their first payments around Christmas.
Qantas is exposed to more than A$200 million when compensation, penalties, and legal fees are taken into account.
The Five-Year Battle and the Transport Workers’ Union
The result, according to the TWU, marked the conclusion of a five-year “David and Goliath” conflict. The decision offered long-overdue justice for workers who lost their jobs at a time of national unpredictability, according to the union and the impacted workers.
Many now consider the case to be among the most significant union wins in modern Australian history. It proved that the resources of a large organisation may be defeated by perseverance, legal strategy, and proof.
Savings vs. Reality in Outsourcing
Evidence presented throughout the hearings indicated that Qantas would have anticipated saving around A$100 million annually by outsourcing ground handling activities; however, the court pointed out that this estimate might have been too optimistic.
In the past, a lot of non-financial businesses operated on the presumption that workplace violations would result in little fines. That presumption was incorrect in this instance. Justice Lee noted that if Qantas ever reaps any financial rewards from the outsourcing choice, it may take years.
According to the ruling, sincere discussions with employees would have been considerably better than years of court cases, settlements, and harm to one’s image.
Examining Leadership and the Alan Joyce Era
Additionally, the case rekindled criticism of Qantas’ leadership around that time. Alan Joyce, the former CEO, was a prominent figure in public discourse, but the court identified gaps in the evidence pertaining to his direct participation since the corporation first submitted insufficient information.
The decision contributed to a larger critique of the corporate culture of the Joyce period, namely the idea that aggressive cost-cutting and legal risk-taking were more important than employees, clients, and long-term confidence.
The ACCC Action and Ghost Flights Scandal
In addition to the workplace issue, Qantas’s handling of consumers during the epidemic had serious repercussions.
The Federal Court fined Qantas A$100 million for deceiving customers by promoting and selling tickets for flights it had previously planned to cancel, after proceedings by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. “Ghost flights” is the term given to this activity.
The impact was felt by tens of thousands of consumers. In addition to the fine, Qantas had to pay A$20 million in compensation in addition to reimbursements or other travel options. The ACCC called the behaviour reprehensible and underlined the need of openness and confidence in airline reservation systems.
The matter received extensive publicity in both Australian and foreign media, particularly from the BBC, underscoring the attention the airline’s actions garnered on a worldwide scale.
Brand Damage and Shareholder Unhappiness
Concern among shareholders over governance, risk management, and recurring regulatory violations increased as a result of the combined litigation results. Investors questioned how a business of its size let such behaviour to continue even after Qantas generated a profit again.
The airline’s reputation as a national pride symbol and the “flying kangaroo” has gradually diminished. Once considered a successful approach by many employers, the very lucrative 2011 Qantas lockout is now generally seen as an early warning of the long-term implications of harsh industrial methods.
A Shifting Legal Perspective on Non-Financial Corporate Crime
Australia has lax punishments for non-financial business wrongdoing for decades. If they were punished at all, wage theft, dangerous workplaces, and even carelessness that caused severe damage or death often resulted in small penalties.
Banks and casinos, on the other hand, were subject to significantly heavier fines for money-laundering violations; Westpac was fined A$1.3 billion. These fines were often seen as expenses of doing business.
It was possible for non-financial firms to have a similar perspective until recently. The sanctions imposed by Qantas indicate a definite break from that strategy.
Reforming Industrial Relations and the Future
Alongside more extensive industrial change, the Qantas example developed. Under the Albanese administration, labour hire loopholes have been closed, penalty rate safeguards have been reinforced, and intentional wage theft has been become a national crime.
Deeper change is still required, according to legal experts like Shae McCrystal of the University of Sydney, especially via multi-employer and industry-level negotiating. The motivation to outsource would essentially vanish if all firms in a sector were forced to provide comparable salary and working conditions.
Employers have retaliated by demanding deregulation and the elimination of what they see as red tape that stunts development. Simultaneously, work-from-home arrangements have changed the atmosphere of the office and provided wider economic advantages via better work-life balance and less commuting. The long-dormant movement for shortened conventional working hours has also resurfaced in public discourse.
A Little Step That Will Have Long-Term Effects
The fines levied on Qantas signal a significant change in corporate responsibility in Australia. They demonstrate that violations of consumer and labour laws can no longer be written off as controllable risks. Fines are a modest but significant step towards reestablishing equilibrium between companies, employees, and regulators, even if they won’t solve serious structural issues on their own.
The repercussions for Qantas go far beyond monetary losses. The decisions have changed how the public, shareholders, unions, and judges see the airline. The cases serve as a reminder to Australia that no business is above the law, regardless of its background or standing.
Conclusion
The lawsuit against Qantas marks a turning point in the history of business and labour relations in Australia. Workplace and consumer law violations can no longer be written off as acceptable risks for big businesses, as seen by the combined penalties for unlawful terminations and deceiving consumers. Penalties that have serious financial and reputational repercussions have been clearly imposed by courts and authorities.
The result reaffirms for unions and employees the need of tenacity and legal fight, especially against influential companies. The decision sends a clear message to companies in general that cost-cutting tactics must adhere to the law and participate in good faith. Although the Qantas verdicts represent a significant step towards greater accountability, they do not address every systemic issue with Australia’s employment system.
The Qantas fines are significant not only because of their magnitude but also because of what they stand for: a rebalancing of power between employers, employees, and regulators; and a reminder that, in accordance with Australian law, corporate conduct will be evaluated not only on the basis of profitability but also on the basis of fairness, legality, and responsibility.
FAQs
What did Qantas get fined for?
Qantas was fined $90 million by the Federal Court for illegally outsourcing and sacking 1,820 ground handling workers in 2020, in breach of the Fair Work Act. The court found the move was partly aimed at preventing industrial action.
Why didn’t Vanessa Hudson’s kids want her to be Qantas CEO?
There is no verified public record confirming this claim. Any references to her children’s views are anecdotal and have not been formally stated or documented by Vanessa Hudson or Qantas.
How much did Alan Joyce get when he left Qantas?
When Alan Joyce stepped down as CEO in 2023, his final remuneration package was reported to be in the tens of millions of dollars, including long-term incentives accrued over previous years. Exact final figures vary by reporting year and are disclosed in Qantas annual reports.
What is the 72-hour rule for Qantas?
The “72-hour rule” commonly refers to fare and schedule change conditions, where certain changes or cancellations may apply within 72 hours of departure, depending on ticket type. Rules vary by fare class and route and are not a single universal policy.
Who owns Qantas now?
Qantas is a publicly listed company on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: QAN). It is owned by a mix of Australian and international shareholders, but under Australian law, at least 51% must remain Australian-owned.
How old is Vanessa Hudson at Qantas?
Vanessa Hudson’s exact age is not publicly disclosed in official Qantas or corporate filings. She became Qantas CEO in September 2023 after serving as the airline’s Chief Financial Officer.
What is the Qantas scandal?
The term “Qantas scandal” commonly refers to two major issues:
- The illegal sacking of ground workers, resulting in a $90m fine
- The “ghost flights” case, where Qantas sold tickets for flights already cancelled, leading to a $100m ACCC penalty
What is the salary of a Qantas captain?
A Qantas captain’s salary varies by aircraft and seniority. Public estimates suggest annual pay typically ranges from $200,000 to over $300,000, with wide-body long-haul captains earning at the higher end.
