Rik Nodes

Tony,

Good news and bad, this week.

I’m very happy to report that the Emirates presentation last week seems to have gone down much better than we could have hoped. I’ve watched the presentation on DVD myself, and it seems that they have portrayed a pretty realistic picture of both EK and Dubai. Early feedback I am getting indicates that we won’t have too much of a problem in terms of losing guys; their numbers are better, but the lifestyle issues drag them down. We may, however, lose a handful of more junior pilots, who see it as a quicker route up the ladder. My biggest concern, though, is the numbers they will need over the next few years. They need more than double the number of additional pilots that we do next year, and that continues well into the future. I am worried that we may end up in a bidding war with them, and a spiral of inflationary pay rises.

The bad news is on the legal side. Two issues are pressing, the integration of the last remaining ASL crew, and on-shoring.

We are being asked a significant number of questions regarding winding up ASL, particularly regarding the FACA. It seems that in times past the wording of letters of employment, in conjunction with Veta CoS99, has left holes which may lead to legal challenges. The basic contention is that without the FACA, there is no legal reference to any of our freighter crews being paid according to the published freighter scales. Hence all freighter pilots could be eligible for B-scales. Our legal team is looking at this issue urgently, but their initial take is that a robust challenge could be made.

We have three broad options. First, we maintain ASL, in some shape or form, and retain the FACA. This exacerbates our short-term freighter crewing problems. Secondly, we offer a new set of terms to everyone, to plug the loophole. This is unlikely to be achieved in the required timescale. Thirdly, we fight the legal battle. I am not convinced that this would be successful, and while we could drag it out for a long period, the costs, if we lose, could outweigh the benefits. We do, of course, have a fourth option, in unifying freighter pay scales across the board, but obviously this comes at significant cost. My team are working on long-term costings; I believe the figures will be on a par with those we had for extending A-scale to 65. I certainly do not want to be hit with two bills of that magnitude.

On-shoring is going to be a bigger issue than we thought. I am now concerned that we will not meet the 6 April deadline, and may have to ask HMRC to slip it further. Do you have any further leeway with them? The AOA is making noises about a pay rise to offset the NI costs which crews will have to bear. I think our position of individual tax responsibility will be untenable in the current climate, and we will be asked for 5-10%, depending on rank, to cover the costs. I am loathe to make an offer, particularly as it will benefit all EUR crews, when only UK crews are affected. The option is further sub-dividing our base areas, which is administratively difficult.

The other issue on-shoring raises is that of discrimination. Our UK lawyers are of the opinion that we cannot justify three pay scales for crews flying the same aircraft. As we have A-scale, B-scale and freighter crews all flying the -400 into LHR, we are wide open to a discrimination case. Whether the AOA have the stomach for that legal battle I am unsure, but I have concerns that if any on-shore crew member joins BALPA we could have a serious legal challenge. I have anecdotal evidence that a similar case has been heard (and won) in the past; I am currently trying to verify this.

As for our options; we have no choice but to go ahead with on-shoring. We could press ahead with putting the -300ER into LHR early, and just using the -400 for freighter services. That would go some way to splitting the problem up; we could ensure that all -400F crews were on freighter scale, but it would still leave an A-/B-scale divide on the -300ER. I do not feel that is a tidy enough solution, and it would give us short-term administrative headaches.
My feeling is that we are going to have to merge B-scales and freighter scales at some stage in the future anyway; this will take some of the sting out of any discrimination charge. We are going to have to sit down and talk about pay again soon; as long as we continue to erode the divide between A-scale and B-scale, we could argue that we are working towards removing any historical pay discrimination.

Rik

HaveQuick

The following might be a clue.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 came into force on 1st October 2006.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Human Rights Act 1988— legislation to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into UK Law.

The Equality Act 2006.

Equal Pay
The 1970 Equal Pay Act gave the right to equal pay in the UK for the first time. The UK was required to introduce the Act as a condition of joining the European Union. The right to equal pay covers not only women and men doing the same job, but also in the situation where men and women are doing work of ‘equal value’ but are being paid differently. The Equal Pay Act was amended in 1984 to cover equal pay for work of equal value as a result of a case brought against the UK at the European Court of Justice.

Equal rights in the core of EU legislation.
Equal rights for men and women at work have been included in the Treaty of Rome (1957) and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997).
The European Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000).
Equal pay (1975). Equal treatment between women and men in the field of employment (1976 and amended in 2002).
Social security systems (1979 and 1986)
Equal treatment for self employed workers and their spouses (1986)
Code of Practice and Recommendation to protect men and women from harassment
(1992)
Pregnancy and motherhood (1992)
Parental leave (1996) (E.G. Allowed up to the age of 8)
Part-time work (1997 and 1998)
Proposal to bring together existing directives on equal treatment of men and women in employment into a single text (2004)

Article 141 of the EC Treaty

The principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work is one of the fundamental principles of the European Community and is to be found in Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome. Requires Member States to ensure that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applied. For the purposes of Article 141, 'pay' means 'the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly of indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer'.

Welcome to European Union (UK Basings)…

LOTW

So CX will reduce A scale pay and benifits to the level of B or C scale pay and benefits?

cpdude

That would be just fine with me!

Call it "C" scale and we can then all fight together or quit together.