Originally Posted by
Xfiles
Word on the street is that those consenting have signed off critical redundancy protections in their contract, making them less complicated to put on furlough than someone who hasn’t.
IF the Company have altered the redundancy clause for those who sign for SLS, it makes more sense they will protect those who support and EXEMPT them from any redundancy or furlough that may result from the current downturn.
Ya..........I don't think you can do this one way or another.
Most of the COSs/EAs/CAs/CBAs have the redundancy clause referencing the master seniority list. In HKG it's likely possible you could amend YOUR OWN contract/COS but not others. You could certainly not alter the various other collective agreements. Nor is there an easy way for an individual to amend a collective agreement in most other jurisdictions (when a collective agreement exists, in most countries unless there's a contractual provision for it a person cannot make an individual 'deal'). So while you potentially could screw yourself you couldn't alter the requirement to make people redundant based on seniority for everyone else's agreement.
Meaning that if an individual were getting preferential treatment with regard to seniority in HKG the unions in other jurisdictions could file a complaint in THEIR jurisdiction (and adjudicate it with respect to their particular CA). In fact by not consulting with the TUs and 'imposing' this the Company may well have opened up a can of worms. For example, had the terms been clearly delineated and the TUs worked it out in their jurisdiction there may not have been a problem. But now the company may not be able to pay back SLS in those jurisdictions downline even if it wants to. Since there was voluntary leave proposed with no delineated concrete contractual terms (with subsequent 'payment' of salary reduction for this leave) and this came at the expense of NOT making redundancies IAW seniority, this has made some TU members worse off. One possible scheme MIGHT have been to frame this as a form of interest free loan to be paid back according to contract terms. But it went into an uncertain 'soft' quagmire with no delineated terms. So those who didn't take this voluntary scheme have been made worse off by the lack of forced redundancies IAW contract. Now if the company pays back those taking it, those not have been disparaged by the voluntary scheme and may well have basis for grievance or legal action IAW the contract.
SLS falls under the 'voluntary leave' section of those CAs. When the CAs were ratified, I guess it was assumed the individual members would recognize an attempt to short circuit their CA and act accordingly when and if it happened. And could not be compelled to take some scheme which might do so. ON these CAs, there really isn't a way to take a voluntary redundancy (with the layoff procedures being delineated in the CA itself--some with 6 months pay protection and recall rights). I guess some scheme could be concocted and placed under the voluntary leave section much like SLS was that offers a better deal (similar to the way 'real' air carriers do it--overage leave where you're essentially taking a voluntary redundancy over the time period you choose with chosen start and end days; this varies with degree of pay protection and benefit retention).
Were an individual given preferential treatment with regard to redundancy this would violate the OTHER contracts on bases (which are enforceable via real contract and labor law in the respective countries). As would any punitive action for NOT taking a voluntary scheme (or preferential treatment FOR taking a voluntary scheme) in those countries.