Greetings chaps.
Please find attached a document which was sent to me for distribution to all 49ers for your perusal.
It has been compiled by a chap who is the HR Director of a very large company in the UK, albeit not in the aviation business.
This chap knows a couple of us 49ers personally and has been following the "goings-on" with professional and personal interest.
He volunteered to present his view of our situation to us, bearing in mind that he has nothing to gain, or lose for that matter.
In my opinion it is worth reading, at least twice!, and circulating to every member you know.
Regards,
Xxxx
I have put together my thoughts regarding the offer that has been made to the 49ers and given my limited understanding of the situation I do have concerns regarding the deal on the table.
Before explaining my thoughts regarding the proposed deal I think it is important to recognise that in this type of situation, where emotions are frayed, that it is very easy to be critical from a distance. I am not party to all of the information or history and I would not want to under estimate the difficulties of conducting this sort of negotiation.
Its very easy to take a side swipe at the negotiating team and it is not my intention to do so, rather my brother has asked me to give him and you my thoughts with a view to helping him make his decision. If you think my thoughts would be of benefit to others in this situation then please feel free to pass this around as you feel fit.
Introduction
I have a number of areas where I think clarification would help the decision making process and the consultation meetings may go some way to providing the necessary clarity.
Negotiating Parameters
When I conduct negotiations I would normally expect to agree the parameters for the negotiations prior to any discussions taking place. I believe quite strongly that the good negotiator is the person who has the majority of the people that they represent “on side” prior to any negotiation taking place.
It would be interesting to know if the negotiating parameters were actually agreed between Mr. Gardner and the HKAOA/ 49ers prior to the negotiations taking place?
If these parameters were agreed then it would be useful to understand how far apart the desired position is from the deal tabled by the Company. If the gap is substantial, then it would be extremely useful to understand why the Company feels unable to close the gap further. This information should help HKAOA/49ers understand whether or not the offer from the Company is reasonable.
Mr Gardner states in the offer letter that the Company is not able to make further concessions (regarding the deal of offer). I think it would be very useful if Mt. Gardner could given some background on the concessions he has already negotiated from the Company and if he could explain why he feels this is the final offer. Personally I would find this language rather irritating because ultimately this negotiation is necessary because of the unilateral action taken by the Company. I am also “slightly” cynical of the final offer scenario. Personally, I have had to back tract on a number of occasions before delivering the final final and final offer. There is a real skill in making the judgement on whether or not this is actually the final offer or just a negotiating ploy.
On a slightly different point I understood from the letter dated 16th December, that Mr Gardner conducted negotiations on behalf of the 49ers without support from either colleagues or 49ers. If this is the case then I think this must have been very difficult (not to mention stressful) for Mr Gardner. I have been involved with negotiations with employee representatives (trade unions) for a number of years and I know that they would never allow their position to be negotiated by a single person because it would leave them in an extremely vulnerable position. If their membership do not like the deal, they will be attacked for being “in management’s pockets” and I have heard those words on a number of occasions. Ultimately, the deal can be wrecked by a perception of foul play when in fact the actions were totally honourable.
I would not negotiate with a single person, rather I would want all the interested parties to sit round the table and thrash out the deal. It is too easy (and tempting) to intimate a single person. Normally I would expect a negotiating team from both sides to be present and perhaps going forward it would be appropriate to support Mr. Gardner with a negotiating team which includes representatives from the aggrieved employees i.e. the 49ers. This is probably something that the company would not like but difficult negotiations should be tough and hard work. There is a lot of psychology in these situations, which should be exploited For example, it is much easier to be tough when you are not isolated on your own and conversely it is much harder for the Company representatives to negotiate directly with those that they dismissed. Ultimately, the Company can refuse to negotiate with this more formidable body – then you have the choice to continue or not with the legal action. Perhaps no deal is better than a weak deal.
When looking at any negotiation it is very useful to understand the background detail, which clearly I do not have, however, an obvious question is why now? What has brought the Company back to the negotiating table when I understand that the Company has resisted any meaningful negotiations with the pilot representatives regarding the dismissal of the 49ers for the last 3½ years.
I am aware that the HKAOA have won a major case in the labour courts of Australia – sorry bit vague on the detail – and it would be interesting to understand how influential has this been on the Company’s desire to negotiate given the pending court cases. I do hope that the message regarding Australia has been fully circulated because this is good news after a very long time and clearly shows tenacity bears fruit! - Not to mention a rather public and unpleasant court case.
Legal concerns
I am assuming that the following would be some of the desired outcomes from the proposed legal action:
Money in the pocket for those directly affected.
An admission from the company that they were wrong and that they have totally rescinded the previous dismissals.
And most importantly:
A cast iron guarantee from the Company that they will not behave in such an unethical manner towards any employee in the future.
In judging the reasonableness of the offer Mr Gardner seems to be indicating that there is some doubt on the legal outcome from the forthcoming legal action. I believe it is crucial that the membership understand what these concerns are especially in the light of the legal victory in Australia. This knowledge will be very important in making an informed choice.
The offer
I am not intimately knowledgeable about the operational procedures of the Company but given my limited knowledge, I would question whether the deal is sufficient given the loss of earnings and stress suffered by the 49ers and their families’, colleagues and friends. Furthermore I think that the deal, as it currently reads, offers little long-term security for any pilot.
Compensation
There seems to be no compensation for loss of earnings/provident fund for the years since dismissal irrespective if the dismissed employees wish to return to flying or not. It would be useful if Mr Gardner could explain why he is prepared to recommend the deal on this basis.
Interview process
It states in the letter that professional competence would be assumed. Given this I am struggling with the imposition of a three-stage interviews/medical assessment process followed with the final decision being made by a selection panel. I think I am right in saying that this unnecessary mess was created by some secret selection panel (star chamber) in the first place?
The process seems very onerous given that these individuals are the victims of the unnecessary actions of the Company. I can accept the need to psychologically assess people (on the grounds of Health and Safety) before resuming operational flying, however, this is an interesting admission by the Company because it would appear that they are recognising that their actions may have “damaged” some people.
To assess and select people on their feelings and attitudes towards the Company is absurd. It would be completely unreasonable to expect the affected not to feel extremely angry and bitter with the Company given what they have been through.
The Company caused this situation and therefore it is up to the Company to show some compassion and work with all of their employees in order to heal the wounds.
I would assume that should a pilot be medically deemed unfit to fly on psychological grounds that this would, in effect, end their flying career with other airlines as well. In this situation I think it is reasonable and ethical to expect that the Company looks after this individual and ensures that they and their family are financially secure. This is a point that should be raised with Mr. Gardner.
Below are some questions that could be raised at the consultation meetings with Mr Gardner and the legal team.
- Why are there 2 interviews following the medical? What are the selection criteria to be used in both of these interviews - what is the difference between these interviews? If there is no real difference then only one interview should be necessary. (Unless of course this is power play from the management who want to continue to flex their muscles.)
- How is the selection criterion matched to being able to return to work given that the medical assessment regarding psychological fitness has already taken place.
- What training has been given to the interviewers/panel so that they are competent to both under take these interviews and make a decision?
- What happens to those pilots that fail this selection process. Given the situation I think it is entirely reasonable for one of the panel and the medical assessor to sit down with them and explain in detail why they have failed.
- Will the HKAOA/49ers be represented on the selection board
- What will the Company do to ensure that pilots who fail are given every support possible so that they are able to return to full duties.
- What support is the Company going to provide the families of those affected who undoubtedly have also been equally affected by the actions of the Company.
- What happens to a pilot who after receiving additional support is not able to return to operational flying? It would seem reasonable that the financial settlement on offer to those employees who choose not to return should be made available on the same terms to these individuals.
- What happens to an individual who during their “rehabilitation” training is deemed to be not up to the job?
For those pilots that successfully navigate the selection process I was wondering why they do not return immediately to the passenger fleet if that is where they were employed when they were dismissed. I do not understand all the operational intricacies but in order to reintegrate people as quickly as possible it would make sense that they start their re-training (whatever that means) on their original duties. Again it seems reasonable that a Captain would not assume the full duties of a Captain until he/she has passed the normal line checks/assessments that are routinely used. However, the convoluted route back, with no guarantees that they would actually make it back, could be read as more management power play.
It is unclear to me from the letter, but it would seem that the company is proposing to utilise differing/reduced pay scales. If I have read this correctly then this would make me question the commitment of the management team to fully integrate the 49ers back into the Company. Why rub salt into an already very sensitive wound – I sense more testosterone!
cont'd...
...cont\\\'d
Conclusion
Sadly, given the draconian actions taken by the Company I think it would sensible to be very cautious in placing too much trust in fine but rather vague words. It would be easy to be cynical about the Company’s desire to negotiate at this juncture given the court cases in Australia.
In the offer letter Mr. Gardner states that all parties have lost out greatly in this dispute. I would have to disagree with this – it is the dismissed and their families and their friends who have suffered most and this should not be forgotten. The crucial question that needs to be asked, irrespective of compensation payments, is will this offer prevent the Company from behaving in this manner in the future? If this is a no then you have two courses of action:
1. Accept it and hope for the best
2. Decline the offer and stand firm at the negotiating table. The ball is then firmly with the Company who can choose to negotiate or go to court.
Please do not take my thoughts as a reason to say yes or no. Rather I hope that they will help clarify the questions that still need to be addressed. I would strongly encourage people to attend the consultation meetings with Mr. Gardner. I also think that it would very helpful if the legal team could also be present at these consultation meetings so that members have the opportunity to put their questions directly to counsel regarding the legal concerns.
Best wishes