The collective agreement between the union and ATNS states that all ATCO's will have a minimum of 8 days off in any 28 day cycle.
With the SWC and ATNS being short staffed, they are trying to make up for not enough ATCO's by buying back off days. ATNS is still "negotiating" with the union on the terms of the buy-back. If the employees stick to their guns and the majority votes no then ATNS will approach individuals to try and get back enough off days...
If this fails, the will get a court order where they can use the law to force employees to only have 6 days off in a 28 day cycle. This is possible in the event of an emergency(!!), but the SWC is NOT an emergency.
Unless ATNS sees it as an Emergency?
I have a copy of an email that was sent to HQ (BD in specific) in 2005 where the ATC wrote clearly and without being vague, that we don't have enough people and seeing that it takes approx 4 - 5 years (in our setup of training) to get an ATC in front of a radar screen (I think 2 - 3 years for TWR, might be mistaken!!), there should have been ample time to train.
So if ATNS listened/read and acted accordingly, we should have had enough people to work the SWC by now. BUT, we all know where we are at this stage. Except the people at HQ...
According to our CEO, we are very little understaffed, about 5 - 10 people if I recall correctly (according to a source at our last union meeting - I will get back to this meeting a bit later).
But what gets me is that if this is the case, why need off days to be taken away (forcibly if necessary) for the SWC? The only time that it got out in the press/radio is when one of our senior managers(/negotiator for off day buy-back) said on a (small) radio station (and not many people heard it!!) that they will
get off days back from the employees.
What I want to know is why the union did not hang this on the big clock and issued a press release? ATNS is tiptoeing aound the issue that they want the off days back because off the short staffing issue!! And why does FIFA still think everything is still going smootly? Because the truth of the matter is being kept hush-hush by the company. And this will end badly next year...
Has ATNS done a safety-case study about what the effect will be on the already overworked and stressed employees/ATCO's by taking back 25% of our off/resting time? The simple answer is NO!! Will ATNS be backing the ATCO's that will have incidents/accidents while they were on duty during the SWC - the answer again is NO!! They will make an example of the ATCO and use the excuse that he/she didn't follow procedures.
Well, we are already bending the rules very close to breaking point to accomodate all the present traffic - not to mention to accommodate all the requests from pilots - direct routings, no speed restriction, no delays "becuse we are low on fuel"... (at FAJS radar, everything is negotiable, and the ATCO is the pig if it's not given because the previous ATCO did cave under pressure..)
So to Senior ATCO:
Above is why ATNS gets the award - "Look how well ATNS is doing", meanwhile, behind the scenes the ATCO's are starting to bleed out of their eyes and ears!
To all the Joburg Solidarity (union) members not present at the last meeting:
Wondering why there is a "new" proposal out from ATNS/Solidarity regarding the OFF days. Well, because you were not at the meeting, that's why!
A grand total of 5 members were present (8 with Reps and shop stewards). There was a "typo" on both sets of letters (ATNS + Solidarity) about the terms of the buyback - overtime / hourly rate... And Solidarity got a "brain fart" to tell ATNS that it was wrong. There wasn't even a vote to decide if this should/shouldn't be done, and the union states that it was decided on the meeting - THERE WAS NO VOTE ON THIS! After all the screwing the ATCO's got from the company, we could have been beter off... And both "new" sets of letters didn't even apologise for the "error", just a "revised" option to vote on
So I hope the majority of the people vote FOR the "new" proposal. Then we will propably hear again that the union is not looking after its members - well, you've got yourself to blame for that. You as members had a chance to make a difference (again) but decided not to...
Essential Service
As for Solidarity's excuse about al the decicions thay made (some without consulting the members or putting it to the vote) up to this point - we are waiting for the outcome of the Essential Service "battle".
Solidarity is banking everything on this outcome (but what if we lose??). As I'm personally involved in this issue, I can truly say that we have a strong case - but as expected - ATNS is playing the stalling game. AND Solidarity is just playing along!!! I think I hear laughing at HQ...
The LRA (Labour Relations Act) that deals with the classification of Essentail Service or not, clearly
makes the provision that process must be dealt with in an expeditious manner, but ATNS says the Commision must first investigate and report on the declassification of ATNS as an Essentail Service.
The original date given by the CCMA was 2 December 2009. It has come and gone and the CCMA said it's because they have difficulty in aligning the diaries of the senior people that will serve on the committee... And Solidarity will not put the LRA pressure on them - because we don't want them become angry that we are pushng the issue - nice going Solidarity - right into the hands of ATNS.
Oh, but Solidarity does phone and email them to get answers...
This is Africa - if you don't stop just before committing a crime, Africa time rulz
Now, I do expect a bashing coming my way, but what the heck, I'm used to it by now.