Indeed, the personal arguements are distracting from the facts.
EI have spent the last year altering their business model to stem losses and increase yields. So far this has been very successful. To go from losses of E90M+ to a predicted E29M profit for 2010 during the worse recession to ever hit its major market is pretty damn amazing.
A contributing factor to this was the Greenfield restructuring plan which entailed cost savings from ALL Aer Lingus STAFF. In March of this year all groups had signed up to it and all that was left was for EI to implement the changes. Each group had targeted savings and each group negotiated with EI Mgmt to deliver this figure.
The situation we have now with the cabin crew is that they voted Yes to the February agreement but in late June the company announced that further changes would be implemented. (Please note that this was with less than 14 days notice)
New rosters came into effect in July that in some cases increased the workload of crew by up to 50%. (The Greenfield deal called for in the order of 10-15% productivity increases.) In addition the company told the crew that the existing working conditions were to be thrown out and replaced by an as yet unwritten new set. The crew were obviously unhappy with this and tried to resolve it. After all the deal in February once implemented was designed to deliver the required costs savings/productivity increases.
This is where the LRC came into the picture. Please note that the crew continued to work these disputed rosters to show co-operation and willingness to 'keep the show on the road'. So on August 24th the LRC issued their ruling. This changed a number of items among the cc working rules (duty seperation, days off after T/A flights, need to improve rostering system) but it endorsed the existing working rules albeit with changes as detailed in the February 2010 Greenfield plan AND the LRC ruling.
The problems lies in the interpretation of this ruling. (I question how an arbitration ruling can be so vague as to allow multiple interpretions,buts that another arguement)
EI and the union (IMPACT) held discussion 2-3 weeks ago. The talks apparently produced a deal which BOTH sides were happy with. However EI senior Mgmt were not happy with this and subsequently nixed the deal. Thus we have the cc decision to work to rule. Please note that the cc are still working the 'new rosters' so there has been very little disruption so far to passengers.
Now whatever your personal view of EI and/or their cabin crew can we look at this in a neutral light. An Irish company makes an agreement with its staff that entail major changes/cuts. The company doesn't fulfill its side of the bargain before forcing additional changes/cuts on 1/3 of its staff whilst refusing discuss/negotiate with these staff.
A poster on another site provided some example of the disparity between the differing interpretations:
-EI are actually trying to change the existing book of rules which the LRC gave them no clearance for. They were told to "rewrite the rules for mutual clarity". The LRC emphatically insisted that this shall not be a new negotiation. Now call me silly but that to me seems to say 'don't change anything, just word it simpler.'
-LRC didn't pass any ruling changing the duty time limits of crew yet EI are continuing to roster crew longer shifts than allowed under their existing contract and work rules.
-The crew have been fully compliant with the Greenfield plan. The company has so far NOT introduced some of the changes in the plan which were to ensure fully productive and equitable rostering. It is the company who write the roster so they should be implementing any changes mutually agreed in March 2010 BEFORE imposing further changes.
-In addition I am being told that currently EI are badly managing their rosters so are not making full use of their crew resources. As a company I would want to be getting 5 shifts a week from my staff. It seems the range of productivity varies greatly between the cabin crew group. EI claim the current rules restrict productivity, if so how can a large group of EI crew be close to 900 per year?
-Apparently EI are claiming that certain work options will no longer be availible as the LRC ruling didn't specifically refer to them in the document. Now I would assume not referring to them means 'no changes' but maybe I'm wrong....