Having defined that 737 licenced people are surplus to requirements then LOFO applies to that particular skill set. Management always retains the right to manage, that cannot be removed for the clear reason that if they don't need 737 people they cannot be required to make people with required skills redundant,that is clearly ridiculous
Agreed to a point, being, when there is no definition in the agreement as to how the principle of LOFO works, then you risk court action on both sides. In other words, history has not been a good teacher. Both sides seem content to leave the wording that it
applies in the case of redundancies, albeit blurry and open to interpretation,so unions and management can agree to a process as to
how it should work to reduce staff levels to meet the "needs of business".
The fact is, that it has never worked, and gets forgotten about in good times, and has only served to promote confrontation between the parties when the time comes to activate the clause as recent events show.
The nature of change in the aircraft industry requirements for aircraft type, licence coverage and maintenance procedures in running an airline plays it's part in the evolution of agreements. In general, this evolution in agreements has reasonably met the expectations of both sides. But, poor managers and even poorer consultants advising them deliberately creating confrontations with unions and employees means that sitting down and working the blurred view of LOFO was never going to work.
It also means the "right to manage" becomes a subject of ridicule instead of respect.
I would hope that in future agreements that appropriate wording can be inserted to ensure
complete understanding by all parties