Fratemate:
This topic is much better now I've 'ignored' Marvelman and Direct Bondi but that does mean I have to log in, instead of just lurking. It's a shame there's no moderator to rid this thread of extraneous nonsense and irrelevant chest pounding from copy and paste 'experts'.
Not only have you failed (spectacularly) in your attempt to moderate and censor this thread, you conveniently overlooked the title of this forum, copied and pasted below for your review:
Terms and Endearment
The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.
Like the majority of my detractors, you are unwilling or unable to address the content of my posts, entirely applicable to the forum prerequisites above. Sadly, you can only provide witless responses or invent false criticism, such as my necessarily using facts “copied and pasted” from supporting official publications and media reports.
My recent post references Norwegian’s Spanish and US based cabin crews rightly seeking to obtain a Collective Labor Agreement directly with a Norwegian airline, rather than a distant Norwegian Resource Group, fractionally owned, staffing agency, OSM:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/norw...mulig/66770816
Perhaps you can review the International Labor Organization Guide to the Employment Relationship in Europe and provide a reason why Norwegian’s agency employed, LGW based pilots, some represented by BALPA, have bizarrely chosen to accept a collective labor agreement with a staffing agency, despite their “employment relationship” meeting the legal criteria for a CLA and union representation directly with the Norwegian airline:
“In the United Kingdom, a mixed approach comprising statutes, regulations and case law is used to meet the challenge of new types of work [atypical employment]. In some cases judges have demonstrated a degree of judicial creativity to imply a contract of employment between, for example, a user undertaking and a temporary worker. For instance, in Dacas v. Brook St Bureau [2004] ICR 1437,the court found that “as a general (but not invariable) rule for employment law purposes a temp supplied by an employment agency to an end-user client [a Norwegian airline] will be an employee of the client and will be neither self employed nor an employee of the agency itself”.
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pub...cms_209280.pdf
Norwegian declares on its website that it complies (allegedly) with ILO conventions. There should be no issue for Norwegian to accept the direct employment criteria detailed in the ILO Guide above:
http://www.norwegian.com/uk/about/co...y/human-worth/
Norwegian’s agency employed pilots should follow the lead of the flight attendants and seek a CLA and union representation directly with the Norwegian airline.
BALPA continues to deposit pilot union dues for representation to a staffing agency.