CHC / DAN dispute in East Anglia
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First dibs should go to the CHC ND employees who face redundancy, surely that's obvious! TUPE is supposed to help out but written by dick weeds! Suffered this crap before...taxi!!!
What's the connection (other than CHC)?
https://www5.recruitingcenter.net/Cl...=14545&esid=az
CHC looking for contractors for Norwich - plays into the hands of the ex-North Denes pilots who are also taking CHC to court for unfair dismissal.
SHELL don't allow contractors to operate on their contracts - but I guess, if it's cheaper.........
CHC looking for contractors for Norwich - plays into the hands of the ex-North Denes pilots who are also taking CHC to court for unfair dismissal.
SHELL don't allow contractors to operate on their contracts - but I guess, if it's cheaper.........
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they fire a load of pilots, move the base and instead of keeping on senior and experienced pilots who have been in the company a long time, they re-hire much cheaper contract pilots. I think I see a connection here. Isn’t this pretty similar to Ryanair style tactics?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone remember when Bristow took over Humberside? Lot's of dirty games went on there..... All of the big 3 operators in the UK have blatantly breached TUPE regulations when it suited. Bond in Blackpool anyone....?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ban Don Ling
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26500 .....
I am not involved but your summary seems a little unfair - from afar it would seem there was first a decision to close the airfield of North Denes (been threatened for many years) ..... then subsequent redundancies particularly with slow-down due to oil price ..... a sudden award of a new contract which was already being carried out in Norwich and which no doubt the customer demanded would continue there ..... hardly a base move?
I am not involved but your summary seems a little unfair - from afar it would seem there was first a decision to close the airfield of North Denes (been threatened for many years) ..... then subsequent redundancies particularly with slow-down due to oil price ..... a sudden award of a new contract which was already being carried out in Norwich and which no doubt the customer demanded would continue there ..... hardly a base move?
It was not a base move. Anyone with access to the actual timelines involved, the contract negotiations etc will be able to prove that. The pilots taking legal action for unfair dismissal from N Denes will lose. Sad but true. CHC lost the contracts they flew on and gained another at another base several months later with a new customer. The redundancy processes had been completed.
There is never a guarantee that an operator will win a contract and right up until Shell signed, it was not a done deal. N Denes was closed (and staff made redundant) several weeks (5 from memory) before Shell signed.
Waste of everyone's time and money. Utter waste.
There is never a guarantee that an operator will win a contract and right up until Shell signed, it was not a done deal. N Denes was closed (and staff made redundant) several weeks (5 from memory) before Shell signed.
Waste of everyone's time and money. Utter waste.
The pilots say they were still technically employed by CHC at the time the new contract was announced on April 3 - their notice period running to June 2
Doesn't matter. Under employment law, you are paid for your notice but you are still given notice. Could they take their packages of redundancy and then apply for a job at CHC in Norwich, yes.
CHC did not make them redundant because they wanted to, they were made redundant because they had no work for them.
Legally still employed perhaps but serving notice under redundancy is very different to normal continual employment. That's why they'll probably lose.
Where is Flying Lawyer when you need him/ her?
CHC did not make them redundant because they wanted to, they were made redundant because they had no work for them.
Legally still employed perhaps but serving notice under redundancy is very different to normal continual employment. That's why they'll probably lose.
Where is Flying Lawyer when you need him/ her?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "rehiring" process DC to NHV has highlighted that pilots are their own worst enemy in ruining T&Cs. A "rumour" has it that an ex DC Captain has offered to be paid as a copilot by NHV, whilst still acting as Captain. Btw his job was always there, but he couldn't stomach the status drop to copilot!
Congrats, if true, single handily helping harm the hard fought T&Cs of all North Sea pilots through self seeking. Whilst no doubt your new employer rubs his hands together gleefully.
Congrats, if true, single handily helping harm the hard fought T&Cs of all North Sea pilots through self seeking. Whilst no doubt your new employer rubs his hands together gleefully.
The Death Knell for T&Cs
As has been mentioned before, you get what you deserve. Crappy contract treatment has been tolerated/ignored in the past and, to paraphrase the Manics, - "your children will be next"
You are genuinely welcome to it.
So what happens next after oil price stays low? Maybe negotiate the salary of an ops clerk to be allowed to be a captain?
Maybe a panic move by a scared and blinkered pilot who might not fully understand the responsibilities attached to Captaincy - now that you know what the sector really thinks of the bus drivers why would you choose to work for them? That said, at least his original employer actually had a 'Captaincy' course - his last employer didn't think they were necessary!
Your self-serving tactics are more suited to Whitehall.
I wonder what HeliOffshore's take on it is?
You are genuinely welcome to it.
So what happens next after oil price stays low? Maybe negotiate the salary of an ops clerk to be allowed to be a captain?
Maybe a panic move by a scared and blinkered pilot who might not fully understand the responsibilities attached to Captaincy - now that you know what the sector really thinks of the bus drivers why would you choose to work for them? That said, at least his original employer actually had a 'Captaincy' course - his last employer didn't think they were necessary!
Your self-serving tactics are more suited to Whitehall.
I wonder what HeliOffshore's take on it is?
Last edited by EESDL; 18th Jul 2015 at 17:32.
Johni, CHC do not expect individuals to pay for their own type ratings.
Perhaps the pilots you are referring to have been hired by an 'agency' (DevA?).
Perhaps the pilots you are referring to have been hired by an 'agency' (DevA?).
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most likely this is a bond arrangement repayable if the employee leaves CHC before a specified period of employment has passed.
The bond becomes void if the employee is made redundant.
This has been CHC policy for pilots and engineers in the UK for years and is nothing new.
Engineers bonds have generally been less than half the cost of the training.
A number of staff, pilots and engineeers have paid off the balance of their bond when wishing to leave early.
An engineers type course would cost £30,000+ if conducted at Agusta. Training cost, salary,food and accomodation included. Travel and overtime cover not included.
The bond becomes void if the employee is made redundant.
This has been CHC policy for pilots and engineers in the UK for years and is nothing new.
Engineers bonds have generally been less than half the cost of the training.
A number of staff, pilots and engineeers have paid off the balance of their bond when wishing to leave early.
An engineers type course would cost £30,000+ if conducted at Agusta. Training cost, salary,food and accomodation included. Travel and overtime cover not included.