CHC / DAN dispute in East Anglia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC / DAN dispute in East Anglia
30 staff at air firm face jobs blow - Business - Eastern Daily Press
Nearly 30 staff based at Norwich Airport face being left with neither a job nor redundancy money next month because of a dispute involving two helicopter firms.
The 20 pilots, five engineers and four operational staff work for DanCopter UK whose contract with Shell to fly personnel to and from North Sea platforms comes to an end on July 16.
The contract is being taken up the following day by CHC Helicopter and Denmark-based DanCopter insists that the staff involved should routinely be transfered to the global helicopter giant under Tupe regulations which protect employees’ rights when the service they work for switches to a new employer.
However, CHC is insisting that Tupe does not apply - leaving staff facing the prospect of a long legal battle to even claim their redundancy cash entitlement.
Pilot Luke Morgan, 52, is leading the employees’ fight for justice as a representative of the Independent Pilots Association (IPA) union and has called on the support of Norwich North MP Chloe Smith.
He said: “We face the prospect of presenting ourselves for work at CHC on July 17 and being told they won’t employ us.
“This is people’s lives, it is a dire situation and some people are talking about having to sell their houses.”
Mr Morgan, a father of two, from Mundesley, said his contract entitled him to five months money in case of redundancy but DanCopter would not pay because it said Tupe applied.
He said: “A legal fight could take 12 to 18 months and during that time we will have nothing.”
Phil Flower, general secretary of the IPA, said it would be “complete nonsense” for CHC to argue that Tupe did not apply because the service it would be operating would be different.
The company would be using the same terminal for passengers and flying the same journeys; the fact it was using a different helicopter was academic as some of their members were already trained to fly both aircraft.
Mr Flower said: “If a bus contract changed to a different company you would simply train the drivers to operate a different bus.”
He said if there was no resolution the IPA would be starting legal action against both DanCopter and CHC.
A spokesman for CHC Helicopter said: “Tupe is a legal process that only applies under very specific conditions. It does not apply in these circumstances. As you would expect, commercial arrangements with our clients are confidential so we are unable to provide further detail.”
However, a spokesman for NHV Group, the parent company of DanCopter, said as the service was being continued by another employer, Tupe did apply.
She said they were still looking at ways of mitigating the impact of the loss of the contract.
Ms Smith confirmed she would be meeting with pilots’ representatives in her role as constituency MP.
Nearly 30 staff based at Norwich Airport face being left with neither a job nor redundancy money next month because of a dispute involving two helicopter firms.
The 20 pilots, five engineers and four operational staff work for DanCopter UK whose contract with Shell to fly personnel to and from North Sea platforms comes to an end on July 16.
The contract is being taken up the following day by CHC Helicopter and Denmark-based DanCopter insists that the staff involved should routinely be transfered to the global helicopter giant under Tupe regulations which protect employees’ rights when the service they work for switches to a new employer.
However, CHC is insisting that Tupe does not apply - leaving staff facing the prospect of a long legal battle to even claim their redundancy cash entitlement.
Pilot Luke Morgan, 52, is leading the employees’ fight for justice as a representative of the Independent Pilots Association (IPA) union and has called on the support of Norwich North MP Chloe Smith.
He said: “We face the prospect of presenting ourselves for work at CHC on July 17 and being told they won’t employ us.
“This is people’s lives, it is a dire situation and some people are talking about having to sell their houses.”
Mr Morgan, a father of two, from Mundesley, said his contract entitled him to five months money in case of redundancy but DanCopter would not pay because it said Tupe applied.
He said: “A legal fight could take 12 to 18 months and during that time we will have nothing.”
Phil Flower, general secretary of the IPA, said it would be “complete nonsense” for CHC to argue that Tupe did not apply because the service it would be operating would be different.
The company would be using the same terminal for passengers and flying the same journeys; the fact it was using a different helicopter was academic as some of their members were already trained to fly both aircraft.
Mr Flower said: “If a bus contract changed to a different company you would simply train the drivers to operate a different bus.”
He said if there was no resolution the IPA would be starting legal action against both DanCopter and CHC.
A spokesman for CHC Helicopter said: “Tupe is a legal process that only applies under very specific conditions. It does not apply in these circumstances. As you would expect, commercial arrangements with our clients are confidential so we are unable to provide further detail.”
However, a spokesman for NHV Group, the parent company of DanCopter, said as the service was being continued by another employer, Tupe did apply.
She said they were still looking at ways of mitigating the impact of the loss of the contract.
Ms Smith confirmed she would be meeting with pilots’ representatives in her role as constituency MP.
As coincidence would have it - the local MP also sits on the Transport Select Committee - the same committee who was told by CAA that there was no proof (because they asked the operators CEOs) that the easy termination of 'long-term' contracts using the 90-day get-out clause was the cause for any undue stress and cockpit distractions.....
Any news on that Sumburgh CVR yet?
Any news on that Sumburgh CVR yet?
With the closure of North Denes, a lot of CHC staff have also been affected by the industry downturn. A large number of these staff members have been working out of the base for decades. Does Mr Morgan believe that his rights are greater than that of others in very similar circumstances? How long has he been working for Dancopter in the area?
As stated on a previous thread, a quick look at the TUPE regulation on the ACAS website seems to indicate that TUPE does not apply in this case (non-dedicated staff to the contract, change of equipment). Perhaps Dancopter has been poorly advised by it's lawyers, who then give their staff false hope of a successful resolution?
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Acas advice and guidance | Acas
No doubt the only winners in this situation will be the lawyers
As stated on a previous thread, a quick look at the TUPE regulation on the ACAS website seems to indicate that TUPE does not apply in this case (non-dedicated staff to the contract, change of equipment). Perhaps Dancopter has been poorly advised by it's lawyers, who then give their staff false hope of a successful resolution?
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Acas advice and guidance | Acas
No doubt the only winners in this situation will be the lawyers
Tupe worked when CHC took over the old BHL sar contract, S61's to S92 and 135's. Same again when BHL took the northern SAR back again (same types). What about Lee and Portland? 135's to 189's, if Westland ever gets them sorted.
Just because Shell wants to save a £ peoples lives are in turmoil.
By the way the same Shell who said safety is everything and as fixed wing is 'much safer' than rotor wing they will keep the rotor sector as short as possible. They are now flying 225's from ABDN to N Shetland fields. Why? To give CHC a life line (at the right price) and keep 3 operators on the NS. Where's the Safety Now, Shell?????
Just because Shell wants to save a £ peoples lives are in turmoil.
By the way the same Shell who said safety is everything and as fixed wing is 'much safer' than rotor wing they will keep the rotor sector as short as possible. They are now flying 225's from ABDN to N Shetland fields. Why? To give CHC a life line (at the right price) and keep 3 operators on the NS. Where's the Safety Now, Shell?????
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your information Variable Load, it's not the same situation. The pilots and engineers are on the AW139 which in turns gives them options elsewhere. I understand that CHC have been through the motions and it's not good for anyone! The difference is that Dancopter were given 90 days notice out of nowhere, sat flying a 155. Now where is Johni with his two pence?
Last edited by JustmakingTDP; 3rd Jun 2015 at 14:39.
it's not the same situation
There is another SIMILAR scenario to Dancopter's current problem. CHC is a couple of years into a 15 year contract with Marathon. Marathon is out to tender for the same work. So any contract is only as good as its notice period.
I'm not saying any of this is good, as it isn't. However there does seem to be a huge amount of naivety been shown by those at Dancopter.
And a little side note as NHV was mentioned and petrofac work at Norwich....
current 155 employees pilots and engineers are algededly not being retrained when the yellow 139 appears in the near future...
whats goint to happen to them?
current 155 employees pilots and engineers are algededly not being retrained when the yellow 139 appears in the near future...
whats goint to happen to them?
VL
I think you are confusing different issues.
Denes is closed - no more - whoever has taken that work is doing it from NWI - not Denes.
Dancopter pilots were at NWI to service the Shell contract - there were no other contracts.
Dancopter aircraft were at NWI to service the Shell contract.
Not sure which version of TUPE you have been reading but it is the service which remains the same - just the contractor which has changed - model/brand of equipment is irrelevant as the 'new' contract was for a 155/139 mix a/r.
The same customer, flying the same pax to the same rigs from the same airport on the same schedule. CHC will need to bolster their fleet as walk-to-work boat doesn't work so events have overtaken contract stipulations.
If you want to dig deeper, CHC has got first dibs on using Dancopters' hangar once vacated for heavens sake - as it will then be more convenient as their offices are in the same building - 20-yards from Dancopter.
As you say - it will be the solicitors who will come out smelling of expensive roses. Doesn't matter what we think - the courts will decide :-(
So not Naivity but just surprise that this sort of thing does not happen in the O&G sector because CAA said so........
It is all our fault anyway for allowing previous sharp practices and bully-boy tactics of wallet waving companies around the NS
Denes is closed - no more - whoever has taken that work is doing it from NWI - not Denes.
Dancopter pilots were at NWI to service the Shell contract - there were no other contracts.
Dancopter aircraft were at NWI to service the Shell contract.
Not sure which version of TUPE you have been reading but it is the service which remains the same - just the contractor which has changed - model/brand of equipment is irrelevant as the 'new' contract was for a 155/139 mix a/r.
The same customer, flying the same pax to the same rigs from the same airport on the same schedule. CHC will need to bolster their fleet as walk-to-work boat doesn't work so events have overtaken contract stipulations.
If you want to dig deeper, CHC has got first dibs on using Dancopters' hangar once vacated for heavens sake - as it will then be more convenient as their offices are in the same building - 20-yards from Dancopter.
As you say - it will be the solicitors who will come out smelling of expensive roses. Doesn't matter what we think - the courts will decide :-(
So not Naivity but just surprise that this sort of thing does not happen in the O&G sector because CAA said so........
It is all our fault anyway for allowing previous sharp practices and bully-boy tactics of wallet waving companies around the NS
Re-read the link and have to admit - this case ticks all the boxes so confused why you think it doesn't - he says, she says - all a bit pointless, but interesting to see how 2 people can read the same text and come up with different opinions?
I would suggest that a change of aircraft type does not 'fundamentally change the service' - the walk-to-work boat would tick that box! Shame it's broken ;-)
Dancopter is only in NWI as a result of the Shell contract - they do not have any other contracts so I guess you could argue that their sole purpose is (was!) to fly Shell - tick - unlike some other operators who had aircraft allocated on a percentage basis to different clients.
So I guess Dancopter's lack of commercial entrepreneurship could work in thei employees favour on this occasion - just depends if anyone will be around long enough!!
I would suggest that a change of aircraft type does not 'fundamentally change the service' - the walk-to-work boat would tick that box! Shame it's broken ;-)
Dancopter is only in NWI as a result of the Shell contract - they do not have any other contracts so I guess you could argue that their sole purpose is (was!) to fly Shell - tick - unlike some other operators who had aircraft allocated on a percentage basis to different clients.
So I guess Dancopter's lack of commercial entrepreneurship could work in thei employees favour on this occasion - just depends if anyone will be around long enough!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok here goes
Been there, seen it, done it.
KLM ERA Norwich. There just for Shell contract. (Same as Dancopter).
Contract lost - TUPE did not apply - S76B to S76A+ (Differences only)
Bristow interviewed and took on who they wanted.
TUPE works for the employer (most of the time, anyway).
Been there, seen it, done it.
KLM ERA Norwich. There just for Shell contract. (Same as Dancopter).
Contract lost - TUPE did not apply - S76B to S76A+ (Differences only)
Bristow interviewed and took on who they wanted.
TUPE works for the employer (most of the time, anyway).
I would suggest that a change of aircraft type does not 'fundamentally change the service
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion until a tribunal offers theirs.
Those affected would be well advised to get their CV into circulation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in this case I believe the issue is that one side says it does apply and will not pay redundancy, the other side says it does not apply and will not take the staff. In this case whatever way it goes the staff will loose a legally entitled benefit (either termination benefit or continued employment) so there is no doubt the staff have been illegally dismissed and they will win at a tribunal the question is who illegally dismissed them and therefore who will pay.
There has to be an unfair dismissal claim filed by someone on behalf of the staff and they should try to conjoin shell into the case. Cases like this are normally settled outside the courtroom, presumably to avoid case law being established. If they successfully manage to conjoin Shell then a settlement is more likely although I am sure that shell lawyers will be fighting hard to prevent them becoming involved.
There has to be an unfair dismissal claim filed by someone on behalf of the staff and they should try to conjoin shell into the case. Cases like this are normally settled outside the courtroom, presumably to avoid case law being established. If they successfully manage to conjoin Shell then a settlement is more likely although I am sure that shell lawyers will be fighting hard to prevent them becoming involved.
When Bristow went into Humberside back in 2010, CHC were servicing the BP rigs with S76C and 365. Bristow won the contract, to use S76C++ (under new EASA rules the C and C++ would be different types, not just variants according to latest CAA info)
The CHC pilots were TUPE'd across to Bristow. Bristow initially stated that TUPE never applied right up until the last minute meaning the CHC pilots were on tenderhooks until the 11th hour.
So there are similarities here. Only an employment lawyer/employment tribunal/union can help sort this one out.
The CHC pilots were TUPE'd across to Bristow. Bristow initially stated that TUPE never applied right up until the last minute meaning the CHC pilots were on tenderhooks until the 11th hour.
So there are similarities here. Only an employment lawyer/employment tribunal/union can help sort this one out.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Variable load, a little less patronising wouldn't go a miss! CV's out chaps??? Don't you think they have tried. You seem to have zero compassion. I'm guessing you must be a chief pilot who is ring fenced on a nice 139! You have to understand that we are all pilots who have huge debts (unless military), kids, wife's, houses, cars and are all doing the same crappy taxi service for these rotten oil companies! You may think DC are on wonderful T's&C's, but they have been put in a position none of us want to be in! NO JOB! No redundancy, No where to turn! So Variable load, keep your patronising BS to yourself!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
It is clear that this horrible situation is hugely stressful for all those involved both flight crew and ground staff. I got made redundant back in 1991 at a time similar to this when rotors jobs where scarce.
I think the terrible thing here is for the past couple of years the focus has been on the Heli Operators to convince the Authorities that flight crews and our Engineers are not subjected to commercial pressures and stress specifically caused by unnecessary decisions and practices foisted on them by the client.
This situation is just about as awful as it can get. What manager in his right mind can will fully and deliberatley authorise such action mid contract and not understand the huge potential for a reduction in safety margins that could occur when people are operating under this kind of pressure.
It highlights clearly to me that some of the Oil Companies have no loyalty, no understanding and very little humanity. In my view aviation legislation needs to force these attributes on the client by making them as legally responsible for the employment stability of contracted resources as their employer is. I realise that is of course the intent of TUPE but as we can see in this case, the suits line up their shields and deflect as much responsibility as they can to protect their financial interests.
We, the pilots and the engineers, accept the direct pressures and risks to provide these services. in doing so we continue to line the pockets of so many suits and hangars on who turn their backs on us at the slightest sign that something is difficult.
The two stakeholders in this issue should be wholeheartedly ashamed of themselves for not giving those affected the respect and financial compensation that morally, sensibly and legally they so clearly deserve. Shame on you all.
I think the terrible thing here is for the past couple of years the focus has been on the Heli Operators to convince the Authorities that flight crews and our Engineers are not subjected to commercial pressures and stress specifically caused by unnecessary decisions and practices foisted on them by the client.
This situation is just about as awful as it can get. What manager in his right mind can will fully and deliberatley authorise such action mid contract and not understand the huge potential for a reduction in safety margins that could occur when people are operating under this kind of pressure.
It highlights clearly to me that some of the Oil Companies have no loyalty, no understanding and very little humanity. In my view aviation legislation needs to force these attributes on the client by making them as legally responsible for the employment stability of contracted resources as their employer is. I realise that is of course the intent of TUPE but as we can see in this case, the suits line up their shields and deflect as much responsibility as they can to protect their financial interests.
We, the pilots and the engineers, accept the direct pressures and risks to provide these services. in doing so we continue to line the pockets of so many suits and hangars on who turn their backs on us at the slightest sign that something is difficult.
The two stakeholders in this issue should be wholeheartedly ashamed of themselves for not giving those affected the respect and financial compensation that morally, sensibly and legally they so clearly deserve. Shame on you all.
Couldnt agree more with DB. This situation affects the pilots way more than anyone knows. I saw many mistakes whilst flying during that period of the unknown, by people who never normally made mistakes. Their minds were elsewhere. The only topic of conversation was job insecurity. Lets hope this doesnt end up with an 'incident' at this unpleasant time.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work in the O&G industry, have done for about 30 years. This is the fourth time we have hit a trough in the UK. It will not be the last, like it or not t is a cyclical industry, with a pretty simple and less than smart management approach.
When they are up, it is all go, when they are down it is sack them, slash costs etc. To imagine anything better is just that, imagination. At the moment an exploration well could be drilled for half the cost of last year - but of course no one is brave enough to think that way.
The operators see an potentially huge saving in moving to 3:3 rotas, the obvious effect being a 50% reduction in flights.....
As for TUPE? The critical test is whether there is equipment carried over from the first to the second contact, the initial case law was about a cleaning contract, where the buckets and mops changed hands - and so TUPE applied. If the two companies agree TUPE applies then there are no issues until the initial period expires. So for helicopter services generally TUPE will be difficult to enforce.
Yes it is pretty cutthroat, but it was always like this, if you do not like it, then it is worth remembering just what motivates our paymasters.
When they are up, it is all go, when they are down it is sack them, slash costs etc. To imagine anything better is just that, imagination. At the moment an exploration well could be drilled for half the cost of last year - but of course no one is brave enough to think that way.
The operators see an potentially huge saving in moving to 3:3 rotas, the obvious effect being a 50% reduction in flights.....
As for TUPE? The critical test is whether there is equipment carried over from the first to the second contact, the initial case law was about a cleaning contract, where the buckets and mops changed hands - and so TUPE applied. If the two companies agree TUPE applies then there are no issues until the initial period expires. So for helicopter services generally TUPE will be difficult to enforce.
Yes it is pretty cutthroat, but it was always like this, if you do not like it, then it is worth remembering just what motivates our paymasters.