Seniority (Last in First Out)
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the whole "age discrimination" issue is a red-herring if it can be shown that your demographics do not demonstrate an age bias one way or the other....
baby's demographics represent a broad church in this respect. It is not a "legacy" carrier.
The standard text(s) quoted don't appear to address the uniqueness of the pilot profession.
Unfortunately, whilst the Labour government can churn out legislation at the drop of a hat on such important things as whether I should be allowed to put rubbish in my rubbish bin, the juggernaut will no doubt take years to clarify the rather more important matter of how the new 2006 rules apply to this profession. In the mean time, the courts will have to settle the issue, at huge expense to everyone...
When Slayton was choosing astronauts for the Gemini program, he backed up his proposed crew choices by getting the selected candidates to submit a peer review. Whilst he says he never paid "much" attention to the review, he does say they tended to confirm his selections.
How about "peer review" for redundancies?
I guess it only works for small numbers...
baby's demographics represent a broad church in this respect. It is not a "legacy" carrier.
The standard text(s) quoted don't appear to address the uniqueness of the pilot profession.
Unfortunately, whilst the Labour government can churn out legislation at the drop of a hat on such important things as whether I should be allowed to put rubbish in my rubbish bin, the juggernaut will no doubt take years to clarify the rather more important matter of how the new 2006 rules apply to this profession. In the mean time, the courts will have to settle the issue, at huge expense to everyone...
When Slayton was choosing astronauts for the Gemini program, he backed up his proposed crew choices by getting the selected candidates to submit a peer review. Whilst he says he never paid "much" attention to the review, he does say they tended to confirm his selections.
How about "peer review" for redundancies?
I guess it only works for small numbers...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Nottingham
Age: 72
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved in several redundancy situations (on the receiving end) there is no easy answer. If you sign up for a job on a shiny jet, and your contract says LIFO that is the way it should be. If your contract states, " At the whim of the Cheif pilot" either don't sign it or don't complain.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: london
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think the first in last out seniority option is the best while not perfect promotes and encourages stability. A new joiner to a company like BA or Virgin atlantic where pilots have to wait for years to get to the lhs will beless likely to leave after a long time. I have friends who work for both long term and not planning on leaving. This is compared to ryanair and easy where pilots jump in and out on a regular basis or as seen as companies to build experince.
And guys sory for asking what does Lico stand for?
And guys sory for asking what does Lico stand for?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the 'peer recommendation' should extend to FO's being asked to rate Captains and Captains being asked to rate FO's.
That could help clear out the dead wood!
And to keep the best.
That could help clear out the dead wood!
And to keep the best.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Age: 43
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the demographics prove that the seniority list isnt "ageist" - can it be used then?
I am just 28yrs old and maybe 100 places more senior than 60 year old pilots further down the list. This is true throughout bmi regional - and i also understand this to be case in bmi baby.
Hope the balpa lawyers are sharpening their pencils and preparing to represent the baby boys in the best possible way.
Our industry isnt like any other where you can use fluffy personal qualities to "score" people on how well they do the role and what other talents they can bring to the role. You either meet company standard or you don't - including all line checks and sims. Point taken that there are some a#ses around that people dont like flying with, but none of them are unsafe. So assuming everyone flying is fit for purpose (as we all hope!) then the only other thing left is date of joining. Unless the companies are going to score people on how their individual elements of the Sim went last time, or how many ASRs and individual filed in the last 6 months.
Any baby guys on here - are balpa keeping you all up to date with any developments?
I am just 28yrs old and maybe 100 places more senior than 60 year old pilots further down the list. This is true throughout bmi regional - and i also understand this to be case in bmi baby.
Hope the balpa lawyers are sharpening their pencils and preparing to represent the baby boys in the best possible way.
Our industry isnt like any other where you can use fluffy personal qualities to "score" people on how well they do the role and what other talents they can bring to the role. You either meet company standard or you don't - including all line checks and sims. Point taken that there are some a#ses around that people dont like flying with, but none of them are unsafe. So assuming everyone flying is fit for purpose (as we all hope!) then the only other thing left is date of joining. Unless the companies are going to score people on how their individual elements of the Sim went last time, or how many ASRs and individual filed in the last 6 months.
Any baby guys on here - are balpa keeping you all up to date with any developments?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are checked for competence several times per year - more than any other profession - so ample opportunity exists to dismiss those to whom you refer.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Huh huh huh ... what was the question again?
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that no one seems to know for sure what the impact of LIFO is. We have just gone through it at Thomson and both the management and BALPA came up with an alternative to compulsory redundancies, largely down to the fact that they both daren't put LIFO to the test.
Although this is common sense, having something written into your contract that can be proved to contravene employment law, doesn't make it valid whether you have signed it or not.
If you sign up for a job on a shiny jet, and your contract says LIFO that is the way it should be. If your contract states, " At the whim of the Cheif pilot" either don't sign it or don't complain.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EmbraerFO
Nothing has changed since 1996 then. BD put transfers on to their seniority list at the bottom and took no regard of date of joining the group even within those transferring. BALPA said it was a BD decision, BD said it was a BALPA decison.
So they join baby in 2006, but their length of service with the bmi group is from 2000. This was always a big attraction to keep your date of joining (ie seniority ) with the group, even when new to the new company (ie baby in this case). this principle works with any transfers amongst the 3 airlines. Apparently now balpa are being told this is all nonsense and date of joining the group aswell as the individual airline means nothing!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can there be a debate on this subject? The law about LIFO is clear. The ruling in October 2006 states that LIFO on its own cannot be used as a process for redundancy. It does not matter what your employment contract says. Contracts have never really stood for much anyway and maybe changed by the company if they wish. LIFO can be used in conjunction with other factors but the law clearly states not as a sole reason. A company would leave itself wide open to proceedings if it did.
The majority of companies use disciplinary records as a starting point for redundancies and the use of seniority lists used as a "tie breaker". The fluffy stuff such as punctuality, sickness and levels of co-operation all come in the middle.
Unfortunately nobody wins when redundancies are made.
One final thought. Those that believe they are made redundant unfairly are within their rights to claim unfair dismissal. However, it can be a risky business to take a company to court as statistics show that ex-employees that do, never work again.
The best thing to do is to go quietly.
The majority of companies use disciplinary records as a starting point for redundancies and the use of seniority lists used as a "tie breaker". The fluffy stuff such as punctuality, sickness and levels of co-operation all come in the middle.
Unfortunately nobody wins when redundancies are made.
One final thought. Those that believe they are made redundant unfairly are within their rights to claim unfair dismissal. However, it can be a risky business to take a company to court as statistics show that ex-employees that do, never work again.
The best thing to do is to go quietly.
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blue up
You are quite correct. When Britannia suddenly got rid of all the 130 seat 737-200's and replaced them with 235 seat 757's around 1994 most surplus pilots were at Luton but they in the main were the more senior so the accountant (RB) in charge had to be enlightened about LIFO. In the end voluntary redundancies of a generous nature stopped any enforced ones.
A lot of training Captains were paid to move base from Luton to bases like Birmingham , Bristol etc ( close to where they already lived!!) and then were paid again for all the Simulator details in Luton.One bought a new Mercedes on the strength of that!
You are quite correct. When Britannia suddenly got rid of all the 130 seat 737-200's and replaced them with 235 seat 757's around 1994 most surplus pilots were at Luton but they in the main were the more senior so the accountant (RB) in charge had to be enlightened about LIFO. In the end voluntary redundancies of a generous nature stopped any enforced ones.
A lot of training Captains were paid to move base from Luton to bases like Birmingham , Bristol etc ( close to where they already lived!!) and then were paid again for all the Simulator details in Luton.One bought a new Mercedes on the strength of that!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The general rule in employment law is(was?) that it's the position that's redundant not the person. Fifteen years I had to make some people redundant and sought advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau (England). I was told that a company cannot make someone redundant then immediatly move someone else to fill their position. If that happens then the person made redundant would have a good legal case for unfair dismissal. It would mean you fired them rather than made their position redundant.
If you were contracted to fly one route it would be hard to justify making you redundant unless capacity on that route was being reduced. Similarly if you were contracted to fly a specific aircraft type and capacity on that type wasn't being reduced (eg someone else was converted). I think each case would have to be looked at carefully.
> The majority of companies use disciplinary records as a starting point for redundancies.
That might be true but I think they would be on shakey ground if they gave that as the reason or published it as policy. For example they can't fire you unless they follow the disciplinary proceedure in your contract.
If you were contracted to fly one route it would be hard to justify making you redundant unless capacity on that route was being reduced. Similarly if you were contracted to fly a specific aircraft type and capacity on that type wasn't being reduced (eg someone else was converted). I think each case would have to be looked at carefully.
> The majority of companies use disciplinary records as a starting point for redundancies.
That might be true but I think they would be on shakey ground if they gave that as the reason or published it as policy. For example they can't fire you unless they follow the disciplinary proceedure in your contract.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson,
No it doesn't.
Try reading it again.
Thank God you're not a lawyer.
The ruling in October 2006 states that LIFO on its own cannot be used as a process for redundancy.
Try reading it again.
Thank God you're not a lawyer.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson,
Check out the seniority list as well. I think that you will find that the list from top to bottom is a mixture of ages; hardly ageist to use it is it?
Your misinformation is misguided and dangerous.
Check out the seniority list as well. I think that you will find that the list from top to bottom is a mixture of ages; hardly ageist to use it is it?
Your misinformation is misguided and dangerous.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am pro seniority and therefore pro LIFO. But at age 23 i simply have not had an opportunity to gain 20 years seniority that a 43 year old has. I could only have had my licence and therefore my job, and position in the company, for 4 years. You can see how someone might be able to argue that LIFO is indirect age discrimination.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: world
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone wishes to discover what support they will get from BALPA over this issue, or indeed from the famous British legal system, simply ask a Dan Air Action group pilot. Might be best to wear a flak jacket though.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems clear LIFO is still legal if it can be justified..
Last In, First Out Redundancy Policy
I guess anyone unhappy with that approach could ask their company for written justification.
Last In, First Out Redundancy Policy
I guess anyone unhappy with that approach could ask their company for written justification.
..it is only permissible where an employer can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This means that if, for example, an employer can show that the LIFO principle will reward its most loyal employees, they may be in a position to justify using the principle.
An employer may also be able to justify using LIFO if it is used in conjunction with other criteria to select potential candidates for redundancy, or if it is used to determine a selection between two otherwise similar employees.
An employer may also be able to justify using LIFO if it is used in conjunction with other criteria to select potential candidates for redundancy, or if it is used to determine a selection between two otherwise similar employees.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
busz
Wrong.
If you have accepted and signed a contract embracing LIFO then I'm afraid tough luck.
Although your story is touching, it is a CONTRACT we're looking at.
If you'd disagreed with LIFO at the outset, you wouldn't have signed and would have gone elsewhere.
You can't have your cake and eat it!
Consequently, if I was made redundant now, even though I've got high seniority, I expect Balpa to take my company to court over any decision they selected for my dismissal BUT LIFO!
Wrong.
If you have accepted and signed a contract embracing LIFO then I'm afraid tough luck.
Although your story is touching, it is a CONTRACT we're looking at.
If you'd disagreed with LIFO at the outset, you wouldn't have signed and would have gone elsewhere.
You can't have your cake and eat it!
Consequently, if I was made redundant now, even though I've got high seniority, I expect Balpa to take my company to court over any decision they selected for my dismissal BUT LIFO!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 1500 feet agl
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first issue at Baby, is the base to base operation of the redundancies proposed. This comes back to the basic definition of redundancy - this refers to positions and not people, and also specifies location as a factor. Prior to issuing consultation papers the company needed to select a pool of people at risk. These jobs at risk are as a result of the aircraft losses at BHX - therefore the job losses are limited to BHX. On this issue the law is clear.
From this pool a selection procedure is required - it is here the LIFO arguement kicks into place. The main point is that the selection of the redundancy pool (ie base to base rather than company wide) is very different from the LIFO arguement. Even if LIFO alone was used - it is likely that given the clear statements about the job losses being at BHX then the involvement of people from other bases would be unfair dismissal and illegal.
The LIFO issue is complicated due to the comments made by the judge in the Rolls Royce case. Whilst making his judgement about length of service being part of an overall matrix he made the comment that if purely LIFO he would have been inclined to find that objectionable.
This is not a definitive statement of it being illegal, however as the statement was made it does give an indication of the thoughts of the court.
I appreciate the company position in the matter at Baby, and also the views of BALPA. However I feel that using LIFO alone is likely to lead to problems. Using a broad base of factors in a matrix will allow LIFO to be used as a 'tie-break' situation. I think sickness and performance critieria are hard to establish, and individual sim or check performance results are unlikely to be used. However, repeated failures or disciplinary action as a result of these failures is lkely to be looked at. The same with sickness - they will look at excessive patterns, and unexplained or unusual trends. Any formal disciplinary action or warnings will also be considered. However, unless you have anything way out or bad in your history this is not likely to effect your score.
Whilst not agreeing that a LIFO basis has been used, it will basically end up as a matrix that with all things being equal equates to LIFO.
The issue I do see is where two or more people started on the same day, and at the same base. If the scores are equal - then I do see problems there.
Whilst age demographics may be argued at Baby for making LIFO the sole factor, all you need is a couple of younger people to issue a claim for unfair dismissal.
The contract of employment at Baby specifies a base, and also Last In, First Out for redundancy - however this does not specify company wide, it is suitably vague to encompass the requirement of base to base LIFO. Additionally any changes to the law since the issue of the contract becomes prevailing. With the change of parent for Baby and BMI I am sure that they are aware of the current view of the law - most of these changes have been driven by EU law, for which Lufthansa will be very aware.
My feeling is that unpalatable as this whole situation is - BMI are following a reasonable and fair procedure that is likely to pass scrutiny. They need to show a fair, legal and reasonable selection process - but they are also obligated to do what is in the best interest of the business.
I hope that something can be done to save or limit the jobs at risk.
From this pool a selection procedure is required - it is here the LIFO arguement kicks into place. The main point is that the selection of the redundancy pool (ie base to base rather than company wide) is very different from the LIFO arguement. Even if LIFO alone was used - it is likely that given the clear statements about the job losses being at BHX then the involvement of people from other bases would be unfair dismissal and illegal.
The LIFO issue is complicated due to the comments made by the judge in the Rolls Royce case. Whilst making his judgement about length of service being part of an overall matrix he made the comment that if purely LIFO he would have been inclined to find that objectionable.
This is not a definitive statement of it being illegal, however as the statement was made it does give an indication of the thoughts of the court.
I appreciate the company position in the matter at Baby, and also the views of BALPA. However I feel that using LIFO alone is likely to lead to problems. Using a broad base of factors in a matrix will allow LIFO to be used as a 'tie-break' situation. I think sickness and performance critieria are hard to establish, and individual sim or check performance results are unlikely to be used. However, repeated failures or disciplinary action as a result of these failures is lkely to be looked at. The same with sickness - they will look at excessive patterns, and unexplained or unusual trends. Any formal disciplinary action or warnings will also be considered. However, unless you have anything way out or bad in your history this is not likely to effect your score.
Whilst not agreeing that a LIFO basis has been used, it will basically end up as a matrix that with all things being equal equates to LIFO.
The issue I do see is where two or more people started on the same day, and at the same base. If the scores are equal - then I do see problems there.
Whilst age demographics may be argued at Baby for making LIFO the sole factor, all you need is a couple of younger people to issue a claim for unfair dismissal.
The contract of employment at Baby specifies a base, and also Last In, First Out for redundancy - however this does not specify company wide, it is suitably vague to encompass the requirement of base to base LIFO. Additionally any changes to the law since the issue of the contract becomes prevailing. With the change of parent for Baby and BMI I am sure that they are aware of the current view of the law - most of these changes have been driven by EU law, for which Lufthansa will be very aware.
My feeling is that unpalatable as this whole situation is - BMI are following a reasonable and fair procedure that is likely to pass scrutiny. They need to show a fair, legal and reasonable selection process - but they are also obligated to do what is in the best interest of the business.
I hope that something can be done to save or limit the jobs at risk.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss Management, i clearly stated that i am pro LIFO so the sarcasm in your reply is not appreciated. The guys at the top of the list have shown their loyalty to the company and are far more experienced than me. If i Get made redundant then so be it. Maybe you should read my posts more carefully before replying next time 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellowvestman,
Since the Baby cabin crew already have their matrix, which includes length of service as a parameter for redundancy, I think the base issue is more of a problem from a legal standpoint then LIFO. If the aircraft were factories then I would find the "job rather than the person" argument more compelling but all Baby pilots are expected to operate from any Baby base, present or future, within or outside the UK. This surely means that we are all in one group and operating from transient locations. Many of us are not in our chosen bases and were waiting to gain enough seniority to obtain a local posting. I have been re based five times in the last fifteen years and had to commute for half of that time and have never received a penny toward the cost or even had any tax concessions. If I am now to be told that I am no different from a factory worker (as in the recent RR case) than why don't I get a lunch break, have my environment protected from unreasonable levels of noise or extremes of temperature? Also, if my contract is illegal why was it not re-negotiated?
I think your explanation of the new laws is one of the clearest so far but the regulations are still vague. I feel that we will have to go to court eventually to see how they relate to our profession and our contract of employment rather than for factory workers and theirs. I find the portrayal of our management, by some, as reasonable individuals caught between a legal rock and a hard place quite annoying sometimes. Honouring LIFO can cost airlines money and that's why they don't like it and never have. They're using perceived employment law to wriggle out of it.
Since the Baby cabin crew already have their matrix, which includes length of service as a parameter for redundancy, I think the base issue is more of a problem from a legal standpoint then LIFO. If the aircraft were factories then I would find the "job rather than the person" argument more compelling but all Baby pilots are expected to operate from any Baby base, present or future, within or outside the UK. This surely means that we are all in one group and operating from transient locations. Many of us are not in our chosen bases and were waiting to gain enough seniority to obtain a local posting. I have been re based five times in the last fifteen years and had to commute for half of that time and have never received a penny toward the cost or even had any tax concessions. If I am now to be told that I am no different from a factory worker (as in the recent RR case) than why don't I get a lunch break, have my environment protected from unreasonable levels of noise or extremes of temperature? Also, if my contract is illegal why was it not re-negotiated?
I think your explanation of the new laws is one of the clearest so far but the regulations are still vague. I feel that we will have to go to court eventually to see how they relate to our profession and our contract of employment rather than for factory workers and theirs. I find the portrayal of our management, by some, as reasonable individuals caught between a legal rock and a hard place quite annoying sometimes. Honouring LIFO can cost airlines money and that's why they don't like it and never have. They're using perceived employment law to wriggle out of it.
Last edited by CHfour; 13th Dec 2008 at 22:02.