Seniority (Last in First Out)
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
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.
The workforce is mobile, and indeed, some contracts say as much.
The airframes are going from BHX, but any crew can operate them.
The pool should, therefore be, any of those employees who can operate them.
The application of previous case law to a situation where the working environment is rather different is not really helping.
It is surely the least unfair option, to uphold LIFO across the workforce, on the basis that this is a universal contractual term, and that there is no age bias in the workforce.
I have to confess, IMHO, the law is an ass if it upholds anything else...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
busz
I accept your criticism, you are in favour of LIFO. Just the last sentence is disturbing:
The reason is, that whatever your age might be, if you have accepted LIFO then I can't see at all how you might be "able to argue" a relationship to age, as LIFO is totally age-unrelated! If I have joined at the age of 45 and you have at the age of 23, then how's LIFO age discriminatory???
CHfour
Very good post indeed.
I accept your criticism, you are in favour of LIFO. Just the last sentence is disturbing:
You can see how someone might be able to argue that LIFO is indirect age discrimination.
CHfour
Very good post indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last in first out died in October 1992, during the Danair debacle, along with any thought that BALPA would support the concept. The cheapest option is redundancy by base or fleet, and as the accountants rule the roost, you can kiss seniority goodbye, unless it is used as a weapon to prevent fleet movement.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 1500 feet agl
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying to be objective, and I do know that feelings will run high in this matter.
However, the definition of redundancy, and the specific of it being position not person is absolute. I have had a look at the contract in question and the agreement - the mobility clause is not sufficient in my mind to validate the arguement of flexible bases. A security pass, and car park pass is issued for a specific base. Your payslip, roster and drop trays are all related to your specific base. If asked to work elsewhere a taxi or transport payment is made, and often hotac arranged. Dual basing is a major issue with the CAA - you have a specified home base with the company reserving the right to operate you from other bases. I think the move at the companies direction clause is aimed to mitigate the risk of making relocation or redundancy payments if they close a base and want to rebase the crews.
My understanding is that working times directives and health & safety come under the coordinated control of the CAA, and is regulated by the relevant CAP documents. I think the extremes of noise and temperature would still raise issue with the authorities and to my knowledge no exemption exists for those matters. I think it has been argued that no excessive noise exists (although the deciding of this fact, and the method may be questionable).
As mentioned before the pool of people selected at risk for redundancy is a separate matter, and base/location of the losses is the major factor. There is always going to be losers in this kind of situation, and those who perceive they have been let down by the law. Any way you cut this upto 26 people will be upset - the law and procedures set down try and make this a fair and transparent process.
One arguement that will not work is that of being compared to a factory worker - in law everybody is equal, with no preference or favour given to your occupation.
SR71 - in the papers I have seen LIFO is mentioned, but not specified as company wide. LIFO is outdated, and proceeding purely on those grounds would be unwise - whilst it is not a popular thought, I do think that the company is handling this whole matter correctly and following a robust and defendable process. Before you ask I am not bmi, or baby management, or anything to do with them.
The recent BALPA news update referred to LIFO having been historically used (with a few exceptions) - this I thought was an interesting admission.
I do appreciate that this is very personal to some people, and emotions are running high - hopefully my comments will be taken as objective.
The consulation I see is that all things being equal seniority should be the tie-break matter - so as long as you have a good record and no major history (proven and documentated by the company having followed a due process), then the higher up the seniority the safer you are. I am still not sure how they deal with people starting the same day, or even with-in the same year. The thing that is unlikely to change is making this a company matter, rather than base to base issue.
However, the definition of redundancy, and the specific of it being position not person is absolute. I have had a look at the contract in question and the agreement - the mobility clause is not sufficient in my mind to validate the arguement of flexible bases. A security pass, and car park pass is issued for a specific base. Your payslip, roster and drop trays are all related to your specific base. If asked to work elsewhere a taxi or transport payment is made, and often hotac arranged. Dual basing is a major issue with the CAA - you have a specified home base with the company reserving the right to operate you from other bases. I think the move at the companies direction clause is aimed to mitigate the risk of making relocation or redundancy payments if they close a base and want to rebase the crews.
My understanding is that working times directives and health & safety come under the coordinated control of the CAA, and is regulated by the relevant CAP documents. I think the extremes of noise and temperature would still raise issue with the authorities and to my knowledge no exemption exists for those matters. I think it has been argued that no excessive noise exists (although the deciding of this fact, and the method may be questionable).
As mentioned before the pool of people selected at risk for redundancy is a separate matter, and base/location of the losses is the major factor. There is always going to be losers in this kind of situation, and those who perceive they have been let down by the law. Any way you cut this upto 26 people will be upset - the law and procedures set down try and make this a fair and transparent process.
One arguement that will not work is that of being compared to a factory worker - in law everybody is equal, with no preference or favour given to your occupation.
SR71 - in the papers I have seen LIFO is mentioned, but not specified as company wide. LIFO is outdated, and proceeding purely on those grounds would be unwise - whilst it is not a popular thought, I do think that the company is handling this whole matter correctly and following a robust and defendable process. Before you ask I am not bmi, or baby management, or anything to do with them.
The recent BALPA news update referred to LIFO having been historically used (with a few exceptions) - this I thought was an interesting admission.
I do appreciate that this is very personal to some people, and emotions are running high - hopefully my comments will be taken as objective.
The consulation I see is that all things being equal seniority should be the tie-break matter - so as long as you have a good record and no major history (proven and documentated by the company having followed a due process), then the higher up the seniority the safer you are. I am still not sure how they deal with people starting the same day, or even with-in the same year. The thing that is unlikely to change is making this a company matter, rather than base to base issue.
Last edited by yellowvestman; 14th Dec 2008 at 20:29.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellowvestman,
Baby was launched with the help of many ex mainline pilots who transfered on the understanding that they could transfer back if things didn't work out (time limited to a year, I think). It was also understood that they would keep their group date of joining if redundancies were ever necessary. LIFO was interpreted by all as company wide. I appreciate that you're merely playing the devil's advocate here but I have to disagree on the following:
LIFO may not have been qualified as company wide but it wasn't qualified as by base either. If the company intended it to be a base by base issue then the seniority (sorry, length of service) list could be expected to be grouped by base and further subdivided by rank as that's the list we all have so we can make career decisions. The list is, in fact, company wide and not subdivided into ranks.
I'm no lawyer (and I presume you're not either) but I can't resist the temptation to say "I rest my case m'lud"
BTW most of these employment laws are devised to protect employees from exploitation by their greedy employers and I'm sure these particular regulations were well intentioned. We may be able to get an exemption if they can be shown to obstruct the wishes and contractual rights of the majority?
Baby was launched with the help of many ex mainline pilots who transfered on the understanding that they could transfer back if things didn't work out (time limited to a year, I think). It was also understood that they would keep their group date of joining if redundancies were ever necessary. LIFO was interpreted by all as company wide. I appreciate that you're merely playing the devil's advocate here but I have to disagree on the following:
SR71 - in the papers I have seen LIFO is mentioned, but not specified as company wide.
I'm no lawyer (and I presume you're not either) but I can't resist the temptation to say "I rest my case m'lud"
BTW most of these employment laws are devised to protect employees from exploitation by their greedy employers and I'm sure these particular regulations were well intentioned. We may be able to get an exemption if they can be shown to obstruct the wishes and contractual rights of the majority?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: world
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the magistrate decided that although DAPAG won the case, and BA had broken the agreements, they were not required to do anything about it, a decision my DAPAG colleagues and I found deeply suspicious. BALPA of course had deliberately chosen to ignore every basic principle that it had enshrined in its' constitution, despite 90% membership in DANAIR, some with 34 years of contributions to them. Of course it's all different now, isn't it. Trust in the union, and the great British system of justice, and it will all be OK.Yeah right.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xrba,
I don't understand this comment... What happened?
Without wishing to drag the whole episode up again, is there a thread you can point me to, regards the Dan Air episode?
yellowvestman,
The company was initially set up as a single base operation. It was implicit that it referred to the whole operation.
What else could it have possibly referred to?!
What I suppose many people object to, is the attempt to use what now appears to be an ambiguous clause in our contract (in the light of six years growth in the complexity of the operation) to justify a course of action that is indisputably contrary to the the original intent of the document.
What is unacceptable, is that, if at the point the operation became a multiple base operation, and at that point the redundancy clause should have been amended or clarified (call it what you want), and if, at the same time, the company were aware that that should have been the case but chose to do nothing, anyone subsequently recruited has been recruited under false pretences as far as that contractual clause is concerned!
This is especially the case for those who have transferred from other parts of the group, who may have had many years of previous service, that otherwise now counts for the square root of &**&^%!
The fact that such an arrangement exists lays waste to any argument that the company ever intended redundancies to be executed in any other fashion other than LIFO on a group basis.
Which means that, this is a scurrilous attempt to exploit the ambiguity for reasons unknown (or known, depending on where you sit on the matter!).
They didn't really expect no-one to object if they changed the rules of the game did they? Especially when they want to do so retrospectively....
BALPA of course had deliberately chosen to ignore every basic principle that it had enshrined in its' constitution, despite 90% membership in DANAIR, some with 34 years of contributions to them.
Without wishing to drag the whole episode up again, is there a thread you can point me to, regards the Dan Air episode?
yellowvestman,
SR71 - in the papers I have seen LIFO is mentioned, but not specified as company wide.
What else could it have possibly referred to?!
What I suppose many people object to, is the attempt to use what now appears to be an ambiguous clause in our contract (in the light of six years growth in the complexity of the operation) to justify a course of action that is indisputably contrary to the the original intent of the document.
What is unacceptable, is that, if at the point the operation became a multiple base operation, and at that point the redundancy clause should have been amended or clarified (call it what you want), and if, at the same time, the company were aware that that should have been the case but chose to do nothing, anyone subsequently recruited has been recruited under false pretences as far as that contractual clause is concerned!
This is especially the case for those who have transferred from other parts of the group, who may have had many years of previous service, that otherwise now counts for the square root of &**&^%!
The fact that such an arrangement exists lays waste to any argument that the company ever intended redundancies to be executed in any other fashion other than LIFO on a group basis.
Which means that, this is a scurrilous attempt to exploit the ambiguity for reasons unknown (or known, depending on where you sit on the matter!).
They didn't really expect no-one to object if they changed the rules of the game did they? Especially when they want to do so retrospectively....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: france
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there was a clause in the settlement that the amount paid out was conditional on it being confidential
Dan Air did not have 90 % Balpa membership nor was any Magistrate involved.It was a civil action not a criminal procecution.
BALPA did an excellent job with BCal (100%) membership bought by BA for £250,000,000 as opposed to the £1.00 they paid for Dan Air.
Those are the facts.
Dan Air did not have 90 % Balpa membership nor was any Magistrate involved.It was a civil action not a criminal procecution.
BALPA did an excellent job with BCal (100%) membership bought by BA for £250,000,000 as opposed to the £1.00 they paid for Dan Air.
Those are the facts.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The document was poured over by both side's legal departments a full year after the law changed in 2006 yet they BOTH signed it in October 2007.
Conspiracy theories aside, neither BALPA nor the company sought to object at the time, because presumably, it was patently obvious to all concerned that the traditional understanding of the clause hadn't changed.
What a mess.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AND -
I would add to that, that since as We, Balpa and the Company understand the state of play as it is today, the ONLY available course of action for the Company is LIFO.
Since they DECIDED NOT TO CHANGE the conditions before the MoA was redesigned, they now have to be Man Enough to take it if anyone dismissed decides to take them to the Courts, for the right or wrong reasons!
I would add to that, that since as We, Balpa and the Company understand the state of play as it is today, the ONLY available course of action for the Company is LIFO.
Since they DECIDED NOT TO CHANGE the conditions before the MoA was redesigned, they now have to be Man Enough to take it if anyone dismissed decides to take them to the Courts, for the right or wrong reasons!
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One, LIFO as a sole selection method for redundancy is most probably illegal.
Up until 2006, had the company used anything else, any dismissal would have automatically been unfair.
Since then, some Age Discrimination legislation has been written into statute.
I fail to see where the age discrimination is in this case?
Ipso facto, has anything changed?
Still, I fly aeroplanes for a living...
Curiously, if Easyjet made redundancies, how would they be made? Base by base? I presume they have a mobility clause in their contract?
Personally, I'd hope that most of the jobs can be saved...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: world
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For SR71, BA took over DANAIR, [laughing called a merger!] and promptly sacked all the staff [about 2000], with the exception of about a quarter of the pilots and cabin crew,[about 200]. In the CC's case the most senior ones were able to be quickly checked out on type during the fortnight we were all forced to continue flying before actual dismissal, [flight safety anyone?] so there was little controversy about their selection. In the pilot's case LIFO was enshrined in their contracts, fully espoused by BALPA until it had to actually do anything about it, and ridden roughshod over by BA who cherry-picked the LGW 737-400 pilots regardless of seniority.
In the decades I was in DANAIR the BALPA membership was around 90% consistently. You have the facts to dispute it do you swordsman? Anyway whether it was in fact 85% or 95% doesn't alter the situation. 51% should have been enough for BALPA, and it was always way in excess of that number. The exact title of the presiding officer in the case that the DAPAG brought I have forgotten, I was working overseas anyway, but in regular contact with a friend of mine who was part of the DAPAG negotiating team. Whether it was a civil or a criminal action matters little to the result. The justice meted out to us by the official body was a travesty. How can anyone decide in one breath that BA was guilty of breaking our contracts, and then not order any proper restitution is beyond me, unless of course there were other factors involved that were kept concealed.
BA's lawyers, unsurprisingly given the track record of their employer, used every dirty trick in the book, including claiming that BA did not require any pilots at the time, which was patently false. BA had suspended recruitment for the period of the case and was desperately short of new pilots, most of whom were unlikely to have been type rated. The settlement, the details of which I am fully aware being a recipient, was a private sop to expedite their recruitment program, it was not part of the official bodies' decision. The sums involved for most of us, and I was in the middle bracket for my share, were small, and the total was considerably less than the surplus in the sacked pilots' pension fund which BA took over, little compensation for a wrecked career/pension/etc. It was accepted by us as we, being unemployed in a terrible market,[Air Europe had gone, Britannia were offering redundancy etc] had little spare funds to pursue a legal appeal.
What ever way you look at it, BALPA were an absolute disgrace, they did not lift a finger to assist us, in fact they were actually on BA's side working against us throughout! What on earth is the point of a paying for a union if they behave like this? Some will bleat that of course it's all changed now, won't happen again, an aberration, pay the 1% and you'll be looked after. Just don't try to convince any of my colleagues about BALPA or you might discover where your sword can fit.
In the decades I was in DANAIR the BALPA membership was around 90% consistently. You have the facts to dispute it do you swordsman? Anyway whether it was in fact 85% or 95% doesn't alter the situation. 51% should have been enough for BALPA, and it was always way in excess of that number. The exact title of the presiding officer in the case that the DAPAG brought I have forgotten, I was working overseas anyway, but in regular contact with a friend of mine who was part of the DAPAG negotiating team. Whether it was a civil or a criminal action matters little to the result. The justice meted out to us by the official body was a travesty. How can anyone decide in one breath that BA was guilty of breaking our contracts, and then not order any proper restitution is beyond me, unless of course there were other factors involved that were kept concealed.
BA's lawyers, unsurprisingly given the track record of their employer, used every dirty trick in the book, including claiming that BA did not require any pilots at the time, which was patently false. BA had suspended recruitment for the period of the case and was desperately short of new pilots, most of whom were unlikely to have been type rated. The settlement, the details of which I am fully aware being a recipient, was a private sop to expedite their recruitment program, it was not part of the official bodies' decision. The sums involved for most of us, and I was in the middle bracket for my share, were small, and the total was considerably less than the surplus in the sacked pilots' pension fund which BA took over, little compensation for a wrecked career/pension/etc. It was accepted by us as we, being unemployed in a terrible market,[Air Europe had gone, Britannia were offering redundancy etc] had little spare funds to pursue a legal appeal.
What ever way you look at it, BALPA were an absolute disgrace, they did not lift a finger to assist us, in fact they were actually on BA's side working against us throughout! What on earth is the point of a paying for a union if they behave like this? Some will bleat that of course it's all changed now, won't happen again, an aberration, pay the 1% and you'll be looked after. Just don't try to convince any of my colleagues about BALPA or you might discover where your sword can fit.
Just a numbered other
The contract of employment at Baby specifies a base, and also Last In, First Out for redundancy - however this does not specify company wide,
Redundancy
Last in first out based on date of joining the bmi group
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the judge in the Roll's Royce case suggested that had LIFO been used as the sole criteria then he may well have come to a different conclusion. As he said that, I believe that then sets a possible precedent which can only be proved/disproved by a test case....which this may well be. I for one hope not.
The question remains unanswered so how you can maintain it is "most probably" illegal is beyond me....
He only said "may"...not "most probably"...
And maybe he only said that because the age demographics of the case in front of him were such that it was going to be an issue.
I contest, that, the age demographics of the bmibaby workforce are nothing like that at RR...although, that to me, seems to be the critical issue...
xrba,
Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As airline employees, we have so far been traditionally treated differently from other workers, due to the various complex non 9-5 nature of the profession.
This is why LIFO has always been an acceptable and was the only tool in the past for carrying out redundancies.
Howcome therefore suddenly we seem to have come under the most general factory workers' criteria for dismissal.
Don't we have that different status anymore? Do we get lunchbreaks I don't know of, do we get crew food I'm unaware of, do we get a nice temperature at work when the APU is tits up at 4 in the morning and its minus 2 deg outside, do we have a staff canteen, do we get regular week ends off etc etc?
The judge in the RR case equally DIDN'T say, amongst his other - maybe(s) and could have(s) - that this should apply to pilots and all!!!
Therefore that case should/could have no bearing on this circus.
So at the end of the day, if the company can break the contract legally, why is there one in the first place? I doubt it, I think they're skating on very thin ice!
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoist
This is why LIFO has always been an acceptable and was the only tool in the past for carrying out redundancies.
Howcome therefore suddenly we seem to have come under the most general factory workers' criteria for dismissal.
Don't we have that different status anymore? Do we get lunchbreaks I don't know of, do we get crew food I'm unaware of, do we get a nice temperature at work when the APU is tits up at 4 in the morning and its minus 2 deg outside, do we have a staff canteen, do we get regular week ends off etc etc?
The judge in the RR case equally DIDN'T say, amongst his other - maybe(s) and could have(s) - that this should apply to pilots and all!!!
Therefore that case should/could have no bearing on this circus.
So at the end of the day, if the company can break the contract legally, why is there one in the first place? I doubt it, I think they're skating on very thin ice!
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoist
