3^rd Floor – Disinformation, wedge tactics

 and half truths – mind your step

The pending expiry of the Certified Agreement 2005 – 2008 (Air Traffic Control and Supporting Air Traffic Services) has obviously generated much discussion and has been the target date for successful outcome of negotiations towards a new agreement. Never, at any stage, has there been a doubt that Facilitative Arrangements expire on this date. In fact it’s spelt out in black and white as the very next clause after the renegotiation section. For those playing at home I quote directly (with my bolding):

This position was confirmed early in the agreement by a letter of commitment by the [then] GM People and Change, Alistair Hodgson. So the demise of FAs has never been in doubt. So what does that mean in a practical sense? As we’re well aware the FAs can extend to cover agreed variations to most of the core agreement. But as we see above any variations must be considered as temporary arrangements by virtue of automatic expiry at the end of the agreement.

So the obvious issues are going to relate to those matters that in 2002 – 2005 agreement were managed by way of a different agreement mechanism, the local rostering committee. Things like, shift length and starts before 0600. In effect all rosters must comply with Principles of Rostering from December 21. There is no doubt that many FAs provide benefit to the employee and the employer. Do not misunderstand this that Airservices enter into these arrangements for your benefit alone. Almost invariably they have only agreed to conditions improving things for the employee as the cost of getting what they wanted. The triple acquittal, for instance, is almost pathologically hated because of the significant impact upon utilisation of staff – 3 hours of availability burned for every 0500 start. In a strange twist of fate the idea of extra acquittal for those starts prior to 0600 is mirrored very strongly in the FAID fatigue modelling with fatigue between the hours of 2200 and 0600 accruing at triple the normal rate.

So what about the other things? Part-time employment for example does not of itself require a FA. Sure there are many people who are working rosters outside the core POR whilst working part-time but working 50% can be accommodated within the core CA. You would just have to work POR when you are at work. Is this inconvenient for some of our members? Undoubtedly. Other issues include FAs that vary salary. The current arrangement for System Supervisors fulfilling the role of Ops Director will also expire on December 21.

So where’s the misinformation? Firstly there’s the position that Airservices wanted to help you, the staff, out but Civil Air refused to negotiate. It’s not a case of what we want or don’t want. Simply put the agreement leaves no scope for continuation of FAs. They want the FAs to continue because it has an impact on rostering efficiency not because it helps you. There have also been pathetic attempts to try and paint a picture of your association in disarray and inner turmoil with one SDL stating that our Executive Secretary was having difficulty holding things together due to factional infighting. That would be the faction that has tried to negotiate in good faith for 7 months versus the, oh sorry that’s it. Simple, plain, unadulterated untruth. This is trying to set the scene for the common tactic of claiming that the association is unrepresentative of our membership. The advice received from Divisional meetings was loud and clear. There was virtually no dissention and encouragingly the directions you gave were aligned with the strategy we had planned. How about the tactic, soon exposed, that all other unions were close to signing and we were going to be the only ones missing out. Turns out that technical, admin and fire staff are at least as insulted as we are.

Then there’s the application of POR rosters (or not as the case may be). In one backwater TCU the SDL Manager has simply ignored the provisions of the Certified Agreement. OK there’s some blood on our hands too as there was no FA in place to cover the existing roster. But the manager in question is trying to bulldoze into place rosters with 0500 starts, shifts greater than 7 or 8 hours etc. on the basis of established practice. Here’s the rub, he’s relying on the fact that these roster variations occurred prior to the existing CA therefore if the CA expires he can simply do what occurred before it. Conveniently he has forgotten that the previous CA also expired in its entirety with the commencement of the new one and even then such variations could only be made with local rostering committee approval. Based upon this logic, I’ll go back to ED callout and travel time thanks. I might also advise the tax office that I’ll be complying with any prior taxation regimes that suit my own hip pocket and salary sacrificing a new laptop each year FBT free.

Elsewhere it appears that staff will be required to manage morning burst traffic without the benefit of normal 0500 – 0600 staffing. For all roster modifications where coverage is affected as a bare minimum a safety case determination is required. There appears to be no evidence of this activity. To my mind this is a serious breach of the requirements of our safety management system and will need to be investigated by the regulator to ascertain Airservices’ level of compliance. In one location staff have been told that the normal 0530 starter will not be available and an event report will be lodged daily to note the staff shortage. No doubt this will carry the ubiquitous “staff unavailability” epithet. Admirable that the issue is being recorded but obviously nothing will be done to address the issue that there are inadequate staff to safely meet the needs of the traffic.

I was also privy to a plan wherein the ALM would provide traffic management in scenarios of fatigued staff (having worked overnight) covering the morning burst into Sydney prior to arrival of the 0600 starters. This is great except that the ALMs start at 0500 Brisbane time when the floodgates are opening in Sydney. Unfortunately the opportunity to manage the workload has already passed.

So there is no unified approach to managing the demise of FAs, particularly with respect to rostering. There seems to be in some locations a deliberate attempt to flout the legal requirements of the CA, I can only presume as a deliberate attempt to manufacture a dispute in eth AIRC. Of course there are also the clumsy attempts to drive a wedge into the membership to turn us upon each other. When they can’t demonstrate internal problems with Civil Air they simply say it anyway and hope that someone takes their word as gospel. Certainly there are elements of the media that don’t cross check facts too closely as long as it looks juicy.

What can we do about it? Firstly, the office, via your delegate needs to know exactly what is being proposed for rosters beyond December 21. Funnily enough Airservices is not including Civil Air in its distribution list. (A quick aside here – I remind you that Airservices has the ability to read any correspondence between you and Civil Air if you utilise Airservices’ IT resources. In particular emails from an Airservices address to an address with a Civil Air domain name @civilair.asn.au can be very easily extracted for review)  If your manager asserts that your part-time employment is no longer possible let the office know ASAP. It is not true. You will have to be rostered in accordance with POR but part-time employment is still available. They may try the tactic of cancelling part-time employment on the basis of operational need. This will have to be dealt with on an individual basis. There are legal avenues available to us that we will explore to the fullest extent possible. Have patience, we will not launch into this prematurely as a knee jerk reaction to Airservices’ provocations. Timing must suit our requirements.

What we are seeing are increasingly desperate attempts to try and solve problems of Airservices making with more of the same. Cutting the staff out of the loop has led to the lowest level of morale I have experienced in nearly 26 years. Airservices’ own staff surveys indicate a disengaged workforce and they constantly talk of the systemic reliance on overtime as being in part to blame for the lack of goodwill. So how do they try and solve it? By trying to imply that the problem is ours, not theirs. By trying strongarm tactics to force staff into agreements that remove the employee from any hope of self determination, and finally by insisting that you take an erosion of conditions to fund a real term decrease in salary.

Sorry but it’s not good enough by a long way.

Robert Mason
President, Civil Air
20 November, 2008