I hope to conclude within ten minutes. I would like to read from the presentation I have supplied to the committee which deals with the recent revelations which in our view expose an intent in the minds of senior Aer Lingus management, past and present, which is completely at variance with the declared promise to the workforce, namely, that no employee would be forced out of Aer Lingus under the business plan. We now know that management's view was that what they euphemistically termed "environmental push factors" were key — I underline "key" — to getting people to go. We also know that the business plan also suffered from a euphemism and is and was intended to be only a cost-cutting plan. The real business plan for the future development of Aer Lingus is still a work in progress.
The effect of the recent revelations on our members and on the industrial relations process in Aer Lingus has been devastating. The planning in question goes back to the previous senior executive management who, we are advised, tasked the HR department with preparing the ground for the 2004 cost-cutting redundancy plan.
The first issue of concern is the promise, or what was the promise. When the business plan was announced, management assured everyone it was voluntary on both sides and that those who wished to remain in Aer Lingus could do so. In the notification to the Department on 19 August 2004, the company said this was a voluntary scheme and that final numbers would be determined by the degree of uptake across the Irish operations of the airline. It went on to describe that the proposed selection criterion would be voluntary severance or early retirement. Further, in a direct communication to the staff, it emphasised that it was a voluntary programme or scheme designed to be attractive to all age, service and salary categories; in other words, it was talking about a pull, not a push factor.
When discussions were held under the aegis of the LRC, the issue of exits came up. We agreed a memorandum of understanding, the principal point of which was that all exits under the programme would be voluntary on both sides. When the matter came before the Labour Court in terms of the quantum, of what the redundancy package would be, the company again emphasised that the scheme was voluntary on both sides. When management appeared before the national implementation body in January this year, it confirmed this. When we concluded a redeployment agreement in the event that redeployments would be necessary, one of the key points was to ensure all personnel would secure redeployment on a voluntary basis. That was the promise made to the workforce and repeated ad nauseam to various institutions of the State.
We had a premonition. We had been unhappy with the state of industrial relations in Aer Lingus for some time and when we met the previous Minister for Transport on 12 May, we told him of our concerns. We met the current Minister in October and also told him of our concerns about the lack of engagement with the trade unions and adherence to agreements. We subsequently wrote to him in that vein. When we appeared before this committee on 20 October, we told members about the difficulties against which we were negotiating, one of which was that entire groups of people, not just individuals, had told us they were being pressurised. Staff involved in catering and aircraft cleaning were being told their jobs were being outsourced above their heads. We told the committee that the company had put a gun to people's heads. At its worst, there are people who have said to us they have been pressurised. I said there was no point in putting a gloss on it; people had been told it was a case of "jump or be pushed". That was the issue we laid before the committee last October and our assessment.
Despite this, our members have been working through the problems that they face. We have been negotiating with the company against an extremely difficult background. Through the intervention of the national implementation body and the LRC, we have managed to turn the company away from outsourcing, in terms of aircraft cleaning and catering, to a more internal, direct labour solution. A study of the work carried out by our members on the ground to deal with the challenges being faced by them paints them in much more glowing terms than the company. At times the difficulties faced are akin to pushing treacle up a hill and are now answered in part by some of the recent revelations which refer to what are known as push factors. At the weekend I spent about half an hour flicking through some HR books and, lo and behold, came across the term "push factor", in reference to people exiting companies. It was not referred to in quite the same way as mentioned here but it is to be found in the literature. It is not a term with which I was familiar.
The union has enumerated a list of environmental push factors, Nos. 1 to 12, included in a document prepared by the HR department of the company for senior management. This is evidence which highlights the very clinical and dispassionate way in which the company sought to exert pressure on members to apply for redundancy. The document includes a statement that the environmental push factors are the key to securing applications and conversions — the people who apply and end up agreeing to go.
When the document came to light last Wednesday, we immediately contacted the chairman of the company who agreed to meet us immediately. We expressed the outrage of our members. In the course of the meeting and arising from it it emerged that the 30 page document had been prepared by management in preparation for the business plan. We asked for a copy of the document in question which I believe to be in general circulation. Management subsequently confirmed that eight management personnel had been involved in discussions on the matter. Four of the officials in question have since left the company.
Management officials, including the chairman, have stated the proposals outlined as bullet points in the document were never enacted as part of the plan. We have a difficulty with this statement because we recognise quite a few of the bullet points. In that regard, I draw attention to pages 7 and 8 of the presentation I am making to the joint committee today. It is certain that some people received a tap on the shoulder as reported by superintendent employees. European management officials were told to apply for their own jobs. Entire sections of the workforce were told their work was being outsourced. Far from receiving a tap on the shoulder, people working in such sections were, in effect, shoulder-charged out of their work. I would use the term "shoulder-charged". While we were able to stop this from happening, that is not the point.
A new performance management system for superintendents and specialists was proposed. An attendance management system was proposed in the business plan. Adverse changes in work shift patterns were proposed in the business plan and presented to each area. Members of the cabin crew and aircraft cleaning personnel have reported that they were invariably given late shifts when they had asked for early shifts. Changes in the availability of in-week special leave were proposed in the business plan. The working of contract hours was proposed in the business plan presented to the cabin crew. Changes to the uniforms of members of cabin crew and those involved in ground operations were proposed in the business plan. A sample of the canary yellow polo shirt, with accompanying logo, was placed on view for the staff to be affected by the changes but the proposal disappeared during the subsequent furore. I am indicating to the joint committee a type of uniform very similar to that proposed.
