I would like to start this commentary on the issue of whether the pilots of majority state-owned Caribbean Airlines Ltd (CAL) should receive higher salaries by stating that, as far as I am concerned, the fact that 93 pilots called in sick from August 18 to August 20, constitutes industrial action.
In the definition section of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), industrial action is defined as:
“Strikes and lockouts, and any action, including sympathy strikes and secondary boycotts (whether or not done in contemplation of, or in furtherance of, a trade dispute), by an employer or a trade union or other organisation or by any number of workers or other persons to compel any worker, trade union or other organisation, employer or any other person, as the case may be, to agree to terms of employment, or to comply with any demands made by the employer or the trade union or other organisation or by those workers or other persons, and includes action commonly known as a ‘sit-down strike,’ a ‘go-slow’ or a ‘sick-out’....”
Industrial action, therefore, includes any action designed to compel any employer “to agree to terms of employment, or to comply with any demands” made by a trade union or by workers or other persons “and includes action commonly known as a ‘sit-down strike,’ a ‘go-slow’ or a ‘sick-out’.
The IRA, in its second schedule, also makes clear that pilots provide an essential service, as they are part of what the legislation defines as civil aviation services. That includes, according to the second schedule:
“All services provided by a commercial airline the majority of the aircraft of which are registered in T&T or are owned by citizens of T&T or by a company incorporated in T&T, aircraft maintenance, refuelling and ramp services, air traffic control and meteorological services and airline catering services.”
Section 67 of the IRA clearly states that industrial action in essential services prohibited.
Section 67 (2) of the IRA states: “An employer or a worker carrying on or engaged in an essential service shall not take industrial action in connection with any such essential service.”
And 67 (4) states: “A worker who contravenes subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000 and to imprisonment for six months.”
67 (5): “A trade union or other organisation, the holder of an office in a trade union or other organisation or any other person who calls for, or causes industrial action to be taken in, an essential service or induces or persuades any worker in that service to take such action is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in the case of a trade union or other organisation to a fine of $20, and the Board may cancel the certificate of recognition under Part III;
(b) in the case of the holder of an office in a trade union or other organisation to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months, and such person shall be disqualified from holding office in any trade union or other organisation for a period of five years after conviction therefor.”
What is more is that section 63 1 (c) states: “...where a worker takes part in such action the employer may treat the action as a fundamental breach of contract going to the root of the contract of employment of the worker.” In other words, the worker can be dismissed forthwith.
So, it seems to me that a layman’s reading of the IRA would indicate that many of the 93 pilots–who were either scheduled to fly or on reserve to fly–that called in sick two weekends ago engaged in illegal industrial action.
That action was aimed at compelling CAL to comply with their demands for higher compensation or to stave off attempts by the airline to change their work practices.
And, because the action was illegal, the pilots who called in sick have left themselves open to prosecution for breaches of the IRA and dismissal.
Already receiving higher salaries
At a news conference last Friday, CEO of CAL, Garvin Medera, disclosed that the airline’s pilots had received salary increases of up to three per cent for the period 2017 to 2022.
In the last Sunday Guardian, it was revealed that the monthly salary of a new 737 first officer, who joined CAL in 2016, would have been $32,529.59 in 2022, which is 16.03 per cent more than the $28,034.50 the junior pilot would have received in 2017.
A first officer with eight years experience flying on the 737, would have received a monthly salary of $46,251.21 in 2022, which was 16.03 per cent more than the $39,860 received in 2017. The experienced 737 first officer would have received $6,391.21 more in 2022 than in 2017.
A 737 captain with eight years experience would have seen his salary increase from $70,165 in 2017 to $81,470.41. That is also a 16.11 per cent increase for the captain, who would have received $11,305.41 more in 2022 than in 2017.
The point here is that CAL pilots have already received wage increases for the period 2017 to 2022.
Meanwhile, teachers have received no salary increases since 2014 and doctors in the public service have received no salary increases since 2015.
Are the pilots making the argument that their needs are greater than the needs of teachers or doctors?
Or that pilots deserve a 10 per cent wage increase in 2023 on top of their 16 per cent wage increases between 2017 and 2023 because their contribution to the economy is greater than teachers or doctors in the public service?
An inexhaustive check of compensation in the public and state sectors indicates that apart from pilots only two other groups of workers received salary increases between 2017 and 2022.
They are Petrotrin workers, who received a five per cent “interim” wage hike in 2017 and the workers of the National Gas Company (NGC), who received an increase of up to 3 per cent in 2017, based on the company’s performance management system.
Apart from those workers in the energy sector, CAL pilots are the only workers in the entire public and state enterprise sector who received higher salaries, according to my inexhaustive research.
In fact, CAL pilots are the only employees in the public sector who were entitled to receive an increase for every year between 2017 and 2022.
Salary matching?
The other important point that needs to be made is that if the Government gives into the pressure brought to bear by the CAL pilots and agrees to pay them a 10 per cent salary increase, which the pilots are demanding, or even a 7.5 per cent increase, which the airline is currently offering, where does that leave the four per cent wage offer to the rest of the public and state enterprise sector workers?
In other words, if the Ministe of Finance, Colm Imbert, agrees with CAL to pay pilots a 7.5 per cent increase, he will be forced to agree to pay ALL public sector and state enterprise workers 7.5 per cent more a month.
What would be the recurrent cost (and the backpay cost) of paying all public sector and state enterprise workers 7.5 per cent more? Mr Imbert needs to inform this country.
And then if the Government caves in to the salary demands of pilots, would it be perceived as acquiescing to the demands of a group of workers, who have already received salary increases and some of whom may have broken the law?