The management of LIAT has rejected a number of claims and allegations made by representatives of the Leeward Island Airline Pilots Association (LIALPA) and the National Workers Union of Saint Lucia during a recent interview on a radio station in Antigua.
Speaking on behalf of the company’s management, LIAT’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr. Brian Challenger expressed regret at the biased and one-sided nature of the programme which he said exposed listeners to “a diet of inaccuracies, falsehoods, and distortions disguised as gospel truths, with no opportunity for rebuttal, questioning or clarification”.
Mr. Challenger noted that LIAT is currently seeking to restructure the company with a view to ensuring its survival in the midst of a global economic crisis. This involves efforts to enhance its revenues, but also involves cutting costs and taking other action which would regrettably lead to reducing the present complement of staff.
“This was a painful process for management, staff and unions. LIAT has therefore sought to engage its unions in a dialogue about process and numbers and any contribution the unions might wish to make,” Mr. Challenger said.
He rejected union claims that LIAT’s management was responsible for a breakdown in discussions and noted that it was in fact the unions which had rejected the latest call to meet and discuss the affairs of the company.
“We had received confirmation from five of our 10 unions that they would be attending last week’s meeting, only to be told on the day before the meeting that they would no longer be attending. While we recognize the concerns of the unions that there would be further job cuts, the only way to move forward progressively is for the dialogue to start,” the LIAT CEO said.
“This should be, as the unions have always insisted, without any preconditions. This we have sought to do as best as possible within the constraints of our ongoing operations. We intend to continue our efforts to meet with our union partners in addressing the very real challenges that the company faces.”
The LIAT CEO queried the call from the union representatives for additional audits of the company. He noted that LIAT’s accounts were up to date and were audited by some of the leading international accounting firms. Additionally the company’s finances and financial procedures were subject to regular supervision and monitoring by senior financial managers from the company’s shareholder countries, who regularly provided guidance and instructions to the company in relation to its financial operations.
Mr. Challenger also rejected claims that the company’s management structure was bloated and that the process of job reductions unfairly targeted only low wage earners. He challenged the unions to compare LIAT’s operational structure with that of an airline of a similar nature before making such claims, noting that LIAT’s structure was largely conditioned by the multi-island nature of its operations and by regulatory requirements.
He noted that a report by one of the leading international aviation consulting firms, commissioned in 2009 by an outside agency, had identified LIAT’s staffing as being in the mid range for an airline of its type and had actually recommended the addition of new management level positions – an action which the airline had not taken.
In relation to staff cuts, the CEO noted that management as well as line staff had been a part of the company’s ongoing voluntary separation and reduction programmes and denied that there was any attempt to target any group of employees.
“The fact of the matter is that the company’s decisions are being made based on our strategic assessment of where the company has to go if it is to survive in the present very difficult economic environment,” he said.
He noted that aviation is by its very nature international in scope and that many of the measures that LIAT was now seeking to adopt were based on regional and international best practices and intended to enable the company to better adapt to the changing economic, commercial and technological environment. Such failure to adapt could result in the imminent ruin of the company.
Finally, the LIAT CEO expressed concern at the attempts by sections of the company’s unions to address their industrial concerns in the media. He noted that constant public maligning of LIAT’s management could not contribute to progressive labour relations, and was contrary to the calls for a spirit of partnership which had been made by some union members.
The CEO reiterated his hope for constructive dialogue with the unions, indicating that the present global and regional economic situation required reasoned understanding by all parties if the airline was to survive.
The unions have to go to the media because Liat sits and discusses one thing with them and turn back and do something completely different from the discussions. If Liat fails, it has nothing to do with the unions but their bad management practices. They have to advance yes but not only on the poor staff at the bottom, send home some of the area managers, the dir of human resource is a waste of time send her home. All the old heads in Antigua who have been there as if they own Liat after 40years they need to go home as technology is advancing and they are not contributing anything, outdated ideas and they keep on taking bribes under the table.
One of the difficulties we encounter is that the media consistently create difficulties with the method of educating people. How can any of us comment constructively on the CEO’s comments when we have not herd the unions.
It is paramount that we hear both sides in discussion at a forum. We have heard many comments from various persons who do not have the facts.
My experience with unions: seldom do they understand financial statements, their grievances are based on holding on to old practices which are no linger relevant.
Regards employers, some employers belief that the easiest cuts are staff cuts which are not usually correct. If union and staff engage staff in the process, they will be surprised how staff will advance constructive proposals to protect the company and their jobs.
So the union versus employer is usually the most unproductive, long winded, acrimonious and self centred processes which is detrimental to the staff and the company.
When employer and union go to the media and make their statements, it becomes so much more difficult for honest discussion as neither want to loose to be humiliated by the public. So they should remain behind closed doors and publish joint reports to the media.
Unions are bias. They are not the onces managing the company and not responsible for company losses.
If liat fails everyone does. Liat must restructure to complete. Employees need to position themselves and take responsibility for themselves. Gone are the days where people had jobs for life.
You should see everyone job as an opportunity to advance. Routine jobs will continue to become redundant as technology and artificial intelligence advances. LIAT would be foolush not to keep up with the times.
Unions talk simply because they believe that’s there job. After all they are banking the employees moneys monthly, therefore they must make believe they are important.
Why does Liat have area managers and still resident managers, dir of Human Resource and still a manager of Human Resource..thats they issue with liat they cant seem to get it right at all…take a leaf from AA they just have Lead Agents who report to a Boss and thats it…
sadly most of the managers around these stations are outdated period..
liat does need a fresher and newer look not only the poorly paid staffers on the ground to hit at…
Liat needs to get real.