Deadlock in negotiations between management and unions representing airport ground staff

In mid July 2008, Groundforce Portugal and the trade unions representing airport ground staff signed a protocol to implement the collective agreement and wage increase for employees. As a result, the trade unions called off planned strike action. However, the company responded with an emergency plan to deal with problems caused by the oil crisis, threatening to suspend various articles of the collective agreement and refusing to increase wages. Negotiations have thus ended in deadlock.

From 27 May to 8 June 2008, airport ground staff employed by the handling services company Groundforce Portugal (Serviços Portugueses de Handling, SA, SPdH), in which the national airline TAP Portugal holds the minority stake, took strike action called by the four main trade unions representing ground workers. The trade unions involved included: the Union of Metalworking and Related Industries (Sindicato das Indústrias Metalúrgicas e Afins, SIMA) and the Union of Qualified Ground Personnel in Commercial Aviation (Sindicato dos Quadros da Aviação Comercial, SQAC), both of which are affiliated to the General Workers’ Union (União Geral de Trabalhadores, UGT); the Union of Aviation and Airport Workers (Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da Aviação e Aeroportos, SITAVA), affiliated to the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses, CGTP); and the independent National Union of Civil Aviation Workers (Sindicato Nacional dos Trabalhadores da Aviação Civil, SINTAC).

Course of industrial action

The joint strike action, taken for the first time by trade unions affiliated to UGT and CGTP along with an independent confederation, involved a two-hour daily strike during the abovementioned period. The ground workers refused to undertake supplementary work and implement timetable changes. According to the trade unions, the strike was organised to protest against the company for:

• non-compliance with the wage increase agreed, from January 2008, as part of the organisation’s collective agreement (Acordo de empresa, AE);

• non-compliance with moves to progress occupational careers, due in 2007, as defined by the AE;

• perceived systematic disrespect for rest and meal periods defined by the AE;

• the absence of a wage offer for 2008.

Due to the lack of a positive response from the company, on 11 June 2008 the conflict escalated further, with the ground workers taking part in a three-hour strike. Subsequently, the workers and trade unions decided to take further strike action in July in relation to overtime and shift work. The strike action comprised: a two-and-a-half-hour daily strike over 18 days and at different periods in July; a two-hour strike in order to organise a plenary meeting/protest on 16 July; and a 24-hour strike on 19 July.

Risk of substantial losses for Groundforce

The envisaged month of protests, involving all of the trade unions on the ground, threatened to cause chaos at airports during the summer holiday season, resulting in significant losses for Groundforce. For instance, it is estimated that a single day of strike action in October 2007 cost the company about €5 million. Nevertheless, on 24 June 2008, the Head of the TAP administrative board, Fernando Pinto, highlighted the critical situation facing Groundforce due to the oil crisis – resulting in losses of €100 million in six months. As a result, Mr Pinto argued, the only way to save the company and jobs was to suspend any wage increase or rewards for ground workers and probably also suspend the company collective agreement.

Agreement reached between company and trade unions

Finally, on 15 July 2008, after a period of strikes and without any positive answer from the company, the trade unions signed a protocol with the company management which ended the conflict, insofar as the unions called off the strikes planned for the second half of July.

The protocol acknowledges that Groundforce has not complied with various sections of the AE – including those relating to career progression, wage levels for 2008, and working time rules regarding rest periods and meal breaks. In order to comply with the AE, a number of provisions have been agreed with the company’s administrative board:

• implementation of the due career progression clauses (2007/2008) in October 2008;

• implementation of the wage increase of 3% for 2008, to be paid in July 2008;

• compliance with the assigned morning and lunch breaks according to the AE;

• the joint definition of a plan in December 2008 to settle outstanding matters, such as the payment of retroactive differences – covering pay for the seven-month period from January to July, as well as career progression.

Company emergency plan contravenes new agreement

However, despite this agreement, one week later, on 23 July, the Groundforce administration presented the trade unions with an emergency plan that threatened compliance with the AE. This plan aims to save €100 million and proposes the suspension of various articles contained in the AE for a period of one year, which can be renewed. Among the demands put forward by the company are:

• an annulment or reduction of costs related to overtime;

• a delay in the payment of wage increases related to seniority or professional advancement;

• termination of the payment by the company for the first three days of sick leave.

On the other hand, Groundforce assures employees that employment levels will be maintained and normal pay will not be reduced.

Trade union position

However, the trade unions are unwilling to negotiate on the company’s proposals until a wage increase of 1.5% is implemented. The trade unions claim that the requested wage increase refers to 2007, when the company reached ‘a record profit of €32.8 million’. On 31 July 2008, ground workers voted in favour of a motion at a plenary meeting protesting against the company’s intention of not increasing pay in 2008 and against its proposal to suspend the AE articles; the workers are refusing to negotiate with the company as long as it does not comply with the wage increase. Furthermore, the workers’ plenary meeting gave the trade unions the mandate to carry out all the necessary actions to support this position.

Maria da Paz Campos Lima, Dinâmia