Tribunal rules on recall of pilots

Press, 21 June 1984, Page 21

Tribunal rules on recall of pilots

PA Auckland Air New Zealand did not have the “specific” right to recall at 90 days notice pilots who had been released on leave without pay to fly for the Bahrain-based airline, Gulf Air, a tribunal ruled.

The Aircrew Industrial Tribunal made its finding after a dispute earlier this year. The New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association took the matter to the tribunal when an airline move to recall 12 pilots on three months notice angered Gulf Air and some of the pilots involved.

They were among 21 surplus pilots released by Air New Zealand to fly under

contract for Gulf Air between September, 1982, and January, 1983.

The Gulf Air contracts were originally for 12 months, but most were later extended with Air New Zealand’s approval. Early this year Air New Zealand saw a developing shortage of pilots and gave the 12 pilots 90 days notice to return home.

Pilots involved said they were embarrassed by the recall and that Gulf Air was angered. The tribunal chairman, Judge J. R. P. Hom, said that he could see nothing in the documents between Air New Zealand and its pilots which spelt out “specific right of recall.”

Air New Zealand claimed that when the pilots’ contracts were extended, it was made a condition that they could be recalled at 90 days notice.

Judge Horn said this was disputed, and the only possible evidence consisted of a telex message from Air New Zealand to Gulf Air and a reply. While the reply indicated an affirmative answer, there was nothing contractual.

The tribunal also decided that Gulf Air pilots who decided to leave Air New Zealand were not entitled to severance payments, unless it could be shown they acted in strict accordance with the airline’s severance agreement. Air New Zealand said

yesterday that the tribunal’s decision acknowledged an agreement between itself and Gulf Air and said its implications were entirely beyond its jurisdiction. As Gulf Air had accepted a 90-day cancellation clause in a renewed contract with Air New Zealand, and had the same clause in contracts with the pilots, there could be no grounds for the assertion that it was angered.