The Antigua and Barbuda government has given former pilots with the cash-strapped airline, LIAT, a deadline to accept the proposals regarding outstanding severance payments owed to them even as the employees continue to express disappointment at the way the matter is being handled.
Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance, Lennox Weston, has told the Leeward Islands Airline Pilots Association (LIALPA) that they have just one month to make up their minds about the latest 50 per cent compassionate payment offer made by the Gaston Browne government.
“We had a meeting and the [Antigua and Barbuda Workers’ Union] said they were not accepting the offer, but then [some of the pilots] figured they are prima donnas and they went behind the union’s back and tried to strike a deal with the prime minister.
Weston warned that if the situation is not resolved by the new year, the benefits will not equal the 50 per cent currently being offered.
“We are not going to let this sit on the table until the new year. We are going to move on; we will follow the law,” Weston said.
But in an open letter to Prime Minister Browne, the LIALPA said while its members continue to express gratitude for the November 20 correspondence “which identifies a modified version of the September 3rd concept to pay all terminated and soon to be terminated employees of LIAT (1974) Ltd, this is the only concept, to date, that offers some financial relief to all staff members.
“We are very disappointed that your caring cabinet was not convinced by you to award the fifty (50%) per cent on entitlements. You stated that you understood the gravity of the situation and you stood by your word. It is also very unfortunate that you have closed the door to further discussions on the issue.”
Last month, Prime Minister Browne appealed to Caribbean trade unions to re-think their positions regarding the latest offer made to laid-off workers of the airline.
Browne said what is required is the cooperation of the unions, noting that “some union leaders…are making unreasonable demands, making demands in which they have no legal basis to do.
“As I have said to the other unions if they really think they are owed 100 per cent of their severance and staff liabilities, go to court and prove it. If they can’t prove it then the governments are giving you a compassionate payment, take it and run.”
The airline had laid off an estimated 90 per cent of its staff last year as part of a restructuring exercise and has resumed operations on a much smaller scale.
President of the Dominica-based Waterfront and Allied Workers Union (WAWU), Donald Rolle, said that the regional unions are united in seeking the millions of dollars owed to the workers and have rejected the latest offer from the shareholder governments.
“The offer on the table which is to pay the LIAT workers, 50 per cent of their redundancy pay and there is a component that involves compensation by issuing of lands and bonds. But the unions around the Caribbean have sort of rejected that in its entirety, but we are in negotiations with the governments. We have a position and as it is now, we are at opposite ends of the table,” Rolle said.
The airline is owned by the governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG). Last year, Browne said that a decision had been taken that would allow Barbados and SVG to turn over their shares in LIAT to Antigua & Barbuda for one EC dollar (One EC dollar=US$0.37 cents).
In their letter, LIALPA said the Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister had “charged the union leaders with the almost impossible task of convincing its membership that this is a superior offer.
“The letter dated November 20th has significantly changed the clarifications discussed in the October 8th meeting. Specifically, the offer eliminates land as being a guaranteed component of the deal by stating “bonds & land; or a combination of the foregoing wherever possible”
“This is precisely why we sought to meet with you, to get clarity for our members. Now, we are forced to consider a vaguely written proposal again,” the pilots said.
They said they are experiencing trouble trying to decipher several matters including when will the 30 per cent of the cash be available, how will these funds be disseminated, where are the plots of land and when “will we see the decree from the Cabinet waiving the Alien Landowner’s License and associated fees and taxes,” among other concerns.
“The lack of details and structure makes it impossible for most to make an informed decision. We are left to believe that the Government does not fully appreciate the dire circumstances that we experience every day. This scepticism has been fuelled by the length of time it has taken to transform your concept first mentioned in 2020, to a written document on September 3rd, 2021, and then finally, on November 20th 2021.”
In the letter to Prime Minister Browne, the pilots also note that many of them “find it inconceivable that this is a compassionate offer because of the non-recourse approach.
We fully appreciate that these are taxpayers’ funds however, you have preferred to spend EC$500,000 per month on a visibility schedule, rather than to settle the amounts owed to the terminated employees of LIAT. Some of whom have given, over 40 years to the airline,” LIALPA added.
They said that if the proposals are to be successful, “we urge that you provide a structured offer with timelines.
“We are hopeful for an amicable solution to make this offer a palatable one. This may encourage all terminated employees to accept the offer and access these greatly needed resources.”
One response to “Government, former of LIAT pilots at odds over remuneration”
In light of the present plight of the former employees of Leeward Islands Air Transport 1974 LTD (LIAT 1974 LTD, I have a philosophical problem with the Shareholder Governments’ arrogant, narrow minded, and legalistic approach to finding an equitable solution to the problem for the following reasons:
1. LIAT 1974 LTD was very badly managed for the following reasons:
(a) The Company employed relatively many workers, but never created any assets to fall back on, even to pay their workers entitlements, if the Company was forced to liquidate. For example, the Company never owned an Office Building, nor any other real estate, that could be sold and help pay the workers their entitlements, but instead utilized leased premises; the Company hardly ever owned any aircrafts, but instead utilized mostly leased planes.
(b) Immediately after Barbados became the Majority Shareholder they did acquire three (3) owned planes for the airline with Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) assisted financing; they also installed a relatively Top Heavy and Highly Remunerated Chairman and Management Executives, for example; Chairman: former Prime Minister of Barbados Owen Arthur; Chief Executive Officer (CEO); Chief Financial Officer (CFO); Chief Operating Officer (COO); Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) etc., who were all Bajan: this is not intended as a criticism, it was just a fact.
(c) LIAT 1974 LTD clearly had a very robust Marketing Plan, and flew from one end of the Caribbean in the north to the other in the south. But, this activity was always underpinned by a fragile and weak Financial Organization. No doubt, as soon as the COVID-19 Pandemic struck LIAT very quickly folded and ran bankrupt.
2. How many Governments around the world own entities that operate airlines? Could a problem like this emerge in a developed country, where the operating entity did not even have the means to sell assets and pay off its workers their full lawful entitlements? I would say: impossible! Such a situation could only arise in the Third World, and in a very poorly managed country. This is not rocket science: all businesses around the world operate on the basis of certain sustainable principles.
Normally, any business that was being operated so badly would see its Directors being arrested when the business folds. And, there is good reasons to believe that its Directors would be eligible to serve prison time.
3. If the operating entity was a Private Company as opposed to a Statutory Corporation should it make any difference as to whether the failed Directors should go to prison? I think not. Should the redundant workers lose any of their entitlements on such grounds? I think not. Somebody should be eligible to go to jail: either the failed Director or Government Minister in charge.
4. But, there should never be a lack of resources to pay the workers their just entitlements.
5. There is something very concerning here: that is the world and societies are moving into the future and humanity should always seek to correct a bad situation, rather than to do the opposite. Because, if we use a bad solution, at the same time, we will be leaving a bad example to posterity (future generations) and that would be wrong. We are where we are today because our predecessors made sure they did things right. And, this applies also to how laws evolve. So, rather than accepting a bad solution, I think the former workers should carry the case to the Privy Council if necessary, so that the present law will be given chance to evolve and updated as well.