The LCGB trade union served notice of a 24-hour warning action against Cargolux Airlines in the early hours of Thursday 23 July; despite this action, the cargo airline reported that 73% of the Cargolux pilots reported to work and 76% of the flights are operating normally.
The union had issued a statement that the most recent meeting between themselves and Cargolux did not result in agreement, a situation they described as "totally unacceptable" and, as a result, they launched the 24-hour warning action from 03:00. At 08:00 they claimed that a total of 7 flights involving 5 Cargolux aircraft remained on the tarmac, and others would follow throughout the day.
The LCGB alleged that that senior management do not always address safety risks for cabin crew and outlined the issues as involving (1) the staff delegation initiating the events review group (ERG) whenever an incident or an event warrants; (2) Participation of representatives (1 ground crew & 1 staff member) as full members of the disciplinary commission, with all the rights defined in the disciplinary proceedings; and (3) Establishment of an internal review procedure for disciplinary actions to complete a review of records by the staff delegation.
Cargolux subsequently issued a statement calling the LCGB action illegal as there is a valid Collective Work Agreement (CWA) in place, with the parties actively negotiating towards a new agreement; and there is no dispute where non-conciliation has been declared. The cargo airline also stressed that earlier today, a court ordered the immediate stoppage of the action.
Cargolux also argued that the LCGB’s industrial action was unlawful and its ongoing negative campaign against Cargolux is based on misleading statements, "deceiving" not only the public but also Cargolux’s employees and LCGB’s own members. Based on today’s court order, Cargolux will claim compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the disruption to its business. the company pointed out that due to LCGB’s legal status, all of its individual members could potentially be held liable for any damages caused to Cargolux.
On the issue of safety, Mattias Pak, Cargolux’s Head of Aviation Safety, recently appointed as Group Safety Officer, stated “Regarding LCGB’s accusation in respect to safety culture and its mentioned examples, I would like to clarify some issues. Cargolux’s internal process calls for a structured investigation to be done in case of an event. For the wing wave, the Aviation Safety Department issued a full ICAO Annex 13 Type investigation even though neither the FAA/NTSB nor the Luxembourgish authorities categorised it as such severe. The final report was presented to the Luxembourg Civil Aviation Authority (DAC) and accepted. Employee representatives were also debriefed on the report and acknowledged it. All recommendations of the report were accepted by the responsible departments and implemented.
Additionally, during a process of more than one year, a Just Culture policy was created following industry standards. During this process, delegation members were part of the team and a joint agreement was achieved last year. The policy became effective on 1 January 2015 - 11 months ahead of the EU requirement of having a Just Culture policy in place. In order to enhance the Just Culture process, during the last month, the composition of the Event Review Group (ERG) has been discussed internally and it was agreed that front line personnel would become a part of this group in the near future.
Our safety reporting system, which has been in place since the 1990s, is there for staff to report their concerns in regard to safety issues. We encourage all our staff to use this system to report any safety weaknesses and hazards to allow the organization to implements actions to reduce the risk.
I can confirm that, during 2015, Cargolux has been audited by the DAC, IATA (IATA Operational Safety Audit) and EASA - all these audits have confirmed that Cargolux complies with all applicable regulations and also all safety processes are up to date and following industry practices.”
