CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Thu Jul 24 2008, 23:55

I’m hearing, from different sources, about management (and or reps?) possibly attempting to divide and ultimately, conquer the pilot group - by splitting the streams, with offshore sector to get a bigger slice of the pie. BAD IDEA. I sincerely hope this is not the model being presently looked at.
Long ago we had an offshore and an onshore wage tiers, but back then the onshore sector was B206’s doing mining, charter and tourism work, quite an understandable position to take. However, this is clearly not the case today.
To have a tiered wages system weighted toward offshore will ring the death knell of pilot intake to the EMS / SAR stream, positions already difficult to fill now. Also this would see a migration of present EMS /SAR pilots move to the more lucrative offshore sector leaving a hole now impossible to back fill.
I hope that the offshore guys see through this ‘divide and conquer’ strategy and stay focused on an outcome beneficial to an un-divided and therefore strong, pilot group as a whole. I don’t care which sector can more afford what. We are the CHC Pilot Group; we have to stand united to achieve our goal – for all.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Latest Offer

Postby eba » Fri Jul 25 2008, 02:19

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE LATEST OFFER.
1. THE TERM OF AGREEMENT is reduced from three years to two (from 1 May 2008 to 30 April 2010). This is important for two reasons. It increases the percentage wage increases per year and allows us to resume negotiations for further improvements sooner.
2. THE EMS (WP2) ALLOWANCE is increased from 8% of year 10 as originally proposed to 10% of year 10, when worked, and will apply from the date of a positive vote on the final agreement.
3. LOSS OF LICENCE reimbursement of to $2000 will now be adjusted by CPI on 1 May 2008 and 1 July 2009.
4. CASUAL RATES/OVERTIME have been increased as follows:
In relation to the 16th day the following formula will be applied to the $600 per day casual rate:
• returning to home base before 1200 – payment of 1.0 Overtime day - $600
• arriving home after 1201 and before 1800 – payment of 1.5 Overtime day -$900
• arriving home after 1801 – payment of Overtime day - $1,200
Offshore and S&R Home Base
Effective from date of positive vote 01/09/08 01/07/09
Capt 600 606 642
SFO 510 515 546
FO 390 394 418
Offshore and S&R Touring (Overnight away)
Effective from date of Positive vote 01/09/08 01/07/09
Capt 900 909 964
SFO 765 773 819
FO 585 591 626
Onshore – EMS (WP2) – Home Base
Effective from date of Positive vote 01/09/08 01/07/09
Single shift 1200 1212 1284
(24 hour)
Reserve 600 606 642
Extension 552 558 591
Onshore – EMS (WP2) – Touring
Effective from date of Positive vote 01/09/08 01/07/09
Single shift 1200 1212 1284
(24 hour)
Reserve 600 606 642
Extension 552 558 591
Onshore – EMS (WP6)
Effective from date of Positive vote 01/09/08 01/07/09
Day shift 600 606 642
Night Shift 750 758 803
Extension 88 89 94
(meal allowance increased by CPI).
Extension longer than
four hours) 552 558 591
5. ADDITIONS TO SALARIES
The respective allowances for licences are now proposed to be:
01/0508 01/0908 01/0709
ATPL 7130 7201 7633
CIR 8648 8734 9258
COIR 4316 4359 4621
Night VFR 1587 1603 1699
6. OFFSHORE ALLOWANCE
A new Offshore Allowance to apply only to Offshore pilots to be introduced as follows:
01/05/08 01/0908 01/0709
Captain 4500 8000 8830
SFO 2250 4000 4415
FO 675 1200 1325
7. BASE SALARIES
MEC base salaries to be increased by 17% over two tears (a cumulative increase of 17.8%) as follows:
01/0508 01/09/08 01/0709
10% 1% 6%
This compares with the original offer of a 20% increase over three years.
FO/SFO:
The differential increases between Captains and First Officers proposed in the original agreement have been removed. Rates for:
• FO to be retained at 65% of Captain rate
• SFO to be calculated at 85% of Captain rate
OFFSHORE YEARS OF SERVICE
The top increment for Offshore to be capped at Year 16. Onshore top increment to remain Year 18
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THESE INCREASES MEAN
(including base salaries plus additions to salary):
Year 10 Onshore Captain:
• 22.2% increase over two years, translating to an 11.1% increase per year, with an immediate increase (ie from 1 May 2008) of 14.12%.
This compares to the original offer of 24.9%, which translated to 8.3% per year.
The latest offer represents a further 2.8% increase per year.
Year 10 Offshore Captain:
• 30.9% increase over two years, translating to a 15.45% increase per year, with an immediate increase (ie from 1 May 2008) of 18.5%.
This compares to the original offer of 24.9%, which translated to 8.3% per year.
The latest offer represents a further 7.15% increase per year.
8. 2% ONSHORE SIGN ON BONUS
All onshore pilots will be paid a 2% sign on payment/bonus based on salary and additions to salary (ie ATPL, CIR/CPIR) rates as at 30 April 2008 to be paid to all On-Shore (ie EMS and S&R) pilots.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sat Jul 26 2008, 02:14

I find myself in the position of being happy enough with the actual offer (I'm an onshore type), but really concerned about splitting the pilot group. Isnt this what has been said over and over? Stick together and look after each other now and into the (always uncertain) future? Does anyone else feel that a wedge is being driven straight into the solidarity of our group? As I say, if it gets up then I wont be too sad with the actual package, and congrats to those who get more, but it leaves the structure and future of our group as a total unknown. I would rather see an increase in DTA to cover the difficulties that the offshore sector of the group speak of (such as touring, losing leave, missing family, poor accom etc) as these are all fair points. But there are a lot of us who tour with far less certainty or ability to plan our lives in the onshore sector too.
Please, think this one over carefully guys.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sat Jul 26 2008, 22:01

I too think splitting the streams is a bad idea, unfortunately with the extra money will offshore see this as a bad thing too. Perhaps they should consider that splitting the streams will not make it as easy to change between the two as it is now.

Also at the next negotiation Onshore will simply be looking to "even the split", will likely not support anything offshore wants (who cares about accom in Truscott when you are paid all the extra money!) and so the offshore will find that they are selling themselves short for the next agreement (in my opinion - and probably the companies).

This is a great ploy on behalf of the company. Don't let them do it! The ball really is in the hands of the offshore guys though.

It is ironic that most of the email bleeting (let's accept a lower offer type stuff) has come from offshore guys. Once again this makes me wonder would you offshore guys be better off without the onshore? If the split occurs now I for one will push for offshore and onshore seperate bargaining next agreement.

As the above comments have suggested the package is not that bad for onshore as it has dropped to two years. Perhaps in the long run onshore will be better off. Who knows where the next shortage will be and where the market forces will be. Isn't that why we normally stick together - to even out the good and bad. Surely as offshore get new machines and onshore start to go into cruise control on their new contracts the worm will turn. Perhaps not.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sun Jul 27 2008, 01:29

I am very concerned that the comments are both derogatory and not constructive. What are we to do. The company have been told that all is okay as long as their profit margin is maintained,one stream can pay one cannot ,will further industraial action be advantageous to the pilot group? Can we expect to get more blood out of an already squeezed stone. Will the mother company continue with onshore ops that do not give them the margins they get offshore, or get rid of all the onshore and again concentrate on the profit margin sectors.

We are all assuming that C Ridings is the devil incarnate with sayings"like well done Chris" you have managed to split the streams. It seems to me that he is controlled by Canada and negotiating within their margins.

To all pilots what do you think further action will get? this is the most important question to ask ourselves. Will we gain or will we loose, with losses of EMS contracts because we will make them not profitable.

All the pilots out there please put your solutions on the site not just comments that don't help.
Do you want to continue with industrial action?
What are the things that will solve the problem.
Do you want the same increases across the board, believing that everything C Ridings is saying is a lie and ther is plenty of money.
Solutions are what is needed.


Give solutions
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sun Jul 27 2008, 03:35

I will not vote for a split in the streams.

My solution is say no to this option and let them come up with one that does not split the streams.

How do you know there is no money in the onshore industry? I am sure it is expensive to set-up but will ultimately make money.

So yes I think there is more money. Jayrow have not split their streams to my knowledge. Why are we?

Stating that we will lose contracts and pilots will lose out are not based on any financial facts (if you have some then show us).

It is contra to rumours that CHC Australia is one of the largest money earning segments of the company. Which is true, buggered if I know. There is only one way to find out and that is keep pushing the original goal of 30% across the board until "evidence" is produced showing this can not be done. Everything done to date is part of the bargaining process and typical company negotiation ploys.

I agree that rumours don't really belong here but aren't you really adding to them?

Vote with the facts - where is the proof that there is no money to make the increase even? Not that long ago, with the last offer we were told CHC International would not realease more money, yet here it is. Not all but a lot closer. Is the rest there too?
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sun Jul 27 2008, 05:24

This proposal worries me on a couple of levels. Splitting the two streams opens a whole can of worms, both for the Pilot Group in future EBA negotiations, the ramifications to management recruiting for the SAR / EMS stream and the overall perceived ‘devaluing of the worth’ that sector now and for up coming Pilots entering. I get the feeling from the people I’ve spoken to that whilst this isn’t good to be splitting streams, this whole process has dragged on way too long and people will concede to a reluctant yes to return to normality and get on with life. Don’t become apathetic. We have come such a long way.

However, this must be a tempting deal for the offshore guys. We are about a 50/50 split between on and offshore? To create a split, future EBA negations are going to get 50% easier to resolve for management. Next EBA for example, the onshore guys get a 12% catch up and off shore 2%, and with a 50/50 split, it might just get up. Creating two divisions and playing one sector off against the other is as old as the ages. I really don’t think we should allow that to happen.
The offshore allowance is about 8%? Delete the offshore allowance, split that 50/50 across the board, offshore down 4% onshore up 4%, and over a two year EBA, I think you’re on a winner. …we’ll look at those casual rates next EBA. :wink:
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sun Jul 27 2008, 11:31

Splitting the streams, I feel is a very practical approach which the company has no other choice but to undertake. The company has put the offshore offer on the table so they can remain competitive in the offshore market place, which will allow them to retain and recruit pilots. This offer is the same as Bristows/Jayrow, not to mention Helicopters Aust. (who I believe are paying more). For those who are unaware, Bristows for example by the years end will have 19 offshore machines online in the country, with the majority being brand new. The companies core business is OFFSHORE which is the real bare bones facts. If the company had large competition for onshore contracts, I think things would be just the same as with the offshore sector. When the RAAF contract was up for renewal Bristow International was CHC's number one rival. Pilots need to remember why the CHC was awarded the NSW EMS contract over the previous contract holders. We are two different streams with two different operating requirements and needs that require there own separate EBA's, especially with the ever changing industry. Offshore has been playing catch up for the last 5 EBA's and has lost out in many ways to their onshore counterparts, who with no regard have always put there hand out for the money and run, knowing too well what the impact would be on there offshore counterparts. This, in anyone's eye's is a good offer all round and is only predicated on world markets, nothing more nothing less. If things continue, the onshore pilots may in the end work for Bristows/Jayrow/HA on a touring roster. Think very hard and look at the past and future when it comes time to vote.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 01:00

I understand the above settiment to some extent but do not understand the view that the "company has no other choice".

Why is this so? Did the company not have a lot of trouble employing pilots in Sydney? Onshore is experiencing shortages too. Wages at other companies have gone up significantly in that market too over the last few years (Australian/EMQ/Jayrow).

There is still a lot to be said to be kept together if we are to keep in the onshore market. If you don't want that opportunity and you are happy to become a purely offshore company then anything said to you is a waste of time.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 01:28

"Pilots need to remember why the CHC was awarded the NSW EMS contract over the previous contract holders."

Reputation.

"Offshore has been playing catch up for the last 5 EBA's and has lost out in many ways to their onshore counterparts, who with no regard have always put there hand out for the money and run..."

A perfect example of why we don't split streams.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 03:11

".......I will not vote for a split in the streams......"

Who is asking you to? This is how rumours grow out of proportion. An offer has been put forward for us to respond to - and not even to actually vote on.

A sweeter offer to one stream certainly does not mean a split in streams. In the last EBA, EMS was offered more, and (pretty much) EMS voted it through and offshore weren't too pleased. At the end of the day though, the majority voted it through and so be it. Lo and behold, the pilot group did not split.

Yes, this time the offer is sweeter for offshore but maybe not as sweet as one might think. Work out two weeks paid leave which offshore are deprived of - a substantial amount in itself, not to mention all the previous years. Another thing to consider is casual days. The offer shows $1200/24 for EMS and only $900 for Offshore and SAR. I don't see why and I think EMS scores here, good for us. Next EBA (only 2 years) there will probably be a different stream with a sweeter deal!

By accepting this offer, we are not splitting the streams. Perhaps quite the opposite - consider the consequences if we dig in. Is it a possibilty that a stream split could be forced on us? And then to the extreme, what if our owners don't like the profit margins they are seeing from onshore - just a thought. CHC has shut down onshore operations elsewhere in the world.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 04:13

Actually SAR only get $900 for a casual shift if they are away. $600 when at home.

Speaking of SAR (and obviously I am a SAR pilot) what does SAR get out of this "proposed" agreement?

The reason why a split may occur (and no-one has said that it will [ditto for the crap statements about CHC pulling out of onshore contracts if we ask for more money]) is that if a select group (eg SAR) does not get the support of a collective group but is expected to go to bat to support things like accom in Truscott why would they stay with that group? Surely it would not be any worse off if it represented it's own interests.

If it is a collective agreement why not fight for the same pay increase for all the groups? Hasn't CHC always been one of the highest paid pilot groups for all its pilots? (so how has offshore been disadvantaged for the last 5 agreements?).

In a collective agreement, by default, individual groups have to compromise on what they want to get a collective agreement. I thought the collective goal was 30% across the board. Why is one group now considering accepting an offer that sees them getting the money but not their workmates?

All I am asking is that as a SAR pilot who may see no support from the rest of the collective group to bring my wage up to the same level, why would I stay in that collective group next agreement? Alternatively if I did stay in the collective group all I would be interested in is seeing my own group get the advantage over offshore (if this happens) who get it this time round, and hence the collective group dynamic is destroyed by default! )c/
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 07:09

I agree with the post above.

Is greed and the rumour mill once again going to allow the company to divide and conquer.Has the company came out at any stage and been honest and said that these are the margins and we will cannot afford to pay more, no. Surley if they did give us this info then the collective group could make an honest assesment of the situation and move foreward.

Instead they apply the tried and tested method offer more to the group who has the most votes and hope that their greed wins out. Looking good so far!!

Are we prepared to fly for less than our competitors, looks that way, are we prepared to screw the people who have served the company the longest by reducing the years of service increnments, while our competitors extend theirs,Jarows new EBA yearly increments go to 27yrs. Why are we even considering these things.

Do any of you remember when at the start the agreement was for 30% across the board, What happened? and dont give me the its a compromise. Yes it is a compromise once we secure the 30% for all.

Does anyone want to work 24 hrs for less than another person in the company, I would have thought 24 hrs away from home was the same for all.

This is not a good proposal in many ways, First it is obvious that it is dividing the pilot group and secondly there are too many shortcomings in the casual day rates, reduction of the yearly increments and no equity in the rates of pay.

Say no,although i hear that the proposal is being looked upon favourably,WHY we still have the right to our protected action, lets give it a try before we give in to greed. I am an offshore driver so I have plenty to gain by saying yes. I will not vote to allow a divide and conquer by the company.

We are in the best negotiating period I have ever seen in the industry and we are giving stuff up that other companys are agreeing to Whats going on? Show some guts, lets get what we deserve!!
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 09:59

I`m an offshore pilot and will be voting NO.

First because it is a split across the streams that will come back to bite us in the future. We are giving contracts away at the moment through lack of pilots and machines (Darwin 3 year contract given to Bristows), 2 Bristows Puma`s in Truscott soon, WHY, are we not the biggest and best (or so our head office seems to think) cant we compete for these contracts without having the lowest paid crew?

Second they have offered an offshore allowance that gives a couple of hundred dollars for a co-pilot and $8000 for a Captain.

There are many EMS pilots in offshore now, if they really believed in keeping a unified group they will vote NO and not YES to fill their own back pocket.
Last edited by eba on Wed Jul 30 2008, 22:31, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 11:39

Here are the figures between the latest CHC proposal and the Bristows agreement.

As you can see Bristows pays a little less for a co-pilot but a lot more for an SFO. At Bristows there is a structured process for upgrading their co-pilots from FO to SFO at the 2 year mark. At CHC your upgrade to SFO is 3 years minimum, there is a $40290 loss for a CHC Co-pilot based on 6 years progression to Captain!! Once you become SFO you are losing each year by thousands of dollars. If this is an EBA that is meant to keep pilots, then anyone who is soon to be SFO should put a big NO in any ballot until this is remedied.

Based on 1st July 2009
CHC 1st Proposal___2nd Proposal______Bristow
FO
Year
1____$71801_______$72490_______$70674
2____$73075_______$73789_______$72154
3____$74348_______$75087_______$73635
4____$75662_______$76386_______$75116
5____$76896_______$77685_______$76122
6____$78169_______$78984_______$78077
7____$79442_______$80282_______$79558
8____$80715_______$81580_______$81039
9____$81988_______$82878_______$82519
10___$83261_______$84177_______$84000

SFO
Year_________________________________Shortfall for CHC
1____$92806_______$92769_______$96406____$3600
2____$94472_______$94467_______$98684____$4212
3____$96136_______$96165_______$100962___$4826
4____$97802_______$97864_______$103240___$5438
5____$99468_______$99562_______$105517___$6049
6____$101132______$101260______$107795___$6663
7____$102797______$102957______$110073___$7276
8____$104462______$104655______$112351___$7889
9____$106126______$106353______$114629___$8503
10___$107792______$108051______$116907___$9115

ME Capt
Year
1____$115294______$113978______$113801
2____$117253______$115976______$116097
3____$119212______$117973______$118375
4____$121172______$119972______$120653
5____$123131______$121970______$122931
6____$125090______$123967______$125209
7____$127048______$125965______$127487
8____$129006______$127962______$129765
9____$130965______$129959______$132043
10___$132925______$131957______$134321

This is correct to the best of my interpretation, please identify any errors.
Last edited by eba on Sun Aug 3 2008, 10:54, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Jul 28 2008, 11:45

A co pilots time away from home is no different to a captains, it's just a captain has been doing it for far more years than a co-pilot and has many more years of experience and THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS more hours to back it up. Co-pilots do not WIN new contracts and you will never see two 500 hour R44 pilots flying a AS32 out to a rig in the middle of the night or a B412 for that matter, going to a roadside accident.

Due to world wide demand and pilot shortages, companies have been force to drop there hour experience requirements as to allow new co-pilots to be employed. Not to long ago the minimum was 1500 hours, of which 500 had to be on turbines, NVFR, IREX and ATPL, so how many offshore co-pilots have those bare minimums now?

A low hour and inexperience co-pilot places a far higher workload on the aircraft captain, especially in bad weather and night IFR situations. You have learn how to walk before you can learn how to run.

Please do take this as a slap in the face for co-pilots, because that is not the intent, but remember low co-pilots are relative easy to come by and if you fall for this ploy against co-pilots/captains it will do nothing more than create a split amongst the offshore group. We all get paid for our experience and we have all had to put in the hard yards, just some have been doing longer than others....
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sat Aug 2 2008, 10:34

Don't know if anyone is still reading this but I have a couple of points/questions which (given my lack of seniority) I don't feel I have the ability to place openly on the company intranet email system.

To make it clear, I am onshore and have a low seniority (pay) level.

I get the impression from some of the recent emails that the offshore guys may try and vote this agreement (if the company releases it with the points they have suggested) down. They seem concerned by the lack of continuing seniority payments into the more senior levels. Are the offshore pilots also concerned about splitting the streams and the fact that onshore is paid less?

The reason why I ask is because, if they are not also concerned that onshore are being treated the way they are, why should I vote the agreement down in support of them? If I do and then the company adresses the seniority issue will they then vote it up? If this is the case I risk losing what is an ok but not ideal offer and gain nothing from that risk.

I would like to see some committment by these senior offshore pilots to the cause of the onshore guys as well as their own. If this were to happen then I have every confidence that the company would be convinced of a unified front, the offer would be voted down, and we should see some of the problems addressed across both streams and an addressing of the 30% increase. All the above points about loss of onshore contracts etc are crap if the pilot GROUP sticks together as none of these contracts are up for grabs for some time and the company will not shy away from the profits they make even if it is reduced by paying pilot's more. Profit is still profit. No-one has convinced me that a 30% pay increase will reduce any of these contracts to a loss and you may find that most of them have salary increase clauses in them for the client to meet costs anyway. If offshore support for onshore lack of parity does not occur then I see no advantage for me to support a group in their cause that does not support my group in theirs.

In summary, if senior pilots want support for the lack of parity to all groups in the proposed offer then they need to show open support of the onshore cause. Otherwise the ironic situation may be that offshore try to vote this agreement down and onshore support it!! :roll:
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Sat Aug 2 2008, 10:44

"And the multi-engine guys have pretty much equalled the Bristow deal so all Jayrow pilots should be happy. Min starting salary for a Yr 1 M/E IFR Capt at Jayrow $107200 + a few extras thrown in."

Above quote from the dark side. The suggested offer for us still look ok? Given that Jayrow also employ onshore EMS (Rocky). Anyone have more definitive details?
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Aug 4 2008, 01:12

From a very reliable source in Jayrow, onshore EMS pay as stated above and upwards with seniority and extra duties.

For CHC to say that onshore is not profitable enough to allow a better increase than the current offer is ridiculous.

A yes vote to the current offer will hand the company a huge bargaining advantage for future EBA's. CR is a puppet who's tactic to divide the pilot group and have greater control will be financially rewarded if he succeeds. I would rather work somewhere else than vote yes to that!!
User avatar
eba
Have YOUR say
Posts: 299
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: CHC EBA Post Vote Negotiations

Postby eba » Mon Aug 4 2008, 01:34

Add another 8% EMS Allowance to the figure above for the Jayrow EMS blokes at Rocky. Plus they will soon have a vacancy.

Return to “EBA Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest