FC5376 - Commercial pressure

Initial Report

This report contained two distinct topics under one title and was therefore considered by CHIRP as two separate issues: Sickness Reporting/Absence Management and Green Light Boarding.

Report Text: It is my opinion that [UK Airline] is using fear to pressure staff (to work) when sick, and also to achieve certain targets (Green Light Boarding) within the operation. This is done with a carefully constructed sickness policy and for Green Light Boarding, by immediate contact via email when Green Light Boarding criteria are not met.

Part 1 – Sickness reporting/absence management

The sickness policy: If you have 3 absences or more in rolling 12 months you are subject to a “welfare meeting”. I have attended one of these meetings in the past. It consisted of questions about each absence. Why, did you see a doctor, did you take any medication etc. All information that the office already had on their records from the self-reporting form. At the end there was a question whether there was anything they could do for me regarding my welfare. However, when 95% of the meeting is asking questions about things they already know the answers to, it gives the feeling they are trying to catch you out, rather than having concerns about you. Further, we work in an environment where we are likely to have more absences than the general public. Reasons being, you cannot go home if a cold or other condition suddenly gets worse. You have to be sure, within reason, that you can go to work and safely finish your duty. Therefore, I think it is very possible that most will have 3 or more absences per year. The blanket policy of 3 absences triggers a “welfare meeting”. This means most crew will find themselves in a situation, where they know, calling in sick will mean a meeting to explain yourself. This generates pressure to go to work when you shouldn’t. I have flown with crew that admits during the duty that they should have stayed home, or they have come back to work too soon.

Part 2 – Green Light Boarding (GLB)

GLB is a term used within the company to start boarding at or before a certain time. It has had a lot of focus, and it seems the company believe delayed boarding is the root cause of delay. In order to achieve GLB, it has for a while been linked to the cabin crew performance bonus. To start boarding the cabin needs to be ready and more importantly safety and security checks needs to be completed. To put these procedures under time pressure is not good practice. Recently, boarding automatically began starting at a certain time. That means, unless the crew actively tells the ground staff to hold the boarding, passengers will start coming up the steps at a given time. This adds more pressure on the cabin crew. It is escalated further by management contacting cabin crew directly, when GLB is not met, and sometimes before they have finished their duty. They are asked to explain why the target wasn’t met. When there is so much time pressure how is anyone meant to know why things are 2 or 5 minutes delayed. My experience lately is that some cabin managers are trying to cut corners in order to achieve the targets. We always have a briefing when the day starts. The whole crew gets a chance to greet each other and discuss what is expected of the day. It builds the team and is often a good chance to highlight any potential issues. On two occasions over the last few weeks, cabin managers have tried to skip the briefing with the entire crew. When I insist, they immediately mention concerns that we are meant to start boarding imminently. It is obvious to me the cabin crew are under pressure.

CHIRP Comment

Part 1 – Sickness reporting/absence management

Airlines are required by law to have a sickness absence policy. How this policy is formulated, agreed and then promulgated differs from airline to airline. For example, some airlines had a restricted number of sickness days and after these have been ‘used up’ crew may feel compelled to report for work, even if unfit, e.g. with colds, headaches etc. The use by this particular airline of interviews, or so-called ‘welfare meetings’ as part of sickness policy, is, according to other CHIRP reports we have received, often regarded as a form of disciplinary process rather than a genuine concern for an individual’s welfare, particularly if the meeting is not handled well. Of course, if an individual crew member has concerns about their health and fitness, they should always get advice from an AME, whenever possible. In reality, this is easier said than done since accessing an AME at short notice is rarely straightforward. Successful application of sickness policy, however, results in a clear responsibility on both sides. Firstly, flight crew have a responsibility, in accordance with their licence, to turn up for work fit and able to carry out their duties unhindered by sickness or for other medical based reasons, and they should do so in the knowledge that they are protected by employment law. On the other side of the arrangement, for airlines, having a fair policy in place is only the beginning. Policies should be applied as sympathetically as possible, with an appreciation that reporting ‘unfit to fly’ can be a stressful experience for flight crew. Airlines should understand that the perception of the employee could differ from the intention of the policy. In the CAA’s experience, most airlines are genuinely concerned about an individual’s fitness to fly, as responsible employers; very few employees have been sacked owing to application of a sickness policy. Welfare interviews are a fair and reasonable way for airlines to monitor an individual’s situation and to best support them in returning to work or to make suitable provisions to arrange roster cover for potentially long absences. However, the conduct of these interviews should be tailored to the individual situation with care taken over questions asked; for example, asking the question “why are you sick?” will always be more effective than “why are you sick so often?” Overall, airlines have a responsibility to make sure that the reason for the interview is well understood, is conducted in line with the stated sickness policy, and will not be perceived as a form of disciplinary process or in any way put pressure on employees to fly when unfit.

Part 2 – Green Light Boarding (GLB)

CHIRP accepted that the reporter genuinely felt that they were being held responsible for the aircraft not being ready to board passengers on time when GLB was being used. The company had a responsibility to ensure that such policies were well understood by those who were affected by them. The report highlighted potential tensions and differing priorities between the parties involved in the boarding process. GLB is intended to move passengers forward as far as the jetty only, ready to board, with the understanding that, if nothing is heard to the contrary, then boarding would occur on time. Provided that a robust mechanism is in place to stop the automatic boarding if required, then the system is a reasonable efficiency measure for airlines to implement. Clearly, the onus is on cabin crew to ensure that the message is promptly transmitted if the aircraft isn’t ready for on-time boarding. Communication chains and methods of transmission mean that there will inevitably be occasions when the message might not be transmitted effectively to the boarding team. Airlines need to ensure that crews report internally using ASR on those occasions when the ‘stop’ system malfunctions, including details of specific problems encountered. Provided there is a healthy reporting culture at an airline, this conversation between policy makers and those implementing the policy should enable incremental improvements to the system. In fact, GLB can be a good example of collaborative decision making if handled correctly. CHIRP appreciates that the departure team at the airport are not members of the airline and often have financial incentives to ensure, whenever possible, aircraft depart on time, which can sometimes put them at odds with the crew who might be dealing with a technical or safety issue on board. As an alternative perspective, from a straw poll conducted by CHIRP amongst several experienced flight crew and cabin crew, generally the GLB system is working better than is indicated by the general tone of the report.