Joint Committee on Transport - 26th July 2005

Aer Lingus Voluntary Redundancy Scheme: Presentations.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent media reports on the Aer Lingus voluntary redundancy scheme.



Chairman: Will Mr. Sharman confirm that these letters were sent in 2003 and not, as Mr. McQuillan has said, in 2004?
Mr. McQuillan: I did not say they were sent in 2004.
Chairman: For the information of the committee, Mr. McQuillan should have stated the other letter was sent in 2003-----
Mr. McQuillan: May I respond?
Chairman: -----rather than 2004, which gives a different slant to the issues in question.
Mr. McQuillan: We are trying to establish the mind-set of the company -----
Chairman: I ask Mr. McQuillan to refrain. I have called Deputy Connaughton.
Senator Norris: It is not appropriate to harass the witness.
Chairman: I have not done so.
Senator Norris: I believe the Chairman is harassing the witness.
Mr. McQuillan: I agree.
Senator Norris: It is a requirement on the Chairman to be impartial in the conduct of the business of this committee.
Chairman: I hope I am impartial.
Senator Norris: I do not believe that is the case.

Senator Norris: The principal witnesses on both sides seem to be people of reason, decency and integrity and I hope that some accommodation can be reached between them. However, there is a great deal of semantics involved.
Will Mr. Sharman indicate why, if this is not a business plan, it so describes itself? It is clear that it says it is a business plan. Will Mr. Sharman agree that it is intended to demoralise the workforce, with a view to getting people to take an exit route? What is the meaning of the word "voluntary"? Does it include pressure? It begins to sound very much like the American definitions of torture, which tend to equivocate greatly. Does Mr. Sharman agree that the avoidance of the transfer of undertaking would be illegal, and, therefore, not something to be contemplated by a company such as Aer Lingus?
With regard to the tap on the shoulder, Mr. Sharman described that, rightly perhaps, as use of emotive language but it is used in the document. He indicated that he was concerned about the leaking of the document, the intention of which was to create anxiety.
Does Mr. Sharman not agree that the existence of this document, alone would create a good deal of anxiety because it suggests something about business practice and, in particular, very poor industrial relations in Aer Lingus?