Air India Case
Air India Case
Section D, Group 1
Amit| Niven | Ravi | Roushan | Sneha | Sonali | Vinayak
1) From a legal framework perspective (breaking or twisting a law), how would you evaluate the action of Air-India management, and IPG in this case?
Ans Following is the classification of the actions of both Air India Management and IPG under a legal framework.
Concerned party | Legal | Illegal | Air India Managment | 1. Reduces flights to SARS hit areas and operates others through executive pilots to address the concerns and agitation. 2. Ensured avoidance of overnight stay at prone areas.3. Tried addressing the issues through Regional Labour Commissioner. | 1. The management took a very unconcerned stand on the issue of wage revisions throughout its history. The last wage revision was in 1998/1999 pertaining to 1995 and it had been a decade for the next revision. This led to natural resentment in the pilots and a feeling of misalignment from company objectives.2. Denial of charges of two pilots showing symptoms of disease. 3. Suspends 12 pilots without issuing notice as per the case. 4. Refuses to revoke charge sheets even when pilots call off strike and forces to sign undertaking to force objectives.5. Implicitly encourages a sense of differentiation in the pilot community by promoting different levels of seniority, wage differential and attaching monetary benefits to lucrative destinations | IPG | 1. Passing a No Confidence resolution against the management of Air India by each new IPG committee shows a biased stand taken by the IPG to promote unhealthy relationships with the management despite its right efforts also. | 1. Issuing directive to its members not to operate flights to Hong Kong and Singapore and by adopting non-constitutional means of agitation that led to loss of revenue or promotion of spirit of discord was against the agreement clause it signed with management. Instead IPG should have started an agitation without stopping activity. As
Section D, Group 1
Amit| Niven | Ravi | Roushan | Sneha | Sonali | Vinayak
1) From a legal framework perspective (breaking or twisting a law), how would you evaluate the action of Air-India management, and IPG in this case?
Ans Following is the classification of the actions of both Air India Management and IPG under a legal framework.
Concerned party | Legal | Illegal | Air India Managment | 1. Reduces flights to SARS hit areas and operates others through executive pilots to address the concerns and agitation. 2. Ensured avoidance of overnight stay at prone areas.3. Tried addressing the issues through Regional Labour Commissioner. | 1. The management took a very unconcerned stand on the issue of wage revisions throughout its history. The last wage revision was in 1998/1999 pertaining to 1995 and it had been a decade for the next revision. This led to natural resentment in the pilots and a feeling of misalignment from company objectives.2. Denial of charges of two pilots showing symptoms of disease. 3. Suspends 12 pilots without issuing notice as per the case. 4. Refuses to revoke charge sheets even when pilots call off strike and forces to sign undertaking to force objectives.5. Implicitly encourages a sense of differentiation in the pilot community by promoting different levels of seniority, wage differential and attaching monetary benefits to lucrative destinations | IPG | 1. Passing a No Confidence resolution against the management of Air India by each new IPG committee shows a biased stand taken by the IPG to promote unhealthy relationships with the management despite its right efforts also. | 1. Issuing directive to its members not to operate flights to Hong Kong and Singapore and by adopting non-constitutional means of agitation that led to loss of revenue or promotion of spirit of discord was against the agreement clause it signed with management. Instead IPG should have started an agitation without stopping activity. As