Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: 桃園市空服員職業工會/Facebook
THE TAOYUAN FLIGHT ATTENDANT’S UNION (TFAU) has stated that it will seek a constitutional interpretation after a ruling by the Taiwan High Court that required the union to pay EVA Air compensation for losses incurred during a 2019 strike. As the decision can no longer be appealed, the Taoyuan Flight Attendant’s Union likely plans to escalate in this way.
EVA Air alleges that the strike violated the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes. By contrast, the TFAU has highlighted that EVA Air has sought to retaliate against the union through such actions and that its lawsuit is intended to intimidate, so as to dissuade future strikes.
The strike lasted for seventeen days and was the largest and longest strike in the history of Taiwan’s airline industry. In retrospect, the strike can be seen as part of a wave of organizing in Taiwan’s airline industry that took place after the historic 2016 China Airlines strike.
Apart from striking, TFAU members also held demonstrations on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office and held an occupation outside of EVA Air’s headquarters in Nankan, Taoyuan. Thirty flight attendants also held a 35-kilometer march from EVA Air’s headquarters to the Presidential Office.
As part of the strike, the TFAU, representing EVA Air flight attendants, secured demands for a bonus for short flights of 300 NT, and a bonus for transoceanic flights of 500 NT. EVA flight attendants also secured the right to take overnight rests from March to June on flight routes BR108 BR184, and BR198, which fly to Tokyo, as well as flight route BR716 from June to August, which flies to Beijing.
Yet EVA flight attendants had to give up on many of their original demands, which included raising the hourly layover allowance from 90 NT to 150 NT, and paying employees double for working on public holidays. EVA flight attendants originally called for overnight rests to be allowed for seven destinations beyond just Tokyo and Beijing.
Nevertheless, according to the terms of the agreement, the Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ Union cannot strike for three years, if management complies with the condition of not retaliating against EVA employees. EVA flight attendants also cannot strike on domestic routes.
Photo credit: 桃園市空服員職業工會/Facebook
The Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ leadership agreed to the terms of the meeting after EVA management agreed to drop clauses from the agreement that would have forbidden union members from “bullying” or “criticizing” company executives, imposed a 500,000 NT fine on employees making “untrue comments” against the company, and required a 30-day notice before strikes were declared. In past years since the China Airlines strike, companies have increasingly leaned into claims that unions should make advance warnings of strikes before they are carried out.
But two days after the end of the strike, EVA fired Kuo Chi-yen, the director of the Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ Union (TFAU). The TFAU, which represents flight attendants from both EVA and China Airlines, was the primary organizer of the EVA flight attendants’ strike.
EVA’s justification for firing Kuo was a joke she made on social media regarding “adding something special” to the meals of flight attendants who opposed the strike, claiming that this showed that Kuo was unfit for her duties and could potentially endanger flight safety through engaging in acts of “sabotage”. EVA also demanded that TFAU representative Liao Yi-chin and deputy secretary Chou Sheng-kai be held responsible for helping organize the strike, claiming that they should be held responsible for the heavier workload faced by non-striking workers.
In filing a compensation lawsuit against the TFAU, EVA claimed that the TFAU refused to allow workers who wished to stop striking to return to work by withholding their passports, seeing as TFAU members handed over their passports to the union as a sign of their determination to strike, something which had taken place during previous flight attendants’ strikes.
EVA also went back on its agreement with workers. Despite the agreement entailing that thirteen EVA union members would be appointed to the board as directors, EVA later claimed that this would be impossible, as only shareholders could appoint directors.
A 2019 ruling by the Taipei District Court was in favor of the strike’s legality, and an appeal last summer was also defeated, making but the present result somewhat surprising. It is to be seen what occurs next, then, in that appealing to the Constitutional Court is the last option available to the TFAU.