Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

canadianpylon · Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:03 pm

Garda suspends 74 protesting airport screeners at Pearson airport

Some quotes from the article:

'Garda Security Group says it has suspended 74 screening officers at Pearson International Airport after they staged a work-to-rule campaign today...'

74 people were suspended for working to the letter of the job?

...they refused to honour a Canadian Industrial Relations Board injunction and court order prohibiting a work slowdown.'

If they were working to rule, wouldn't a work slowdown be bad planning by management?

9252fly · Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:42 pm

This is a tricky one,considering civil aviation security should be meticulous. How do you criticize someone for doing the job correctly even though they took the time to thoroughly screen a passenger? I understand it a balancing act between security and the practicalities of processing passengers for their scheduled departing flights.

WestJet747 · Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:26 pm

Quoting canadianpylon (Thread starter):
74 people were suspended for working to the letter of the job?

"Working to the letter of the job" does not equate to "following court orders".

Quoting canadianpylon (Thread starter):
wouldn't a work slowdown be bad planning by management?

Can you elaborate?

pnwtraveler · Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:37 am

The purpose of the workers was not to do the best job possible. Their purpose was to create havoc by holding travelers hostage. They had made their point the first day and a mediator was appointed. Continuing on was asking for disciplinary action and they got it. The economic impact of all those delays and missed flights is massive.

cincpac1c · Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:04 am

I'm guessing these guess make a few bucks more than someone working at Timmies or McD's ?

canadianpylon · Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:14 am

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
Quoting canadianpylon (Thread starter):
wouldn't a work slowdown be bad planning by management?

Can you elaborate?

I thought work-to-rule was that the employees would work to the requirement of the job. If they were doing that, and there was massive delays, wouldn't that mean the employer, ie.Garda, didn't have enough people on staff to effectively do the job?

Conversely, doesn't that also mean that there is an expectation of extra effort just to meet the minimum requirements? It would be the equivalent of expecting everyone to work 25% OT to cover the shifts. Unless it is mandated that they MUST work OT, wouldn't there be a problem if everyone decided NOT to work overtime? I must admit, I don't have a law degree, but isn't against the law to force someone to work overtime (in this case) with threats of legal action, etc...

What's missing here is...What is the work-to-rule? Did the Guards slow down to meet the minimum contractual obligations of processing X number of people per hour? Did they refuse to work overtime? What were the terms of the work-to-rule?

WestJet747 · Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:06 am

Quoting canadianpylon (Reply 5):

Work-to-rule is defined as a job action in which employees do no more than what they are bound by their current contract. By doing so they must also ensure that all safety regulations are met as to not make the action illegal. This in turn causes a slowdown in business rather than striking to serve a purpose.

To answer the question as you pose it in your example: yes you can "force" an employee to work overtime so long as it is not unreasonable, and that they are being compensated accordingly. Overtime (in Ontario where I live anyway) begins at 44 hours/week, at which point compensation increases to time and a half. There's dozens of examples and exceptions but to go into that would take away from the point of the thread....

Yes, there is an expectation for an application of some effort. In a work-to-rule action, the screeners are exhibiting lessened effort than what is common-place for the position, given the circumstances. If there is average traffic, with average security in effect, and the flow of pax going through the screening process is significantly slower, then it's obvious the screeners are doing something they should not (breaking a court-order in this case).

Regarding the questions in your final paragraph: I don't know the terms of their contract, so I can't speak to quantitative obligations, but there was clearly an observed deficiency in the quality of their work. I would assume they refused to work overtime (as it would contribute to an overall slowdown), although not wanting the overtime pay takes some real commitment!

I hope this answers any questions. My point is that this is not an issue of bad management, as management plans based on precedent. The precedent here was broken by a select few screeners who chose to partake in a work-to-rule action.

canadianpylon · Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:53 am

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 6):
I hope this answers any questions. My point is that this is not an issue of bad management, as management plans based on precedent. The precedent here was broken by a select few screeners who chose to partake in a work-to-rule action.

Obviously, you are far more versed in this then I am. I thank you for the clarification!

Also, the article cited that 74 screeners were being suspended out of 1600. That is a small percentage (

aircanada014 · Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:07 am

If I'm correct these Garda security guards only make about 15-18 an hour..

Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

RE: Garda Suspends 74 Airport Screeners At YYZ

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net