Questionnaires on the subject have been sent to all MA’s. 20 replies have been returned. The replying countries are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Canada, Germany Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, The Netherlands Antilles, Portugal, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, ROC Taiwan, Zimbabwe and EGATS.

a)  Three MA’s have given information on intimidation in a strike situation;

b)  One MA gives example of intimidation in several cases, varying from change of shift cycles without proper notice till attempts to force controllers to perform duties that they were not qualified to do;

c)  One MA gives several examples which indicates plain harassment;

d)  The shortage of staff and the resulting overtime and change of shift cycles is another example from one MA.

In all cases stated the intimidating part has been the employer and all MA’s are convinced that it has been a planned action in order to make the controllers more cooperative.

Two MA’s highlight the importance of gathering material as a first step in dealing with intimidation.

One MA is of the opinion that IFATCA should provide a regular service of questionnaires on the subject.

Three MA’s would like IFATCA to approach the authorities and to stress the negative impact that intimidation has on air safety.

a)  Individual members should report the intimidation to his association;

b)  The association should investigate and confirm the report. Disregard gossip, but investigate facts;

c)  The association should seek a meeting with the appropriate ATS-management and discuss the situation with a view to end the intimidation;

d)  If the matter is not resolved the association may seek the support of the Ex Board of IFATCA so that they can approach the employer.