How can a letter get one interdicted from duty? Well, it can if it is six pages long, it is addressed to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Air Mauritius, it contains accusations (substantiated or not) that the company is being mismanaged and that friends and lobbyists are being favoured to the detriment of the good of the company. Oh, and that the language is blunt and to the point and not as deferential as one would expect it to be when the letter is being addressed to the CEO.

The end result was that two trade unionists, Nervada Beenessreesingh and Manick Mooteelal, respectively President of the Air Mauritius Cabin Crew Association (AMCCA) and President of the Air Mauritius Association (AMSA), were interdicted. Little is known regarding the reasons that pushed the two trade unionists to send such a letter ? they have described the contents of the letter as ?constructive criticisms? in a press conference held after they had been interdicted.

But clearly the word ?constructive? have different meanings for the CEO and the unionists. According to inside information, in a meeting held between the Chairman of Air Mauritius and the CEO after receipt of the disparaging letter, the former was said to object strongly to the tone of the letter while the latter said that he wasn?t ?bothered? by the contents of the said letter.

But the action that followed was so swift and ruthless that one wonders about how much the CEO was in fact ?not bothered?.

The letter written on behalf of the employees of the National aviation company was meant to ?express our deepest apprehension regarding the way this company is being managed.?

The authors feel there is ?total confusion and lack of direction on the ground while at the other end we see a lot of resources being wasted to allure the press into conveying a different picture?. They further warn their boss that such an attitude will not get him far - ?ask the likes of Tirvengadum etc and you will know where all this leads to ultimately?, says the letter.

Besides complaining of the fact that ?employees are learning about your plan and other corporate news through the press? and that unions are not being consulted about any decisions because ?your office seems to have grown a deliberate barrier towards us and opened the door more towards those who are expert at manipulations?, i.e, ?lobbyists? and ?pressure groups? and ?pseudo socio-cultural groups?, the unionists make even more worrying accusations.

One of the main bones of contention is what is called the ?Programme Office? - an office set up by the CEO and peopled mostly by persons reportedly close to him to implement the Mckinsey Report. According to the unionists, the Programme Office and the Corporate Communications Department (run by Donald Payen) ?seem to have substituted themselves as the be all and end all in terms of importance in your eyes?.

<I>«...the action that followed was so swift and ruthless that one wonders about how much the CEO was in fact ?not bothered?».</I>

According to the unionists, those two bodies have grown ?into a mammoth size? and together with ?lobbyist? groups, make all important decisions ranging from strategy to decisions on what the flight menu should be and what uniforms MK personnel should wear. The unionists demand that the Programme Office ? that was created for a specific purpose and its members appointed for a given period but has now become a permanent feature of the office of the CEO - be disbanded and that the Corporate Communications Department be downsized.

The policy on vacancies, recruitments, contractual work and promotions as well as the voluntary retirement scheme is also questioned and allegations are made regarding ?wastage? and ?lavishness?.

The unionists speaking on behalf of their members say they believe that the challenge of the ?unprecedented fuel crisis? compounded by the ?worsening world economic climate? need to be addressed ?in order to allow this company to breathe fresh air and better meet the tougher challenges ahead?.

But, they add, ?we cannot do this when your leadership is pointing in a completely different direction?.

The reaction was, as we know, a letter from management asking the two unionists to substantiate their accusations. It seems however that the justifications given by the unionists didn?t please the CEO and they were henceforth interdicted from duty.

According to unofficial reports, legal advice was sought before such an unprecedented decision - interdicting trade unionists for writing letters to the CEO ? was made.