Le COLIBRI : Classifications, All your testimonies !



We hope you had a great vacation! As promised, you’ll find all the testimonials in this issue of Colibri.
Thank you for sharing your views on the new classification, as deployed by Airbus!
The CFDT gives you a voice!
Over 70% of respondents are not satisfied with their classification.
The responses and comments show that dissatisfaction is in the majority. One might think that only the dissatisfied took the time to reply, but this is contradicted by the positive responses and comments. The survey was open to all, and many non-members took the opportunity to respond. We would like to thank them.


Of the 70% of employees unhappy with their classification, half expressed their disagreement in writing. Among them, 6% have seen their classification evolve. For the others, only 9% had a written explanation from their manager or HRBP.

UNFORTUNATE CHOICES : Top down & too fast

The Management made two unfortunate choices for the employees: not to respect the spirit of the “Convention Collective” for the metallurgy industry and to implement the classification as quickly as possible.

The Metallurgy Convention provides that:

  1. the content of the employment cards reflects as closely as possible the activities of the employee, even if these represent only a tiny part of the job. However, instead of favoring the collection of data in a work situation, the company agreement provides for a “top down” approach, using pre-existing job catalogs. This leads to a description of the tasks far removed from the real activity.
    2️. Validation of the job sheet by the employee before rating. However, the company’s agreement provides for the drawing up of job cards and their rating, prior to the collection of employees’ comments on their jobs.
    The CFDT regrets that Airbus did not seize this opportunity to improve the attractiveness of its jobs and strengthen employee confidence.

SOME MALFUNCTIONS : Salary, age, competencies into question…

The CFDT has noted that the manager’s assignment of a job description to the employee’s position has too often been done not by mapping the positions in terms of the 6 classifying criteria (supervision/cooperation, communication, autonomy, complexity, contribution, knowledge) but rather:
1/ based on salary,
2/ according to age (job descriptions for older employees are often less highly rated than their actual activity would suggest),
3/ by assessing the employee and his or her skills.
The stated principle is that the change of employment class will be made exclusively through a change of position, but the CFDT has been informed of cases where an employee applying for a higher class position has been refused the position, the difference in salary being too high.

TESTIMONIES : All your testimonies are on our website !


La CFDT is requesting the following :

1/ All employees who expressed their disagreement must receive a written response.

2/ For certain contentious individual cases falling within the categories mentioned above, an impartial re-examination must be possible, possibly leading to a change in the rating.

3/The CFDT requests that in the coming months, and in the future, the evaluation of positions be carried out according to the criteria, the activities attached to the position and not the performance of the employees or their salary. We must return to the spirit of the Collective Agreement.

From January 1, 2024, the evolution and monitoring of job descriptions and quotations will be done through the Commission for the Management of Jobs and Professional Paths, and/or following a “precise and objective analysis in relation to the 6 job ranking criteria” made by the manager and the HRBP. Let’s take up the challenge!

4/ A specific increase envelope to finance job changes, which can be a way of increasing the possibilities of development and thus returning to the fundamentals of the Collective Agreement.