How's morale with uncertainty of the one list?

[Rezy]

The one list is still alive and well and was upheld with the bids from early November as encore pilots were awarded positions based on their seniority. All the theories involving Kaplan and him changing the list are not true because even after his interim order(s) the one list has been maintained. So he did not and has not changed it.

Rezy, while the statutory freeze is in operation, working conditions will remain as they were prior to the commence of collective bargaining towards a new contract, unless changes are agreed by the company and the bargaining agent. What will happen as of the instant that the CBA is released by Kaplan, is the flow agreement from WJE to WJ will no longer be in operation as regards pilots keeping their WJE DOH for the purposes of position and base assignments, as WJ pilots will be governed by an ALPA CBA with a DOH seniority clause and seniority list in its CBA. WJE will avail itself of the force majeure clause in the WJE pilot agreement to escape liability for being unable to satisfy it the DOH obligation to WJE pilots with respect to flow to mainline.

So yes, when I said the WPDL was dead, that was a rehortical flourish. Pilots are still flowing to WJ in order of their WJE DOH. According to Kaplan the CBA will be released by the end of the year. At that time, all former WJE pilots then at WJ will find themselves on a WestJet Pilot Seniority List at a position dictated by the date they commenced employment at WJ (mainline). The WJE pilots who have not flowed will not appear on that list until they flow to WJ.

The interim order changed the statutory freeze....that’s why it’s an interim order. The interim order has not changed the one list or flow, as you have suggested. Otherwise, it would already be changed...because it’s an interim order.

The flow agreement is also in the WJE agreement, which is under statutory freeze and must be honoured by the company, regardless of what Kaplan says or does, as he has no authority (currently) over the WJE work rules. He could do what he did with Swoop and make Encore common employer, then he could rule on the Encore work agreement...but as of today he has no authority to do so. So flow will stay after the CBA.

Seniority at WJ being honored by WJE DOH is currently being accomplished through a LOU of which you are already aware.

Flow and seniority are not mutually exclusive to one another (I know your aware of this, but for others reading). It’s in everyone’s interest to have seniority sorted out before the final arbitration award in late December and it seems as though ALPA and the company are currently hard at work getting that mutually beneficial agreement on paper.

[The Tenth Man]

Lots of incorrect ideas in the preceding posts, give me a couple of hours to get back to you in a more fulsome, transparent manner.

Short version: a one list attempt would violate ALPA rules, and be actionable via a breach of contract filing against ALPA.

If Seniority in Section 22 is defined as DOH, but the Seniority List is not DOH, a WJ pilot would have 90 days to file a DFR claim at CIRB.

Gotta run!

Johnny

[The Tenth Man]

When the CBA is released and you are proved wrong, will you admit defeat or are you going to keep this nonsense up indefinitely? You started this topic claiming that only your own made up union could protect the one list. Then you said ALPA wouldn't keep the one list. Then when ALPA said they were honoring the one list, you claimed that ALPA was acting against their own constitution. Now you're back to claiming that the one list was temporary and the final CBA will get rid of the one list.

Francis, let's clarify the facts:

If I said that only OLPA (the One List Pilot Association) could keep the One list in operation in a certified environment, I misspoke. Besides OLPA, also UNIFOR, CUPE, IAMAW, and pretty much every other union on the planet could maintain the One List. The problem is that because ALPA is uniquely an airline pilot union (at one time it represented FA's), it has tailored its constitution and policies to airline pilot interests. One of these is seniority. As has been repeated ad nauseum in these threads, seniority is of more importance to an airline pilot than any other occupation. Another concept that is of unique importance to an airline pilot is a merger. For this reason, ALPA has over the years developed and revised its policy on mergers.

Interestingly, because both WJ and WJE pilots are represented by ALPA, the ALPA merger policy must be followed. A result of this, as I have already stated, is that an integrated seniority list (ISL) cannot change the order of the pilots on the WPSL or the EPSL (Encore Pilot Seniority List). This means that anyone who transferred to Encore recently would have several hundred Encore pilots placed above him on an ISL. This would not seem to fly politically, nor does it replicate the WPDL. Had the WJE pilots chosen any other union to represent them (OLPA for instance), the ALPA merger policy would not apply to the ISL, and the order of pilots could have been changed. Something to think about.

If you could do me a favour bede: I have done all of the heavy lifting in this thread and others and clearly laid out the reasons why the WPDL cannot be recreated in an ALPA CBA. Could you do the same and show me how ALPA could recreate the WPDL. No short cuts though, and like a math exam, I will need you to show your work.

[The Tenth Man]

To any non WJ employee bored enough to continue to read this thread here's the facts we know for certain so far:

1. The MEC has committed to keeping the one list.
2. A LOU was sent in to WJ management regarding the desire to maintain the one list.
3. WJ management has yet to publicly comment.
4. It is completely up to WJ management if the one list is maintained or not.

Enough said, can we please wait for all this to be finalized before continuing this pointless argument?

1. Has the MEC (that has a different Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary-Treasurer from that one that issued the communication of Nov 2, 2018) said that it will follow through with the previous MEC's plans to submit the LOU for consideration to WJ?

2. When was the LOU "sent in"?

3. Agreed.

4. I disagree. Would you please address how a LOU would avoid breaking ALPA's rules and still replicate the WPDL?

[The Tenth Man]

The interim order changed the statutory freeze....that’s why it’s an interim order. The interim order has not changed the one list or flow, as you have suggested. Otherwise, it would already be changed...because it’s an interim order.

The flow agreement is also in the WJE agreement, which is under statutory freeze and must be honoured by the company, regardless of what Kaplan says or does, as he has no authority (currently) over the WJE work rules. He could do what he did with Swoop and make Encore common employer, then he could rule on the Encore work agreement...but as of today he has no authority to do so. So flow will stay after the CBA.

Seniority at WJ being honored by WJE DOH is currently being accomplished through a LOU of which you are already aware.

Flow and seniority are not mutually exclusive to one another (I know your aware of this, but for others reading). It’s in everyone’s interest to have seniority sorted out before the final arbitration award in late December and it seems as though ALPA and the company are currently hard at work getting that mutually beneficial agreement on paper.

rezy: The Interim Order did change the statutory freeze at WJE. You just are not aware of it yet. There is a WPSL in existence now, that no one, apart from a few individuals have seen. This document does not have existing Encore pilots on it. It only has WJ and Swoop pilots on it. When Encore pilots resign at Encore and are hired at WJ, they will take their place, as Kaplan ordered (and which certainly is in agreement with Section 22 Seniority in the soon to be released CBA), at the bottom of the WPSL.

Encore pilots will continue to flow to WJ. WJ is capable of honouring that commitment and will continue to do so. What WJ is not capable of doing is placing an Encore pilot at any other place on the WPSL besides the BOTL because of the CBA soon to be fully in place between WJ and ALPA and gives contractual seniority rights, including placement on the WPSL, to WJ pilots and not to anyone from outside of the bargaining unit.

rezy, you said this:

"It’s in everyone’s interest to have seniority sorted out before the final arbitration award in late December and it seems as though ALPA and the company are currently hard at work getting that mutually beneficial agreement on paper."

Seniority is already "sorted out". It was sorted out in the May-June timeframe. As the NC pointed out in its May 8 update, the "finalized language" had been reached regarding seniority. Further, Kaplan's June order stated that both ALPA and WJ had stressed the urgency of seniority with respect to Swoop pilots. There is no way seniority was not already dealt with when Kaplan issued his order. He definitely would not have let the parties backtrack on agreed items when there are so many pressing and difficult areas left to adjudicate.

There is no pressing need for WJ to deal with Encore seniority. The Encore pilots chose a bargaining agent to represent them. In due time, the contractual items will be adressed, including the form a flowthrough program to WJ will take. For the time being, the WJ MEC's job is to negotiate the best possible deal for WJ pilots, not Encore pilots. At some point in the future, with the involvement of the three parties, I am sure that WJ and ALPA can address hiring and retention issues at Encore, which is why the WPDL was created in the first place.

When looking for causation of the collapse of the WPDL and one list policy, the only place one needs to look is to the pilots who elected a group to represent them whose policies prohibited a one list. In fact the only group whose policies prohibited a one list.

John Swallow
President
One List Pilot Association (OLPA)

"OLPA: We don't just say unity, we do unity!"

[hurtin'albertan]

The interim order changed the statutory freeze....that’s why it’s an interim order. The interim order has not changed the one list or flow, as you have suggested. Otherwise, it would already be changed...because it’s an interim order.

The flow agreement is also in the WJE agreement, which is under statutory freeze and must be honoured by the company, regardless of what Kaplan says or does, as he has no authority (currently) over the WJE work rules. He could do what he did with Swoop and make Encore common employer, then he could rule on the Encore work agreement...but as of today he has no authority to do so. So flow will stay after the CBA.

Seniority at WJ being honored by WJE DOH is currently being accomplished through a LOU of which you are already aware.

Flow and seniority are not mutually exclusive to one another (I know your aware of this, but for others reading). It’s in everyone’s interest to have seniority sorted out before the final arbitration award in late December and it seems as though ALPA and the company are currently hard at work getting that mutually beneficial agreement on paper.

rezy: The Interim Order did change the statutory freeze at WJE. You just are not aware of it yet. There is a WPSL in existence now, that no one, apart from a few individuals have seen. This document does not have existing Encore pilots on it. It only has WJ and Swoop pilots on it. When Encore pilots resign at Encore and are hired at WJ, they will take their place, as Kaplan ordered (and which certainly is in agreement with Section 22 Seniority in the soon to be released CBA), at the bottom of the WPSL.

Encore pilots will continue to flow to WJ. WJ is capable of honouring that commitment and will continue to do so. What WJ is not capable of doing is placing an Encore pilot at any other place on the WPSL besides the BOTL because of the CBA soon to be fully in place between WJ and ALPA and gives contractual seniority rights, including placement on the WPSL, to WJ pilots and not to anyone from outside of the bargaining unit.

rezy, you said this:

"It’s in everyone’s interest to have seniority sorted out before the final arbitration award in late December and it seems as though ALPA and the company are currently hard at work getting that mutually beneficial agreement on paper."

Seniority is already "sorted out". It was sorted out in the May-June timeframe. As the NC pointed out in its May 8 update, the "finalized language" had been reached regarding seniority. Further, Kaplan's June order stated that both ALPA and WJ had stressed the urgency of seniority with respect to Swoop pilots. There is no way seniority was not already dealt with when Kaplan issued his order. He definitely would not have let the parties backtrack on agreed items when there are so many pressing and difficult areas left to adjudicate.

There is no pressing need for WJ to deal with Encore seniority. The Encore pilots chose a bargaining agent to represent them. In due time, the contractual items will be adressed, including the form a flowthrough program to WJ will take. For the time being, the WJ MEC's job is to negotiate the best possible deal for WJ pilots, not Encore pilots. At some point in the future, with the involvement of the three parties, I am sure that WJ and ALPA can address hiring and retention issues at Encore, which is why the WPDL was created in the first place.

When looking for causation of the collapse of the WPDL and one list policy, the only place one needs to look is to the pilots who elected a group to represent them whose policies prohibited a one list. In fact the only group whose policies prohibited a one list.

John Swallow
President
One List Pilot Association (OLPA)

"OLPA: We don't just say unity, we do unity!"

There is a WPSL in existence now, that no one, apart from a few individuals have seen. This document does not have existing Encore pilots on it. It only has WJ and Swoop pilots on it

Really John. Then why is there a pilot list on the EFB published Aug 24 2018 (after the Kaplan interim award) that has WJ and WJE pilots on it (oh, and I don't see any OTS Swoop on there, wonder why?

Seniority is already "sorted out". It was sorted out in the May-June timeframe. As the NC pointed out in its May 8 update, the "finalized language" had been reached regarding seniority.

Have you looked at any Canadian ALPA contracts, or any ALPA contracts for that matter? Go find Jazz and read section 4 (not 22, btw) Seniority to see what it deals with. Then go look at Transat's CBA (coincidentally, it's section 4 as well...) I'm sure you can find these on the interwebs (it was easy for me, and surely you are intellectually superior), or find a friend who works there to send you a copy (oh, wait, I just realized what I said, lol .

Based on the content of other alpa contracts Seniority sections, it would appear that the language that has been "sorted out" deals with stuff like (paraphrasing) "only pilots on the list fly the aircraft" and "inactive pilots retain their seniority subject to blahblah" and "when you are fired or quit or retire, you lose seniority standing" etc.

Seriously dude. This is basic stuff every alpa pilot should know. Oh, wait, I did it again.

[The Tenth Man]

Really John. Then why is there a pilot list on the EFB published Aug 24 2018 (after the Kaplan interim award) that has WJ and WJE pilots on it (oh, and I don't see any OTS Swoop on there, wonder why?[/quote]

hurtin' albertan, good morning from Winnipeg. The WPDL is the not the same document as the WPSL. I don't know why that is hard for you or anyone else to understand. The WPSL has only members of the WJ bargaining unit in it. WJE pilots are in their own bargaining unit and will have their own seniority list. While the statutory freeze is in effect, the WPDL will continue to be in existence.

Have you looked at any Canadian ALPA contracts, or any ALPA contracts for that matter? Go find Jazz and read section 4 (not 22, btw) Seniority to see what it deals with. Then go look at Transat's CBA (coincidentally, it's section 4 as well...) I'm sure you can find these on the interwebs (it was easy for me, and surely you are intellectually superior), or find a friend who works there to send you a copy (oh, wait, I just realized what I said, lol .

Based on the content of other alpa contracts Seniority sections, it would appear that the language that has been "sorted out" deals with stuff like (paraphrasing) "only pilots on the list fly the aircraft" and "inactive pilots retain their seniority subject to blahblah" and "when you are fired or quit or retire, you lose seniority standing" etc.

Seriously dude. This is basic stuff every alpa pilot should know. Oh, wait, I did it again.

Any pilot groups that have had collective bargaining agreements for some time, and those that had CBAs that pre-dated ALPA, are less likely to have used the numbering system that ALPA encourages for use in it its CBA's. The WJ and WJE CBA's will likely use the recommended numbering.

As regards the language of Section 22 Seniority in the WJ CBA, the wording will have some reference to date of hire. Guaranteed.

ALPA_ASA_CBA_Section_22_Seniority.jpg (440.93 KiB) Viewed 3228 times

[Bede]

hurtin' albertan, good morning from Winnipeg. The WPDL is the not the same document as the WPSL. I don't know why that is hard for you or anyone else to understand. The WPSL has only members of the WJ bargaining unit in it. WJE pilots are in their own bargaining unit and will have their own seniority list. While the statutory freeze is in effect, the WPDL will continue to be in existence.

Two things:
1) So why did you claim just last week that there was 1 list and therefore ALPA MEC was breaching it's own constitution? It's either one or the other.
2) The statutory freeze is NOT in effect. It's only a year from certification. That kind of kills your whole theory, no?

[The Tenth Man]

Two things:
1) So why did you claim just last week that there was 1 list and therefore ALPA MEC was breaching it's own constitution? It's either one or the other.
2) The statutory freeze is NOT in effect. It's only a year from certification. That kind of kills your whole theory, no?

I'm sorry bede, can you cut and paste what the passage I wrote to which you are referring? I sincerely don't recall it but will gladly address it.

Regarding part 2), see the law here. Reagrding WJE pilots, it is quite clear the statutory freeze is still in effect. As far as WJ pilots, I think a team of analysts would have to parse the legislation to find out. For now, it seems both parties, ALPA and WJ, are operating under the terms of the current WJ pilot agreement as it applies to WJ pilots, and ALPA and WJE are operating under the terms of the current WJE pilot agreement.

Additionally, nothing you wrote above is fatal to the notion that recreating a WPDL in an ALPA CBA is not legally possible. I suppose ALPA could bargain for such a thing, and WJ could agree to it, but upon a legal challenge either via CIRB DFR claim (90 day limitation period) or a breach of contract action (limitation period may be open ended?), ALPA would be responsible for making the damaged parties whole again (or as close as possible). This could include reordering the seniority list, as well as financially compensating pilots for any damages suffered for any lost bidding opportunities (upgrade, base).


Duty to bargain and not to change terms and conditions

50 Where notice to bargain collectively has been given under this Part,

(a) the bargaining agent and the employer, without delay, but in any case within twenty days after the notice was given unless the parties otherwise agree, shall

(i) meet and commence, or cause authorized representatives on their behalf to meet and commence, to bargain collectively in good faith, and

(ii) make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement; and

(b) the employer shall not alter the rates of pay or any other term or condition of employment or any right or privilege of the employees in the bargaining unit, or any right or privilege of the bargaining agent, until the requirements of paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d) have been met, unless the bargaining agent consents to the alteration of such a term or condition, or such a right or privilege.

Sections 89(1)(a) to (d):

No strike or lockout until certain requirements met

89 (1) No employer shall declare or cause a lockout and no trade union shall declare or authorize a strike unless

(a) the employer or trade union has given notice to bargain collectively under this Part;

(b) the employer and the trade union

(i) have failed to bargain collectively within the period specified in paragraph 50(a), or

(ii) have bargained collectively in accordance with section 50 but have failed to enter into or revise a collective agreement;

(c) the Minister has

(i) received a notice, given under section 71 by either party to the dispute, informing the Minister of the failure of the parties to enter into or revise a collective agreement, or

(ii) taken action under subsection 72(2);

(d) twenty-one days have elapsed after the date on which the Minister

(i) notified the parties of the intention not to appoint a conciliation officer or conciliation commissioner, or to establish a conciliation board under subsection 72(1),

(ii) notified the parties that a conciliation officer appointed under subsection 72(1) has reported,

(iii) released a copy of the report to the parties to the dispute pursuant to paragraph 77(a), or

(iv) is deemed to have been reported to pursuant to subsection 75(2) or to have received the report pursuant to subsection 75(3);

[The Tenth Man]

In reference to the above post, and in accordance with the notion of a breach of contract finding that ALPA had violated its own policies and its Constitution and Bylaws to the detriment of OTS pilots, the remedy imposed upon ALPA might resemble the following remedy imposed on Air Canada following a breach of the CBA. In some way WJ would have to be involved in the process to restore affected OTS pilots to where they would have been, but for the breach by ALPA.

I would assume that any costs borne by ALPA in the implementation of the remedy would reimbursed to ALPA by a levy on the members of the bargaining unit.

"Given the above conclusions, and as requested by the Union, I declare that the arrangement made by the Employer violated articles 22.01, 22.05, L18.02.01 and L18.05 in the manner that both the seniority dates and the seniority positions were given.

Second, I order the Employer to forthwith produce a corrected seniority list for the group of pilots hired during the period of June 5, 1995 to March 6, 1996.

Third, I order the Employer to give the entire disputed crew as soon as possible the opportunity to bid their rightful seniority so that they can be placed as far as possible where they should have been in terms of assignments.

Fourth, I order that the Employer compensate each pilot whose seniority position was lower than it should have been and for seniority dates which were later than they should have been, and that the compensation be measured to cover all lost wages and benefits which resulted from the violation of the agreement."

[hurtin'albertan]

John,

You are exhausting. It's like talking to a know-it-all 8 year old. Several of us could read through all the crap you posted and poke holes in it, and then go find more crap to counter it but to what end? It truly is a waste of time and energy, especially since the answers will be forthcoming very shortly in the new year. It has nothing to do with not being "up to the task" (nice attempt at baiting btw...). It's just a waste of time.

I've talked to ALPA reps who have gotten legal opinions (from like, real lawyers who didn't get their creds from Google and like, went to school for this stuff and practice this stuff every day, cause it's like, their JOB). Nothing, including ALPA's policies which you are misinterpreting btw in order to try and support your myopic views, prevents WJ pilots from recognizing the seniority of Encore pilots who flow over to mainline (such as is done today, and/or was done pre-alpa). You can stand there on your soapbox on the street corner holding your "End of the WPDL is near! DFR!" sign, but that doesn't make it so, just because you believe it and have wasted countless hours in search of any scrap of evidence which you could point to to try and support your views.

I will wager that the one-list will survive, and it will or would survive any challenge such as you propose. All will become clear in a few short weeks.

So feel free to continue to waste your time convincing only yourself that you are more clever than the rest of us, including alpa's own lawyers if it makes you feel better. The rest of us have better things to do.

[The Tenth Man]

John,
.
.
.
I've talked...

Dave,

Talk is cheaper than actually trying to understand the principles involved. How about giving us the Coles Notes on how ALPA replaces Seniority within the bargaining unit as a means of determining promotions etc, as per the ALPA Executive Board policy?

[The Tenth Man]

1. WE KNOW YOU ARE WRONG BUT WE CAN'T SAY WHY



2. WE KNOW WE CAN DO IT BUT WE CAN'T SAY HOW

[hurtin'albertan]

1. WE KNOW YOU ARE WRONG BUT WE CAN'T SAY WHY



2. WE KNOW WE CAN DO IT BUT WE CAN'T SAY HOW

Sigh. Even when you try to get out, they pull you back in...

Jazz LOU 34 -(Pathways program). Specifically look at: 5. RESERVED SENIORITY NUMBER.

[The Tenth Man]

Oh come now, you can't believe that a reserved seniority list program of very temporary duration can in any way compare to the situation at WJ/WJE. For one, the former WJE pilots now at WJ have been placed on the WPSL by DOH at mainline, losing forever their claim on a different sequence on the WPSL. For another, you certainly could reserve seniority numbers at WJ now for WJE pilots who come over later, but those reserved spots would be at the BOTL, not in amongst the WJ pilots scattered willy nilly.

Honestly, when you have to do contortions in order to make something seem like it could be something that we need it to look like, you invite the suspicion that what you propose is not possible.

[hurtin'albertan]

Oh come now, you can't believe that a reserved seniority list program of very temporary duration can in any way compare to the situation at WJ/WJE. For one, the former WJE pilots now at WJ have been placed on the WPSL by DOH at mainline, losing forever their claim on a different sequence on the WPSL. For another, you certainly could reserve seniority numbers at WJ now for WJE pilots who come over later, but those reserved spots would be at the BOTL, not in amongst the WJ pilots scattered willy nilly.

Honestly, when you have to do contortions in order to make something seem like it could be something that we need it to look like, you invite the suspicion that what you propose is not possible.

Wow. Ok. Now I am sure you are just trolling everyone on this board for your own amusement. Even when presented with proof of the concept of the recognition of seniority of a pilot from another carrier at an alpa shop, you deflect and refuse to accept that maybe, just maybe all your internet sleuthing was for naught. Has your anger at ALPA blinded you this much, or are you just such an arrogant p***k that you can't admit when you are wrong, when the facts are staring you in the face?

"very temporary duration": have you read the LOU? There is no expiry date. And even if there was, it still shows that a pathway pilot can hold a reserved seniority number at Jazz.

"For one, the former WJE pilots now at WJ have been placed on the WPSL by DOH at mainline, losing forever their claim on a different sequence on the WPSL": Really, and how do you know this? Are you certain, or are you just "contorting in order to make something seem like it could be something you need it to look like?" Are you privy to some information the rest of the pilot group other than the NC and MEC are?

"For another, you certainly could reserve seniority numbers at WJ now for WJE pilots who come over later, but those reserved spots would be at the BOTL, not in amongst the WJ pilots scattered willy nilly.": Again, you are making assumptions. The Jazz LOU would suggest that otherwise is possible, and certainly the stated intent of the WJ MEC has been to preserve the flow/list as it was prior to certification.

"Honestly, when you have to do contortions in order to make something seem like it could be something that we need it to look like, you invite the suspicion that what you propose is not possible." LOLOLOLOLOL I am sure I am not the only one here who sees the extreme irony in this statement, coming from you, John.

And with this I am done with you. Feel free to have the last (stubborn) word (or 20) on this. You will be proven wrong, yet again, very soon. And you will lurk away with your tail between your legs, only to reappear with yet another handle on this site in a few months time railing against some other thing in your anti-alpa crusade and to feed your insatiable need for attention.

So long, and good riddance.

[The Tenth Man]

Wow. Ok. Now I am sure you are just trolling everyone on this board for your own amusement. Even when presented with proof of the concept of the recognition of seniority of a pilot from another carrier at an alpa shop, you deflect and refuse to accept that maybe, just maybe all your internet sleuthing was for naught. Has your anger at ALPA blinded you this much, or are you just such an arrogant p***k that you can't admit when you are wrong, when the facts are staring you in the face?

"very temporary duration": have you read the LOU? There is no expiry date. And even if there was, it still shows that a pathway pilot can hold a reserved seniority number at Jazz.

"For one, the former WJE pilots now at WJ have been placed on the WPSL by DOH at mainline, losing forever their claim on a different sequence on the WPSL": Really, and how do you know this? Are you certain, or are you just "contorting in order to make something seem like it could be something you need it to look like?" Are you privy to some information the rest of the pilot group other than the NC and MEC are?

"For another, you certainly could reserve seniority numbers at WJ now for WJE pilots who come over later, but those reserved spots would be at the BOTL, not in amongst the WJ pilots scattered willy nilly.": Again, you are making assumptions. The Jazz LOU would suggest that otherwise is possible, and certainly the stated intent of the WJ MEC has been to preserve the flow/list as it was prior to certification.

"Honestly, when you have to do contortions in order to make something seem like it could be something that we need it to look like, you invite the suspicion that what you propose is not possible." LOLOLOLOLOL I am sure I am not the only one here who sees the extreme irony in this statement, coming from you, John.

And with this I am done with you. Feel free to have the last (stubborn) word (or 20) on this. You will be proven wrong, yet again, very soon. And you will lurk away with your tail between your legs, only to reappear with yet another handle on this site in a few months time railing against some other thing in your anti-alpa crusade and to feed your insatiable need for attention.

So long, and good riddance.

No comment. Just wanted a record of what you thought.

[The Tenth Man]

.
.
.
2) The statutory freeze is NOT in effect. It's only a year from certification. That kind of kills your whole theory, no?

bede, the company created website www.wjpilotfacts.com defines the statutory freeze as extending until a CBA is reached.

"Statutory freeze

Once a union is certified by the CIRB to represent employees, the Canada Labour Code requires the current terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit remain unchanged until a collective agreement is reached."

ALPA_wjpilotfactsdotcom_statutory_freeze_definition.jpg (298.38 KiB) Viewed 2797 times

[FurHat]

.
.
.
2) The statutory freeze is NOT in effect. It's only a year from certification. That kind of kills your whole theory, no?

bede, the company created website www.wjpilotfacts.com defines the statutory freeze as extending until a CBA is reached.

The company propaganda website is incorrect.

Duty to observe terms and conditions

107 Unless the parties otherwise agree, and subject to subsection 125(1), after the notice to bargain collectively is given, each term and condition of employment applicable to the employees in the bargaining unit to which the notice relates that may be included in a collective agreement, and that is in force on the day on which the notice is given, is continued in force and must be observed by the employer, the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit and the employees in the bargaining unit until a collective agreement is entered into in respect of that term or condition or

(a) if the process for the resolution of a dispute is arbitration, an arbitral award is rendered; or

(b) if the process for the resolution of a dispute is conciliation, a strike could be declared or authorized without contravening subsection 194(1).

Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-33.3/

I wonder what else the company has lied to you about. Their lawyers are familiar with this act as they did violate it and lost a ULP complaint in violation of the act.

[The Tenth Man]

Duty to observe terms and conditions

107 Unless the parties otherwise agree, and subject to subsection 125(1), after the notice to bargain collectively is given, each term and condition of employment applicable to the employees in the bargaining unit to which the notice relates that may be included in a collective agreement, and that is in force on the day on which the notice is given, is continued in force and must be observed by the employer, the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit and the employees in the bargaining unit until a collective agreement is entered into in respect of that term or condition or

(a) if the process for the resolution of a dispute is arbitration, an arbitral award is rendered; or
.
.
.

furhat, it looks like you are correct, and the company website was either intentionally misleading, or more likely, was dumbed down or simplified such that pilots might understand generally the limitation period of the statutory freeze. If nothing else, the issue of the one list and its disposition under ALPA has certainly shown, in this web forum, that pilots need legal concepts simplified as they seem to have have little interest or motivation in understanding the actual situation, even when it directly impacts their futures.

In this case, I think we can rely on the term "... an arbitral award is rendered..." for support of the contention that the statutory freeze is still in place for WJ and WJE pilots, as the arbitral award has not been issue, merely the interim award.

Thank you for doing the research.

John