And...lostaviator wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:32 am Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.
I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?
What's wrong with Tinder?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
And...lostaviator wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:32 am Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.
I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?
Sorry to disappoint, but I have been out of the vagina business for 5 years or so.complexintentions wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:59 pmAnd...lostaviator wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:32 am Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.
I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?
What's wrong with Tinder?
So, what, the day the CBA comes into effect lightning will come down from the heavens to smite the members of the MEC and cleave the seniority list? If ALPA is on board, WestJet is on board, the WestJet MEC is on board, and the Encore MEC is on board, who is going to initiate disciplinary action? It'll take until the case makes its way through the courts before any action is taken, assuming someone with standing files such a suit, and assuming the judge finds that the MEC acted in bad faith.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:05 am What the preceding post lends support to is the contention that all ALPA members (not just the MEC chairman) who participated in the discussions to subvert and disregard established association policy (if that is that is the purpose of the LOU) have brought themselves into a position where they may be "disciplined, fined, or expelled" by ALPA for their actions.
Yes, and my contention is that if this case goes to court, there's a strong probability that the judge would find that Encore should have been included in the single bargaining unit, and that Encore pilots were wronged; this will result in compensation being paid to Encore pilots to the tune of millions of dollars, and a much stronger, unified union negotiating future CBAs.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am As it stands now, it was WestJet, not Mr. Kaplan, that voluntarily ceded "single bargaining unit" status to WestJet and Swoop, which is not exactly the same as common employer. The issue of Encore is not before Mr. Kaplan. Pilots that flow from Encore to WestJet/Swoop resign their employment from Encore and start at year one with WestJet/Swoop while maintaining some benefits such as vacation allowance.
This is entirely wrong. Air Canada and Jazz are separate companies with separate ownership and management; Encore was created by, and remains wholly owned by, WestJet. Not only that, but Jazz and Air Canada haven't tried to create a single seniority list, so there really isn't a comparison there. A better match would be WestJet and Pasco, and there hasn't been any discussion about those two merging their lists.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am WestJet and Encore relationship is similar to Air Canada and Jazz (or old Air Ontario). Encore is a separate company which happens to be also represented by ALPA by a separate MEC.Therefore, it could be argued that the only way their seniorities can be merged is if the two companies were to merge. Then both being represented by ALPA could possibly argue for DOH with some fences,
As I stated earlier, ALPA doesn't define what a "Company" is, and it isn't clear whether WestJet and Encore really are separate companies. Like I said, it will likely have to go through a lengthy court process to be resolved, but considering that Swoop and WestJet pilots are considered to be part of the same company there is a strong argument that WestJet, Swoop, and Encore are all components of a single company.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am It is being argued that merging the lists is to the detriment of those that were hired directly into WestJet who could say ALPA cannot arbitrarily merge lists with another company, subsidiary or not, when it is to the detriment of its own (WestJet/Swoop) members as it could be deemed a failure of its fiduciary duty to protect its own members.
In regards to my arguments, since you didn't have an answer, you simply ignored them.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:34 am hangry, what I would do, if I didn't have an answer or opposing opinion regarding the arguments above, is I would attack the poster. What would you do?
See my response to cloak above; taking any action could backfire on you, and result in Encore being added to the WestJet MEC, with compensation paid by the company and a stronger union. It wouldn't need to go to the CIRB, it could simply be a finding of the judge in any lawsuit regarding this matter that Encore pilots were wronged by being excluded from the WestJet MEC, regardless of whether that question is raised by the plaintiff.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:43 am I appreciate that you feel this way. It would seem to make sense. Unfortunately, when ALPA certified the WJ pilot group, they did not include the WJE pilots in the bargaining unit. Had they done so, you might have a case...If ALPA wants to combine the WJE pilots into the same bargaining unit as the WJ pilots, they will need to approach the CIRB, if WJ is unwilling to voluntarily do so (unlikely).
I don't think this is a particularly good precedent for the current situation, because it was a merger, rather than the creation of a new list. When the WPDL was created, Encore was brand-new, and practically everyone who has ever worked there was hired after the list was established. It was very simple to add Encore pilots to the list, because they were added to the bottom of the list when they were hired, whereas in the AC/AO case there were two-long established lists. More importantly, Air Canada agreed to the single list, they just couldn't agree to the order of addition of the pilots onto it, and if they had been able to compromise on where AO pilots would be added they would have ended up with one list. As it currently stands, according to all publicly-available information, ALPA, the MECs, and WestJet management all support the WPDL, and the company would be stupid to alienate the hundreds of pilots they have operating all of their regional flights. As long as the company agrees to a single list, as seems probable at this point, there shouldn't be any barrier to keeping the WPDL besides a potential lawsuit. However, as I stated previously and Mr Swallow ignored, it would take years for the case to work its way through the court system, going through appeal after appeal, and in the meantime hundreds of pilots would have moved around. The judge would either accept the WPDL, possibly with the addition of Encore to the WestJet MEC, or would rule that the list was invalid, and the question would then become what to do with everyone who had changed positions; like I said, it's unlikely (s)he would rule that everyone would have to return to their previous positions, and much more likely that everyone would be grandfathered in, with financial compensation paid by the company to anyone who lost out financially.
My apologies if I have not responded to questions asked. I shall endeavour to catch up.lostaviator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:06 am J,
I would be more than happy to begin a constructive discussion with you. You have done your homework and I do respect that, BUT you owe the other members of this community the same courtesy. I’d run out of fingers and toes pretty quick if I went back and tried to count the number of unanswered questions people have asked you in response to something you have posted. Not engaging in discussions you start and simply starting a new thread everyday grows tiresome to the rest of us.
Why is it you are so concerned with the “one list”? You have stated time and time again that you won’t be affected either way nor do you care about your fellow pilots. So why? If you really wanted to get my (and others) attention, you should have been honest and shown your hand from the beginning: overtime. Then you would have gotten our attention.
All we can do now is wait. Nothing we say will change the outcome of THIS contract. Proposals and arguments have already been submitted.
I get it - I agree with you, we were told a lot of lies. I wasn't an ALPA supporter, BUT I recognize now we need to stand together or we are totally (insert bad word here): The contract was going to be so easy, done within a year (who was right about that one? Former CEO perhaps?), and then there was all the famous "we didn't expect the company to ask for this alternative arbitration process explanation that came out two months ago.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:46 pmMy apologies if I have not responded to questions asked. I shall endeavour to catch up.lostaviator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:06 am J,
I would be more than happy to begin a constructive discussion with you. You have done your homework and I do respect that, BUT you owe the other members of this community the same courtesy. I’d run out of fingers and toes pretty quick if I went back and tried to count the number of unanswered questions people have asked you in response to something you have posted. Not engaging in discussions you start and simply starting a new thread everyday grows tiresome to the rest of us.
Why is it you are so concerned with the “one list”? You have stated time and time again that you won’t be affected either way nor do you care about your fellow pilots. So why? If you really wanted to get my (and others) attention, you should have been honest and shown your hand from the beginning: overtime. Then you would have gotten our attention.
All we can do now is wait. Nothing we say will change the outcome of THIS contract. Proposals and arguments have already been submitted.
As far as overtime is concerned, nothing I say or do here is going to change anything with the contract. And there is also nothing I can do to remove ALPA, that is not in the cards. I'm certainly not volunteering for that task lol!
As far as my motivation, well, I can't f#cking stand liars. Well, Trump excepted. People were lied to during the OC campaign about the ease with which the WPDL could be replicated. When I protested, I was attacked. Upon confronting a prominent OC member regarding the WPDL his words were that they needed to certify first, then deal with the WPDL. He wasn't lying, that's what is happening. Except they didn't have a workable plan. Or if they did, they certainly didn't reveal it.
If you have any other questions, I will try to answer them. My lack of answering questions in the past is best explained that I don't respond to personal attacks, and quite frankly, that's all most people have to offer. They just attack. I get it, thinking about things is hard. Google can't do all the work, sometime you have to actually think.
Cheers
He doesn't have to pay $55 for it... that... that's what's wrong with it for him.complexintentions wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:59 pmAnd...lostaviator wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:32 am Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.
I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?
What's wrong with Tinder?
Not me. Personally I skip over all other posts except his. Yours just caught my eye you piece of eye candy
I will these posts when I can, but I do have the redeye to operate tonight.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmSo, what, the day the CBA comes into effect lightning will come down from the heavens to smite the members of the MEC and cleave the seniority list? If ALPA is on board, WestJet is on board, the WestJet MEC is on board, and the Encore MEC is on board, who is going to initiate disciplinary action? It'll take until the case makes its way through the courts before any action is taken, assuming someone with standing files such a suit, and assuming the judge finds that the MEC acted in bad faith.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:05 am What the preceding post lends support to is the contention that all ALPA members (not just the MEC chairman) who participated in the discussions to subvert and disregard established association policy (if that is that is the purpose of the LOU) have brought themselves into a position where they may be "disciplined, fined, or expelled" by ALPA for their actions.Yes, and my contention is that if this case goes to court, there's a strong probability that the judge would find that Encore should have been included in the single bargaining unit, and that Encore pilots were wronged; this will result in compensation being paid to Encore pilots to the tune of millions of dollars, and a much stronger, unified union negotiating future CBAs.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am As it stands now, it was WestJet, not Mr. Kaplan, that voluntarily ceded "single bargaining unit" status to WestJet and Swoop, which is not exactly the same as common employer. The issue of Encore is not before Mr. Kaplan. Pilots that flow from Encore to WestJet/Swoop resign their employment from Encore and start at year one with WestJet/Swoop while maintaining some benefits such as vacation allowance.This is entirely wrong. Air Canada and Jazz are separate companies with separate ownership and management; Encore was created by, and remains wholly owned by, WestJet. Not only that, but Jazz and Air Canada haven't tried to create a single seniority list, so there really isn't a comparison there. A better match would be WestJet and Pasco, and there hasn't been any discussion about those two merging their lists.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am WestJet and Encore relationship is similar to Air Canada and Jazz (or old Air Ontario). Encore is a separate company which happens to be also represented by ALPA by a separate MEC.Therefore, it could be argued that the only way their seniorities can be merged is if the two companies were to merge. Then both being represented by ALPA could possibly argue for DOH with some fences,As I stated earlier, ALPA doesn't define what a "Company" is, and it isn't clear whether WestJet and Encore really are separate companies. Like I said, it will likely have to go through a lengthy court process to be resolved, but considering that Swoop and WestJet pilots are considered to be part of the same company there is a strong argument that WestJet, Swoop, and Encore are all components of a single company.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am It is being argued that merging the lists is to the detriment of those that were hired directly into WestJet who could say ALPA cannot arbitrarily merge lists with another company, subsidiary or not, when it is to the detriment of its own (WestJet/Swoop) members as it could be deemed a failure of its fiduciary duty to protect its own members.In regards to my arguments, since you didn't have an answer, you simply ignored them.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:34 am hangry, what I would do, if I didn't have an answer or opposing opinion regarding the arguments above, is I would attack the poster. What would you do?See my response to cloak above; taking any action could backfire on you, and result in Encore being added to the WestJet MEC, with compensation paid by the company and a stronger union. It wouldn't need to go to the CIRB, it could simply be a finding of the judge in any lawsuit regarding this matter that Encore pilots were wronged by being excluded from the WestJet MEC, regardless of whether that question is raised by the plaintiff.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:43 am I appreciate that you feel this way. It would seem to make sense. Unfortunately, when ALPA certified the WJ pilot group, they did not include the WJE pilots in the bargaining unit. Had they done so, you might have a case...If ALPA wants to combine the WJE pilots into the same bargaining unit as the WJ pilots, they will need to approach the CIRB, if WJ is unwilling to voluntarily do so (unlikely).I don't think this is a particularly good precedent for the current situation, because it was a merger, rather than the creation of a new list. When the WPDL was created, Encore was brand-new, and practically everyone who has ever worked there was hired after the list was established. It was very simple to add Encore pilots to the list, because they were added to the bottom of the list when they were hired, whereas in the AC/AO case there were two-long established lists. More importantly, Air Canada agreed to the single list, they just couldn't agree to the order of addition of the pilots onto it, and if they had been able to compromise on where AO pilots would be added they would have ended up with one list. As it currently stands, according to all publicly-available information, ALPA, the MECs, and WestJet management all support the WPDL, and the company would be stupid to alienate the hundreds of pilots they have operating all of their regional flights. As long as the company agrees to a single list, as seems probable at this point, there shouldn't be any barrier to keeping the WPDL besides a potential lawsuit. However, as I stated previously and Mr Swallow ignored, it would take years for the case to work its way through the court system, going through appeal after appeal, and in the meantime hundreds of pilots would have moved around. The judge would either accept the WPDL, possibly with the addition of Encore to the WestJet MEC, or would rule that the list was invalid, and the question would then become what to do with everyone who had changed positions; like I said, it's unlikely (s)he would rule that everyone would have to return to their previous positions, and much more likely that everyone would be grandfathered in, with financial compensation paid by the company to anyone who lost out financially.
As I responded to diadem, I will get to these when I can.lostaviator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:50 pmI get it - I agree with you, we were told a lot of lies. I wasn't an ALPA supporter, BUT I recognize now we need to stand together or we are totally (insert bad word here): The contract was going to be so easy, done within a year (who was right about that one? Former CEO perhaps?), and then there was all the famous "we didn't expect the company to ask for this alternative arbitration process explanation that came out two months ago.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:46 pmMy apologies if I have not responded to questions asked. I shall endeavour to catch up.lostaviator wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:06 am J,
I would be more than happy to begin a constructive discussion with you. You have done your homework and I do respect that, BUT you owe the other members of this community the same courtesy. I’d run out of fingers and toes pretty quick if I went back and tried to count the number of unanswered questions people have asked you in response to something you have posted. Not engaging in discussions you start and simply starting a new thread everyday grows tiresome to the rest of us.
Why is it you are so concerned with the “one list”? You have stated time and time again that you won’t be affected either way nor do you care about your fellow pilots. So why? If you really wanted to get my (and others) attention, you should have been honest and shown your hand from the beginning: overtime. Then you would have gotten our attention.
All we can do now is wait. Nothing we say will change the outcome of THIS contract. Proposals and arguments have already been submitted.
As far as overtime is concerned, nothing I say or do here is going to change anything with the contract. And there is also nothing I can do to remove ALPA, that is not in the cards. I'm certainly not volunteering for that task lol!
As far as my motivation, well, I can't f#cking stand liars. Well, Trump excepted. People were lied to during the OC campaign about the ease with which the WPDL could be replicated. When I protested, I was attacked. Upon confronting a prominent OC member regarding the WPDL his words were that they needed to certify first, then deal with the WPDL. He wasn't lying, that's what is happening. Except they didn't have a workable plan. Or if they did, they certainly didn't reveal it.
If you have any other questions, I will try to answer them. My lack of answering questions in the past is best explained that I don't respond to personal attacks, and quite frankly, that's all most people have to offer. They just attack. I get it, thinking about things is hard. Google can't do all the work, sometime you have to actually think.
Cheers
Where ALPA has gained my support is in how they have dealt with Swoop. I get that you have concerns about reserve, OT, the "one list" etc as you have had a very lucrative career here, I want that too. It is hard, as a 5-6 year pilot, to watch my career be pulled out from under me. We can say, "this wouldn't have happened under the WJPA", but we don't know that now. Sure, word-count-Friday said once upon a time those jobs were ours, but what in those emails was ever truthful? Pilots bankrupting the company? haha
ALPA is here and I know the only way to move forward is together as a majority. There are definitely going to be some upset pilots, and some who say it's a win. What side you fall on depends on how high your bar was set; mine is still quite low. Scope is all I care about at time of writing.
Given that the MEC Chairman has just been recalled (a few hours ago), and replaced by a new person, and the MEC Secretary - Treasurer has resigned (a few hours ago), I will hold my comment on this paragraph until I hear more details of why this transpired.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmSo, what, the day the CBA comes into effect lightning will come down from the heavens to smite the members of the MEC and cleave the seniority list? If ALPA is on board, WestJet is on board, the WestJet MEC is on board, and the Encore MEC is on board, who is going to initiate disciplinary action? It'll take until the case makes its way through the courts before any action is taken, assuming someone with standing files such a suit, and assuming the judge finds that the MEC acted in bad faith.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:05 am What the preceding post lends support to is the contention that all ALPA members (not just the MEC chairman) who participated in the discussions to subvert and disregard established association policy (if that is that is the purpose of the LOU) have brought themselves into a position where they may be "disciplined, fined, or expelled" by ALPA for their actions.
Your understanding of Labour Law in this area is, I must unfortunately say, very flawed. The CIRB, an independent quasi-judicial body, makes its own decisions. To find that they have made an error in agreeing to the composition of a bargaining unit, well, unless you have case law to support that contention, it would be a waste of my time to respond. I mean I can, but it will involve digging up case law again, and cropping PDFs and converting to JPEGS and highlighting, etc. Let me think about it.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmYes, and my contention is that if this case goes to court, there's a strong probability that the judge would find that Encore should have been included in the single bargaining unit, and that Encore pilots were wronged; this will result in compensation being paid to Encore pilots to the tune of millions of dollars, and a much stronger, unified union negotiating future CBAs.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am As it stands now, it was WestJet, not Mr. Kaplan, that voluntarily ceded "single bargaining unit" status to WestJet and Swoop, which is not exactly the same as common employer. The issue of Encore is not before Mr. Kaplan. Pilots that flow from Encore to WestJet/Swoop resign their employment from Encore and start at year one with WestJet/Swoop while maintaining some benefits such as vacation allowance.
Actually, it was tried. The case is Air Canada, 1999 CIRB 44 . Here is the opening paragraph:Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmcloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am WestJet and Encore relationship is similar to Air Canada and Jazz (or old Air Ontario). Encore is a separate company which happens to be also represented by ALPA by a separate MEC.Therefore, it could be argued that the only way their seniorities can be merged is if the two companies were to merge. Then both being represented by ALPA could possibly argue for DOH with some fences,
This is entirely wrong. Air Canada and Jazz are separate companies with separate ownership and management; Encore was created by, and remains wholly owned by, WestJet. Not only that, but Jazz and Air Canada haven't tried to create a single seniority list, so there really isn't a comparison there. A better match would be WestJet and Pasco, and there hasn't been any discussion about those two merging their lists.
It actually is very clear. You'll have to go read the Air Canada, 1999 CIRB 44 case above and then come back and revise your post. Common employer means "common employer" of two or more companies. They are initially separate companies with separate employers, and a union will approch the CIRB trying to get a common employer (or Single Employer) declaration.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmAs I stated earlier, ALPA doesn't define what a "Company" is, and it isn't clear whether WestJet and Encore really are separate companies. Like I said, it will likely have to go through a lengthy court process to be resolved, but considering that Swoop and WestJet pilots are considered to be part of the same company there is a strong argument that WestJet, Swoop, and Encore are all components of a single company.cloak wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:12 am It is being argued that merging the lists is to the detriment of those that were hired directly into WestJet who could say ALPA cannot arbitrarily merge lists with another company, subsidiary or not, when it is to the detriment of its own (WestJet/Swoop) members as it could be deemed a failure of its fiduciary duty to protect its own members.
My apology. It wasn't my intent to ignore you. I will try to get caught up on any questions you ask of me, or any arguments you make.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmIn regards to my arguments, since you didn't have an answer, you simply ignored them.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:34 am hangry, what I would do, if I didn't have an answer or opposing opinion regarding the arguments above, is I would attack the poster. What would you do?
I am sorry that I must say so, but you have a very, very limited understanding of the labour law involved. If you're not going to do even the most rudimentary reading to understand the topic in a basic way, I'm not going to spend the time trying to educate you.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmSee my response to cloak above; taking any action could backfire on you, and result in Encore being added to the WestJet MEC, with compensation paid by the company and a stronger union. It wouldn't need to go to the CIRB, it could simply be a finding of the judge in any lawsuit regarding this matter that Encore pilots were wronged by being excluded from the WestJet MEC, regardless of whether that question is raised by the plaintiff.China_CAAC_Exam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:43 am I appreciate that you feel this way. It would seem to make sense. Unfortunately, when ALPA certified the WJ pilot group, they did not include the WJE pilots in the bargaining unit. Had they done so, you might have a case...If ALPA wants to combine the WJE pilots into the same bargaining unit as the WJ pilots, they will need to approach the CIRB, if WJ is unwilling to voluntarily do so (unlikely).
Because the MEC has just changed hands, I will reserve comment on this post.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmI don't think this is a particularly good precedent for the current situation, because it was a merger, rather than the creation of a new list. When the WPDL was created, Encore was brand-new, and practically everyone who has ever worked there was hired after the list was established. It was very simple to add Encore pilots to the list, because they were added to the bottom of the list when they were hired, whereas in the AC/AO case there were two-long established lists. More importantly, Air Canada agreed to the single list, they just couldn't agree to the order of addition of the pilots onto it, and if they had been able to compromise on where AO pilots would be added they would have ended up with one list. As it currently stands, according to all publicly-available information, ALPA, the MECs, and WestJet management all support the WPDL, and the company would be stupid to alienate the hundreds of pilots they have operating all of their regional flights. As long as the company agrees to a single list, as seems probable at this point, there shouldn't be any barrier to keeping the WPDL besides a potential lawsuit. However, as I stated previously and Mr Swallow ignored, it would take years for the case to work its way through the court system, going through appeal after appeal, and in the meantime hundreds of pilots would have moved around. The judge would either accept the WPDL, possibly with the addition of Encore to the WestJet MEC, or would rule that the list was invalid, and the question would then become what to do with everyone who had changed positions; like I said, it's unlikely (s)he would rule that everyone would have to return to their previous positions, and much more likely that everyone would be grandfathered in, with financial compensation paid by the company to anyone who lost out financially.
Berry v. Pulley, [2002] 2 SCR 493 stands for the idea that the constitution of a union is a contract between the members and the union. That is very germane to the issues here with WJ pilots. Air Canada, 1999 CIRB 44 tackled the issue of common employer between regional airlines and a parent mainline airline. It is very relevant to the situation here.
The above passage is hardly worth my time, but I will address it out of politeness.Diadem wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:04 pmAs long as the company agrees to a single list, as seems probable at this point, there shouldn't be any barrier to keeping the WPDL besides a potential lawsuit. However, as I stated previously and Mr Swallow ignored, it would take years for the case to work its way through the court system, going through appeal after appeal, and in the meantime hundreds of pilots would have moved around. The judge would either accept the WPDL, possibly with the addition of Encore to the WestJet MEC, or would rule that the list was invalid, and the question would then become what to do with everyone who had changed positions; like I said, it's unlikely (s)he would rule that everyone would have to return to their previous positions, and much more likely that everyone would be grandfathered in, with financial compensation paid by the company to anyone who lost out financially.
Actually, there is a large barrier to recreating the WPDL in an ALPA environment. A 62 year old Executive Board policy states that a seniority list must be constructed on DOH at the company a pilot is hired at. Merging the two pilot groups first requires ordering each group by DOH, including all Encore pilots who have already flowed to WJ into their respective DOH sequence. ALPA Merger Policy requires that any resultant integrated seniority list cannot re-order the pre-merger pilot lists. That means that if I was ahead of you on the WJ mainline seniority list before the merger, then I must be ahead of you in the merged seniority list, even if there are Encore pilots now inserted between us. Similarly, the Encore pilots have to maintain their sequence with respect to each other in the integrated list....there shouldn't be any barrier to keeping the WPDL besides a potential lawsuit
More shortly on the definitions of "the Company" and "date of hire" as discussed in this case.This responds to your letters of February 4th and 5th, respectively, concerning the CAL-UAL SLI and the definitions of date of hire, furlough time and longevity as applied to this SLI under Merger Policy. Contrary to both of your requests, I see no reason for intervention by the president's office.
These issues have arisen in the exchange and review of certified seniority lists between the Merger Representatives of the two pilot groups. Part 3, Section 3-C-4-b of ALPA Merger Policy provides:
The merger representatives shall resolve any and all disputes and inconsistencies with regard to the employment data exchanged. The representatives shall be empowered to compromise their differences to the extent necessary to reach agreement except that the relative position of the flight deck crewmembers on their respective seniority lists shall be maintained.