How's morale with uncertainty of the one list?

[complexintentions]

Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.

I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?

And...

What's wrong with Tinder?

[The Tenth Man]

Interestingly, the 2002 unsuccessful appeal in Berry v. Pulley, the appeal court had this to say:

63 However, this is not to say that union members do not have some obligations inter se. By joining a union, the member agrees to follow the rules of the union, and, through the common bond of membership, union members have legal obligations to one another to comply with these rules. If there is a breach of a member’s constitutional rights, this is a breach by the union, and the union may be liable to the individual. Similarly, the disciplinary measures in the constitution can be imposed by the union on a member who contravenes the union’s rules. A failure by the union to follow these disciplinary procedures may cause it to breach its contractual obligations to the other members, giving rise to corresponding contractual remedies.

64 In addition to potential internal procedures, a failure by the union to insist on compliance with the constitution or impose disciplinary measures for its breach may allow members to initiate proceedings either at the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or the courts, depending on the nature of the complaint. Aside from actions against the union, a member who is harmed by the breach of the union’s rules by another member may, if the requisite elements are present, have an action in tort against that member.



Unless the discussions by the two MEC's in Washington were aimed at a merger of the seniority lists as is allowed by ALPA policy, they were trying to subvert association policy re:seniority. If they were doing so, they would all be liable for punishment, and similarly to the sentiments of the appeal court above, unless ALPA metes out punishment to these members, they may be in Breach of Contract to the membership, in addition to the other remedies alluded to by the appeals court.

Interesting.

I guess we need to know the contents of the LOU. Since Kaplan only imposed silence to WJ and ALPA on the current negotiations/arbitration for a CBA, there should be no reason why ALPA shouldn't be able to disclose the contents of the LOU negotiations, or at the very least, the specific purpose of the LOU.

[The Tenth Man]

Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.

I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?

And...

What's wrong with Tinder?

Sorry to disappoint, but I have been out of the vagina business for 5 years or so.

[Diadem]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

In regards to my arguments, since you didn't have an answer, you simply ignored them.

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).

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.

Berry v Pulley

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.

[The Tenth Man]

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.

My apologies if I have not responded to questions asked. I shall endeavour to catch up.

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

[lostaviator]

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.

My apologies if I have not responded to questions asked. I shall endeavour to catch up.

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

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.

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.

[Alcoholism]

Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.

I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?

And...

What's wrong with Tinder?

He doesn't have to pay $55 for it... that... that's what's wrong with it for him.

[Alcoholism]

Am I the only one who just skips right over the Weedpro posts and reads the others ?

Not me. Personally I skip over all other posts except his. Yours just caught my eye you piece of eye candy

[The Tenth Man]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

In regards to my arguments, since you didn't have an answer, you simply ignored them.

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).

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.

Berry v Pulley

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.

I will these posts when I can, but I do have the redeye to operate tonight.

That, and I hear changes are afoot.

[The Tenth Man]

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.

My apologies if I have not responded to questions asked. I shall endeavour to catch up.

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

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.

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.

As I responded to diadem, I will get to these when I can.

I am hearing of change that may make me change my position regarding membership in ALPA. Another change or two at the LEC level might just cement that decision, and I might reign in my horns (is that the metaphor).

Cheers

[The Tenth Man]

Your statements are in yellow. My responses are in green.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, it was tried. The case is Air Canada, 1999 CIRB 44 . Here is the opening paragraph:

I - INTRODUCTION
[1] These reasons deal with an application under sections 18 and 35 of the Canada Labour Code. ALPA seeks a declaration that Air Canada, Air Ontario, Air Nova, AirBC, Air Alliance and NWTA constitute a single employer and a review of the structure of the existing pilot bargaining units for the respondent employers. Should the Board decide to exercise its
discretion to issue a declaration, the applicant requests that the parties be allowed to come to an agreement within a reasonable period with respect to the determination of bargaining units and any questions arising from the review pursuant to section 18.1(2)(a) of the Code, the Board retaining jurisdiction if no agreement is reached.

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.

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.

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.

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?

In regards to my arguments, since you didn't have an answer, you simply ignored them.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Berry v Pulley

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.

Because the MEC has just changed hands, I will reserve comment on this post.

[The Tenth Man]

lostaviator, regarding your post, there isn't much if anything I guess I would dispute. If today represents a sea change in the way that ALPA will manage things at WJ, well, that would be good.

That still leaves the matter of the disposition of the seniority list. I was going to add "and the one list issue" to the previous sentence, but I wonder if that can ever be an issue going forward under ALPA? I mean, the seniority list is the seniority list and ALPA has a specific way it must be constructed, and there is unlikely to be a way to accomplish what the WPDL did.

The best way forward for the new members of the MEC would be to put all cards on the table as soon as the dust settles and thereby enable all pilots in the WJ group of companies to make whatever career decisions they deem necessary. There is going to be a lot of anger. I think the judge in Robertson and Clegg, 2004 CIRB 260 said it best:




44 ...The matter of seniority integration is a divisive issue, which will impact the ongoing relationship between Air Canada and its pilot union for years to come. Any issue that remains unresolved within this process has the potential of frustrating the constructive settlement of other disputes arising therefrom. It is therefore in the interest of all parties concerned that they be given the opportunity of achieving some finality by addressing related matters once and for all....

[lostaviator]

Part of me thinks we would have found ourselves in this seniority predicament one way or another somewhere down the road, regardless of who was running the union/association/whatever. When it was WJ/Encore, it was mostly manageable with a few disgruntled 37 FO's who would one day be bumped by Encore pilots not even employed by WJ yet, but now that we find ourselves in a three airline environment, I do believe this can of worms was going to be opened one day. The list, as is, is a complete mess. We have the first 19 years of WJ which makes sense, then 50 Encore pilots who got spots during the first month of Encore, then a big long gap where Encore pilots didn't get "seniority", and then they were just plunked in in some random order once the vote was held a year or so later. Everything after emp ~18,000 is a complete mess.

In regards to last nights email: Interesting. Makes me think things aren't so rosy behind the scenes either.

[The Tenth Man]

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.

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.

When you discuss adding Encore pilots to a WJ seniority list, there are only a few ways that may be done. One, is via the merger policy of ALPA, which permits a merger of seniority lists in the absence of an operational merger of two companies. Crucially, this requires the agreement of the parent company. I disagree with you that WJ has taken a public stance that it wants to recreate the WPDL in a certified environment. You may have heard this, but I have not.

Another way to add Encore pilots to a WJ seniority list is for ALPA to approach the CIRB for a Single Employer designation under Section 35 of the Canada Labour Code:

Board may declare single employer

35 (1) Where, on application by an affected trade union or employer, associated or related federal works, undertakings or businesses are, in the opinion of the Board, operated by two or more employers having common control or direction, the Board may, by order, declare that for all purposes of this Part the employers and the federal works, undertakings and businesses operated by them that are specified in the order are, respectively, a single employer and a single federal work, undertaking or business. Before making such a declaration, the Board must give the affected employers and trade unions the opportunity to make representations.

This is not a simple matter, and certainly not possible at the present time. ALPA has twice approached the CIRB in the last 18 months for a declaration of an appropriate bargaining unit suitable for collective bargaining for WJ pilots and then WJE pilots. ALPA can't change its mind 18 months later.

As the Board said in Air Canada, 1999 CIRB 44 (CanLII):


80 The Board has consistently held that section 35 is remedial in nature ... Its object is to prevent employers from circumventing their obligations under the Code by resorting to corporate restructuring or other forms of business relationships that undermine or evade bargaining rights. Section 35 is not the forum for enhancing a collective bargaining relationship ... The Board’s review of the bargaining relationship is therefore narrowly focussed on whether the common control and direction exercised by the employer contributes to the erosion of bargaining rights (Air Canada et al., supra).

It is crucial that you understand what the preceding paragraph means. ALPA can't go on fishing expedition hoping to solve the problem of the One List. It can only achieve resolution through collective bargaining, or not at all.

The next paragraph adds more colour to the argument by showing what erosion of rights would have to be suffered by WJ amd WJE pilots in order to reorganize the bargaining units. Given that ALPA is on the verge of concluding a CBA with WJ for the mainline pilots, and will shortly commence bargaining for a CBA for the WJE pilots, this cuts off the argument at the knees that the pilots have suffered any loss of bargaining rights, at this stage. That may happen in the future, and ALPA will keep its eye on WJ, but that is a discussion for another day.

81 In order to assess this erosion, the Board will examine not only the closeness of the business and financial ties between employers but also the possible adverse effects on the collective rights of unionized employees, both in the form of bargaining rights and bargained rights. Bargaining rights are adversely affected when the form of exchange between the business entities contributes to losses in membership due to the syphoning off of bargaining unit work to other, usually non-unionized, employees. Bargained rights are adversely affected when the business entities are in a position to render those rights inoperable by way of a transfer of business or positions. In other words, section 35 seeks to remedy the bargaining relationships that are under attack or are being diluted by reason of an employer’s gaining control over another business. For the Board to exercise its discretion, it must be convinced that harmonious and effective industrial relations will ensue...


Finally, from Air Canada, 1999, here is a perfext summary of the situation ALPA was in 19 years ago, and how it applies today with WJ and WJE. It is worth the read to understand the challenge for ALPA in trying to create a single bargaining unit via the CIRB:


103 Unions throughout the airline industry have traditionally maintained separate bargaining agreements with each individual carrier, even those controlled by a parent airline. Only those airlines that have merged their operations have integrated their seniority ranking. This practice by both employers and unions negates the notion that co-ordinated service offerings of connector and international partners are conclusive of a single carrier or employer. The evolution of the market since deregulation and significant operational differences justify the maintenance of separate connector and mainline entities.


104 ALPA has acquiesced to this state of affairs by taking a connector-by-connector approach to certification even as significant events unfolded. The first concern about possible erosion of flying rights occurred in 1986 when Air Canada acquired a controlling interest in AirBC and Air Ontario, so much so that a merger declaration issued from CALPA at the time. Yet, Austin Airways pilots were certified as a separate group in 1987, Air Nova pilots were certified separately in 1988, and AirBC pilots were certified separately in 1990. A second merger was declared in 1991. Again, CALPA pursued its course of certifying connectors airline by airline. Austin Airways pilots and Air Ontario pilots were combined into a single and separate bargaining unit in 1991; Air Alliance pilots were certified in 1992 as were NWTA pilots.


105 The first LOU 17 and 18 were negotiated in 1989 and renewed twice. It was not until the Air Canada MEC rejected the Picher award and left CALPA that CALPA undertook to consolidate its bargaining relationship with Air Canada and filed this application. The events put before the Board are the culmination of a long and bitter internal dispute within the union rather than a response to change of direction and control within the Air Canada family. ALPA has never forgiven Air Canada pilots for refusing to negotiate the Picher award into their collective agreement and deciding to form a separate bargaining unit, effectively severing ALPA’s relationship with Air Canada.


106 ALPA is now seeking to accomplish through this Board what it could not obtain at the bargaining table, i.e., the implementation of the Picher award, which would have the effect of dramatically improving the working conditions of connector pilots. ALPA is not arguing that connector pilots are underpaid for the work they do; or that they have been subject to wage roll-backs; or that they have been the subject of lay-offs due to Air Canada going to RJs; or that Air Canada has transferred existing work out of the bargaining unit and given it to non-unionized employees. Yet, these are the very issues that go to the core of the bargaining relationship and would conclusively demonstrate an erosion of bargaining power and of bargained rights.

[The Tenth Man]

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.

The above passage is hardly worth my time, but I will address it out of politeness.

...there shouldn't be any barrier to keeping the WPDL besides a potential lawsuit

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.

What this would do is punish all of the Encore pilots who have already flowed, unless the Encore pilots are bolted to the bottom of the mainline list. Any other method of integrating the lists will place a WJ pilot who flowed recently from Encore, but was at Encore for 5 years (for instance) , below Encore pilots that he used to be senior to. Not only has he lost the 5 years of seniority (for upgrade) that he had under the WPDL, but now he loses additional spots to formerly junior Encore pilots now above him.

The worst case scenario for that recently flowed Encore pilot (with 5 years of service at Encore), would be a DOH merge. He would go from having all OTS pilots with less than 5 years of service below him on the WPDL, to BOTL of the mainline seniority list. In the subsequent DOH merge with Encore, he would lose another 500 (the number of pilots at Encore) seniority positions and get near BOTL of the combined seniority list.

It is necessary to get a glimpse at the proposed LOU to see what it intended. If it tried to recognize Encore service by giving them priority for upgrades ahead of WJ pilots who have more service at mainline, then this will simply result in a lawsuit, in addition to other consequences.

[The Tenth Man]

I missed this paragraph earlier. It addresses the idea that ALPA could somehow approach the CIRB to reorganize the bargaining units after just having certified them. From Air Canada, 1999:

102 ... It is ALPA that organized and certified the bargaining units, and it is ALPA that negotiated the collective agreements. How can it now say that the very conditions it created have become harmful to labour relations? To the contrary, connector carriers have grown significantly since its pilots have been represented by ALPA, both in fleet size and the number of pilots employed. There have been no temporary or permanent lay-offs...

[The Tenth Man]

I had another person contact me, this time disputing the definition of "the Company" as it is utilized in both the Executive Board seniority policy and the ALPA Merger Policy.

It is useful to reiterate the problem with a merger with respect to the WJ and WJE bargaining units under ALPA Merger Policy (MP), namely: as mentioned oreviously, the Integrated Seniority List (ISL) that results from the merger of two seniority lists under the MP cannot change the order of the pilots as they were listed on the respective pre-merger seniority lists.
Because both groups are represented by ALPA, the procedures of the MP, as outlined in Section 45 of the ALPA Administrative Manual would have to be followed.

As mentioned above, the Integrated Seniority List (ISL) that results from the merger of two seniority lists under the MP cannot change the order of the pilots as they were listed on the respective pre-merger seniority lists.

To further support this contention, I refer you all to the case of the merger (see attachment) that occured between Continental Airlines and United Airlines a few years ago. When the two MEC's and the Merger Committees could not reach an agreement on an ISL, an Arbitration Panel was convened in accordance with ALPA MP. In response to issues raised by the United Merger Committee, the President of ALPA, President Donald Lee Moak, was asked for direction regarding the definition of terms in the MP. He declined to weigh in on the issue, preferring instead to let the merger process continue as envisioned by the MP, but did have this to say:

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.

More shortly on the definitions of "the Company" and "date of hire" as discussed in this case.

ALPA_CAL-UAL ISL Opinion and Award_p24_JPEG.jpg (450.96 KiB) Viewed 2302 times

[The Tenth Man]

Working backwards from the ALPA MP's requirement that the ISL order of pilots respect the pre-merger seniority list order for each group, we are again confronted with the seniority list order issue. Crucially, if the WestJet Pilot Seniority List that Arbitrator Kaplan referred to (in his Interim Order of September 30, 2018) could order the pilots with respect to either their WJ or WJE date of hire, whichever is earlier (if applicable), then there would be no problem in constructing an ISL that replictated the WPDL (One List). The already flowed pilots would keep their Encore DOH, and the ISL could respect that date. Problem solved! (edit: there would be no need for an ISL/merged seniority list if the WestJet Pilot Seniority List recognized employment time at WJE)

As stated several times, the Executive Board policy states that ALPA will use "every means at its command" to standardize the part of the Seniority General Section "which establishes hiring procedures and position on the seniority list" so that a common foundation will exist in the event of mergers etc.

The policy also states that the "(s)eniority of a pilot is to be based on the length of service as a pilot with the Company".

Further, the policy states that "(t)he date upon which a pilot first appears upon a Company's payroll as a pilot and begins operational training...shall establish such pilot's on the System Seniority List."

I would first like to disregard the "System Seniority List" term for the time being. This does not refer to a group or "system" of companies as one friend speculated. More on that later.

What is the nature of the word "Company" as used in the Executive Board policy, as well as that used in the Merger Policy?

Back to the Continental/United merger proceedings. It is useful to understand that Continental had a regional airline (Continental Express, or COEX) that it wholly owned for a period of time, before eventually selling it. Policies allowed pilots to flow from COEX up to Continental (and back). It is the dates of hire of pilots who flowed from COEX to Continental that was in question during the merger proceedings, and hence the discussion around the definition of the word "Company" as it appears in ALPA's MP. Would those Continental pilots be allowed to use a DOH from when they were hired at COEX, or would they use the later DOH from when they flowed to Continental. Remember that these are two ALPA represented pilot groups (meaning United and Continental). From the Arbitration Panel's ruling:

3. The “Company”

ALPA Merger Policy Part 3.C.2.d defines date of hire by reference to the time a pilot first begins training for service as a pilot on behalf of “the Company”. Similarly, Merger Policy requires discounting periods of “furlough”, as well as “intervening periods of service other than as a flight deck crew member with this Company”, when creating a pilot group’s seniority list for SLI purposes. The CAL Committee argues that former COEX pilots should be credited with dates of hire beginning at a regional carrier. It also maintains that periods of time when pilots “flowed down” to COEX while pilots senior to them were being furloughed, should not be counted as furlough time. Those claims assume that CAL and COEX constituted one Company” for purposes of Merger Policy. The available evidence does not support that assumption.

ALPA_CAL-UAL ISL Opinion and Award_p28_JPEG.jpg (399.08 KiB) Viewed 2261 times

[The Tenth Man]

From the previous post's attachment and the attachment on this post, the following paragraphs are lifted. They provide a summary of the relationship between Continental(CO) and Continental Express (COEX). Is it possible that the situation between WJ and WJE is different enough from CO/COEX that the definition of the word "Company" still might favour WJE pilots?

From the ruling:



The corporate relationship between CAL mainline and the various COEX carriers was complex and constantly changing. Texas International, headed by Frank Lorenzo, acquired both Continental and People Express in the 1980s. At the time of the acquisition, People Express owned Britt Airways. Continental later acquired an interest in Bar Harbor and Texas International acquired RMA. Upon CAL’s exit from bankruptcy, the assets of the regional carriers were transferred to COEX.

COEX was a wholly owned subsidiary of CAL between 1993 and 2001, though CAL and COEX were never merged. In 2002, CAL’s ownership of COEX dropped when the latter company’s shares, under the name ExpressJet, were sold in an initial public offering. See CAL 10-K, 2003. CAL sold additional shares in 2003, dropping its ownership below 50%, and sold the rest in 2004. See, CAL 10-K, 2004.

Under these morphing corporate structuresthe two companies operated under different sets of FAA regulations and separate operating certificates. Their pilots had separate employment policies (during the years when there was no pilot union) or CBAs with different terms and conditions of employment – “regional terms and conditions of employment” for COEX pilots and “mainline terms and conditions of employment” for CAL pilots. The separate CBAs for the CAL and COEX pilots defined “the Company” as either CAL or COEX respectively. The pilots flew different equipment, stayed at different layover hotels, dealt with different managements and were paid through separate payrolls by separate companies with different IRS Employer Identification Numbers.

Whatever the corporate ownership structure may have been at various times, Continental and COEX never were a single “Company” as we understand the meaning of that term in ALPA Merger Policy.


Obviously, no two situations are identical. There are similarities in the above corporate arrangement to that of WJ/WJE. There are also differences, and perhaps crucial differences. The question is whether the corporate parent of WJ and WJE has arranged the relationships between the two pilot groups in a sufficently close manner to enable a reasonable person/abritrator/court to adopt an interpretation of the word "Company" such that it means the parent company of both WJ and WJE.

The issue will be decided with the appearance of the seniority list issued with the CBA. If the arbitrator decides, or WJ and ALPA agree, that the definition of seniority included in the CBA is broad and encompasses employment time at WJE, then the seniority list will recognize the intent of the WPDL, and no merger of seniority lists will be necessary at this time.

That scenario, that the WestJet Pilot Seniority List recognizes time at WJE for flow-through pilots, is at odds with the November 2, 2018 communication by the WJ MEC, in which it states it is preparing an LOU for presentation to WJ that will recognize the seniority of the WJ and WJE pilots within the WJ group of companies, and recognizes the intent of the One List.

That scenario is also at odds with this statement of the ALPA Canada Board President - Elect:

Since then I’ve been working with their MEC officers to cement the one seniority list concept and the unification of our pilot groups starting with eventually creating a single MEC structure.

If the WestJet Pilot Seniority List recognizes time at WJE, there would be no need for an LOU that relies on WJ's agreement. There would also be no need for the WJ MEC Vice-Chairman to be working to "cement the one list seniority concept", they would simply recognize the WJE DOH on the WestJet Pilot Seniority List! Therefore, I must conclude that the WestJet Pilot Seniority List does not recognize time at WJE for the calculation of seniority.

That being so, we are back to square one. A merger of the pilot groups will severely affect the career prospects and earnings of former WJE pilots who have flowed to WJ, in addition to requiring the agreement of WJ. Additionally, any agreement that uses some other means than seniority to govern promotion and upgrade etc will be in violation of ALPA's Executive Board policy.

There is simply no way under ALPA's rules to recognize the intent of the WPDL (One List).

ALPA_CAL-UAL ISL Opinion and Award_p29_JPEG.jpg (375.41 KiB) Viewed 2242 times

[The Tenth Man]

If after all of the preceding blah blah blah and bandwidth (thank you AvCanada), you remain unconvinced of my arguments, I don't really know what to say. It seems black and white to me. Black and white like the black and white that WJ pilots said they wanted in voting to certify ALPA as their bargaining agent.

If what I have said regarding this matter is an accurate or mostly accurate representation of the situation at WJ/WJE, I would next ask why the person that was elected as the ALPA Canada Board President - Elect did not understand ALPA policy or Canada's Labour Law. I recognize he is a nice person with good and genuine intentions, but exactly what are the criteria for assuming that position?

On an unrelated note, here is a link to the ALPA Code of Ethics. Scroll to near the bottom where it is stated that an ALPA pilot "...will conduct his affairs in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution and Bylaws and with the policies and interpretations promulgated therefrom."