No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
It was interesting Ray's July11th posting and the absence of the usual suspects who have given us their view on how they have been persecuted.
Finally is this the final nail of the coffin and it is now buried forever? I hope so as this has been a very divisive subject but one of personal amusement for myself.
From a personal perspective this whole case should have been resolved at the union level with the merits of the case being put forward to the membership to decide after being made aware of the changes brought forward through Charter Rights in respect to case law.
The ironic thing is the most vocal of the FP 60 when they were in their late forties is that they supported mandatory retirement so they could advance up the ladder. The level of hypocrisy is astounding in this regard. A story I will remember is a very young YYZ B-727 Captain calling up the late Captain Ross Stevenson (who I might add was one of the first to challenge "contractually" agreed retirement age) late at night to berate Captain Stevenson about holding up his advancement to more senior equipment. Fast forward a few years later same person is complaining most bitterly that he has to leave the B-777 because he is retiring by the same provisions of the contract that was in place.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been a two edged sword and all should respect it. In the 70's the cockpit was mostly WASP and male. The amount of anti immigrant, Jurassic misogynistic thinking, and homophobic bias was repellent. Take a look at today's cockpit nobody cares who you are or your background!
The legal issue regarding the retirement age has now been established and for those who want to work past 60 can do so. Why would be another question as long range flying even if you work 9 days a month takes a toll on your body.
For those in the system below 60 make the best of it but please remember in the scale of importance it is your health then your family that is important everything else is minutiae.
As far as the Supreme Court of Canada I think they only hear cases based on national merit and sadly this misses it….
Oh forgot to add retirement is grand!
Finally is this the final nail of the coffin and it is now buried forever? I hope so as this has been a very divisive subject but one of personal amusement for myself.
From a personal perspective this whole case should have been resolved at the union level with the merits of the case being put forward to the membership to decide after being made aware of the changes brought forward through Charter Rights in respect to case law.
The ironic thing is the most vocal of the FP 60 when they were in their late forties is that they supported mandatory retirement so they could advance up the ladder. The level of hypocrisy is astounding in this regard. A story I will remember is a very young YYZ B-727 Captain calling up the late Captain Ross Stevenson (who I might add was one of the first to challenge "contractually" agreed retirement age) late at night to berate Captain Stevenson about holding up his advancement to more senior equipment. Fast forward a few years later same person is complaining most bitterly that he has to leave the B-777 because he is retiring by the same provisions of the contract that was in place.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been a two edged sword and all should respect it. In the 70's the cockpit was mostly WASP and male. The amount of anti immigrant, Jurassic misogynistic thinking, and homophobic bias was repellent. Take a look at today's cockpit nobody cares who you are or your background!
The legal issue regarding the retirement age has now been established and for those who want to work past 60 can do so. Why would be another question as long range flying even if you work 9 days a month takes a toll on your body.
For those in the system below 60 make the best of it but please remember in the scale of importance it is your health then your family that is important everything else is minutiae.
As far as the Supreme Court of Canada I think they only hear cases based on national merit and sadly this misses it….
Oh forgot to add retirement is grand!
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
In my humble opinion, those who think this issue is six feet under haven't read the recent court decision very closely. I have to agree with M787 above, that instead of bringing the issue to a close the court simply ducked the key issues, leaving them in limbo for further hearings and more litigation.
Saying that the tribunal was not bound by the prior decision because each case has to be based on its own evidence virtually guarantees that we are in for another hearing, another decision, and more appeals.
Saying that the tribunal was not bound by the prior decision because each case has to be based on its own evidence virtually guarantees that we are in for another hearing, another decision, and more appeals.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Those who claim that the FCA "ducked" the issues or "punted" seem to misunderstand the purpose of an appellate court. Generally, an appellate court's role is not to retry the issue: it is to determine whether the lower court (or tribunal) made an error in law or a "palpable and overriding" error of fact. In this case however, the court's role was even more limited. It was to determine if the tribunal's reasons were "reasonable" even if the Federal Court disagreed with the tribunal (it did), it had no legal right to override the tribunal since the tribunal acted reasonably. This is all the FCA said: that the tribunal acted reasonably and therefore its decision should stand.
I'm losing track of this litigation, but has the FP60 group ever won anything? Perhaps it's time to stop trowing good money after bad and enjoy retirement.
I'm losing track of this litigation, but has the FP60 group ever won anything? Perhaps it's time to stop trowing good money after bad and enjoy retirement.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Bede a very good posting and thank you for your thoughts on this.
If we can use this as a yard stick the 300 million dollar Air Ontario law suit was filed in 1997 against the Air Canada Pilots. By most indications it is dead after an 18 year process through the courts. With that assumption we can use 2011 as a common date and age of 60 this "could" be decided by 2029 and then the "average" age of those involved would be 78.
At some time one has to quit what they are doing all for a myriad of reasons but one should always plan for doing something else as a fall back position. If you have not done this you put yourself in a very stressful position analogous to planning YYT on a contact clearance!
I would assume the reason why those who want to continue with this have had their karma consumed by their dogma.
If we can use this as a yard stick the 300 million dollar Air Ontario law suit was filed in 1997 against the Air Canada Pilots. By most indications it is dead after an 18 year process through the courts. With that assumption we can use 2011 as a common date and age of 60 this "could" be decided by 2029 and then the "average" age of those involved would be 78.
At some time one has to quit what they are doing all for a myriad of reasons but one should always plan for doing something else as a fall back position. If you have not done this you put yourself in a very stressful position analogous to planning YYT on a contact clearance!
I would assume the reason why those who want to continue with this have had their karma consumed by their dogma.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
In accordance with the prescient statement of Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till its over..." this issue is far from over.
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Federal Court of Appeal Adamson decision was filed last week.
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Federal Court of Appeal Adamson decision was filed last week.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
I guess the funding was raised.Raymond Hall wrote:In accordance with the prescient statement of Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till its over..." this issue is far from over.
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Federal Court of Appeal Adamson decision was filed last week.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Kind of a bold statement don't you think?Raymond Hall wrote:In accordance with the prescient statement of Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till its over..." this issue is far from over.
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Federal Court of Appeal Adamson decision was filed last week.
Are you saying that the Supreme Court hearing your case is a foregone conclusion?
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Not at all. In the past five years, there have been an average of over 800 Leave To Appeal applications filed per year, and the Court can hear only about 70 cases per year, some of which it must hear because they are "appeals as of right."Fanblade wrote:Are you saying that the Supreme Court hearing your case is a foregone conclusion?
So statistically, the chances of getting leave are only about one in eleven. But almost every applicant faces the same odds, including the ones who are ultimately successful. One thing is certain--if you don't file the application, you don't get Leave. There is obviously a number of factors that go into the Court's decision to grant Leave, and it is up to legal counsel to present a Leave argument that meets those criteria.
Don't forget, the Supreme Court did grant leave in the early phase of the Air Ontario - Air Canada Pilots case, and after the issues before the SCC were decided, the case then went on for years afterwards, before being decided with finality in the lower court.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Speaking of which, I believe someone mentioned in the AOPG thread that the plaintiffs had until the end of September to appeal to the SCC. Anyone know what they did?
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
"Ageism" bulletin.
The hypocrisy pouring out of that bulletin from ACPA is enough to gag anyone familiar with the history. There is not an ounce of credibility behind the words but at least now they are being forced to say them.
The hypocrisy pouring out of that bulletin from ACPA is enough to gag anyone familiar with the history. There is not an ounce of credibility behind the words but at least now they are being forced to say them.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Rocky
Would you please post this so those of us who are not "washed" clean, (force-retired) can read acpa's bulletin?
Thanks.
Would you please post this so those of us who are not "washed" clean, (force-retired) can read acpa's bulletin?
Thanks.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
It is a joint AC/ACPA bulletin so I cannot post it...sorry. Suffice to say the sudden concern for individual rights WRT to retirement coming from this union is more than a little rich. However as insincere as it sounds coming from ACPA it is nevertheless gratifying to see them finally, publicly acknowledging the discriminatory nature of the issue and defending those who choose to go beyond 60.
- Lt. Daniel Kaffee
- Rank 3
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:43 am
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Guess you better find another job where people (like many of the posters on this thread) living on such high moral ground are appreciated...
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
No need. People like you (whom this bulletin was directed at) will either learn to respect the rights of others, or if you are incapable of that then learn to keep your mouth shut and opinions to yourselves, or be asked not so politely to go work somewhere else. This is the year 2015 my friend...time to get up to speed.Lt. Daniel Kaffee wrote:Guess you better find another job where people (like many of the posters on this thread) living on such high moral ground are appreciated...
You got the memo now take some solid advice, read it carefully and take it seriously.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Thanks Rocky.
I appreciate your quick response. I understand.
cheers
I appreciate your quick response. I understand.
cheers
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
My, my. How things change...
Imagine that, a union defending the human rights of its own members, after it has spent 10 years and a huge sum of dollars on legal fees doing just the opposite!
Well, the chickens haven't all come home to roost, at least not yet.
Imagine that, a union defending the human rights of its own members, after it has spent 10 years and a huge sum of dollars on legal fees doing just the opposite!
Well, the chickens haven't all come home to roost, at least not yet.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 369
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
In a few years it will be interesting when some of the widows or estates of the original complainants have to decide if they wish to continue to fund and fight this battle.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:48 pm
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
WTF?sportingrifle wrote:In a few years it will be interesting when some of the widows or estates of the original complainants have to decide if they wish to continue to fund and fight this battle.
HAPPY FU*@$#& THANKSGIVING TO YOU TOO!
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Does anybody have enough fortitude, backbone, gumption, GUSTS, to post this bulletin so the unwashed, us , have an idea of what is been said. What say you out there?Rockie wrote:"Ageism" bulletin.
The hypocrisy pouring out of that bulletin from ACPA is enough to gag anyone familiar with the history. There is not an ounce of credibility behind the words but at least now they are being forced to say them.
Re: No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision
Crikey, don't get your panties in a knot. You're reading too much into it.duranium wrote:Does anybody have enough fortitude, backbone, gumption, GUSTS, to post this bulletin so the unwashed, us , have an idea of what is been said. What say you out there?Rockie wrote:"Ageism" bulletin.
The hypocrisy pouring out of that bulletin from ACPA is enough to gag anyone familiar with the history. There is not an ounce of credibility behind the words but at least now they are being forced to say them.
I have the bulletin in front of me, and no I am not going to post it. Not because I don't have the "fortitude, backbone, gumption, GUSTS (sic), but because it is none of your business.
I will give a quick synopsis though. Essentially, it says that there is a list with pilots birth dates and seniority numbers floating around. Hell, I've been at Air Canada for 35 years and that list has always been available. As a matter of fact I have a list in front of me right now and if you are ex-Air Canada, you probably had one before you retired. It's no big deal.
All the company and ACPA are saying is that if anyone uses the list to threaten or harass anyone that it will not be tolerated. As I approach age 60, I can honestly say that I have not been approached, threatened, harassed, cajoled, intimidated, or anything else regarding my intentions on flying/or not flying past age 60.
Nothing to see here. Time to go outside and play.