ACPA votes again....

[disco]

Disco,

Did NC2 follow recognized and accepted jurisprudence regarding, arbitration with a previous memorandum of agreement?

The answer is no. You and I both know it. My complaint with NC2 rests completely on this fact.

Most of the rest of your post I agree with. You are starting to attribute comments made by others to me.

Just like NC2 couldn't run from TA1 then, they can't run from their decision to try anyway now.

The answer is yes, NC2 followed the jurisprudence and legal advice associated. You have incorrect information.

That isn’t quite what I asked. We all know they had an alternative opinion.

Did NC2 follow the recognized and widely accepted jurisprudence wrt arbitration with a previous MOA?

If you still answer yes.

What was the accepted jurisprudence wrt arbitration with a previous MOA?

Yes, NC2 followed the jurisprudence and legal advice associated with a previous tentative agreement. What are you driving at here? Let me be as clear as possible: the committee followed the overwhelming legal opinion as close as could be achieved. Do you feel you have a greater grip on the jurisprudence than the rest of us here? Well, you don't. You are trying to build a bogus story and there seems to be nothing that will convince you otherwise. My previous answer was not in any way an attempt to be tricky with an answer. NC2 followed the legal advice you are referring to and suggesting they didn't. For real. 100%

[disco]

Arbitrators are to be governed by several principles including the theory of replication and the theory of gradualism. That is to say, they ought to consider what they think the parties would have negotiated without 3rd party involvement.

Disco you just outed your bias. Thank you.

What you wrote is absolutely correct, however you use it to legitimize continuing to negotiate/arbitrate as if the TA1 memorandum of agreement didn’t exist.

Accepted jurisprudence dictates that In determining where the parties would have ended up without third party interference, arbitrators will start at a memorandum of agreement if one exists.


Refusal to accept that led to a gutting of an already putrid TA1. That refusal to follow accepted jurisprudence led us out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Now a bunch of those individuals who made that decision want back?

So I'm to believe you are an expert respecting arbitrations? Not sure what you think you've concluded here. Perhaps you don't have a clear picture of the mandate and protocol that NC2 were working from with total MEC involvement. Everyone was aware that ending in arbitration was a likely outcome....anyone who understand bargaining.

[Fanblade]

Proof is in the pudding Disco.

Jurisprudence says the arbrator will impose an MOA in arbration if one exists.

NC2 never once attempted to negotiate from the MOA signed during TA1. That’s a fact.

NC2 refusal to work off of TA1 left the arbitrator no, zero, zilch choice but to pick the companies proposal. That’s a fact.

NC1 is responsible for TA1. That’s a fact.

NC2 is responsible for the dollars stripped from TA1 during FOS. That’s a fact.

I’m not sure what scares me more here. Your insistence that the outcome we experienced could have ended any other way than it did during FOS. Or the fact that ACPA legal was probably supporting this preposterous strategy.

[disco]

Proof is in the pudding Disco.

Jurisprudence says the arbrator will impose an MOA in arbration if one exists.

NC2 never once attempted to negotiate from the MOA signed during TA1. That’s a fact.

NC2 refusal to work off of TA1 left the arbitrator no, zero, zilch choice but to pick the companies proposal. That’s a fact.

NC1 is responsible for TA1. That’s a fact.

NC2 is responsible for the dollars stripped from TA1 during FOS. That’s a fact.

I’m not sure what scares me more here. Your insistence that the outcome we experienced could have ended any other way than it did during FOS. Or the fact that ACPA legal was probably supporting this preposterous strategy.

Again, you are not really privy to the strategy that was underway....you are only privy to the final outcome. That does not give you a position of expert analysis here. Monday morning quarterbacking. There was no reason for NC2 to "negotiate" from TA1 because the membership and the MEC wanted nothing to do with it and the membership proved their lack of desire for it with non-ratification. There was a strategy to move the company 1) fully away from the TA or 2) move them on certain pieces of the concessionary TA and failing all of that...to live with arbitration if necessary. In the event of arbitration, NC2 were then subject to jurisprudence and followed it. If that is where you find responsibility for FOS grabs by the company...sure, but the process was driven by the membership through their leadership. There were gains made from the TA with respect to course rights. TA1 allowed a young EMB Captain 2 further courses in their Air Canada career for eg.

[Fanblade]

Clearly we are getting nowhere.

For anyone following this thread and is an ACPA pilot. Particularly if you were hired post 2014. Go to the following ACPA link. Actually if you were hired after that go read this as a refresher.

The whole thing is a worthwhile read. But you can go to page 35 for the audit of NC2.

Many of the individuals that this outside independent review talks about are either already back in positions of power or are seeking it.

Here’s a taste.

https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 136211.pdf



“Government mediators, labour representatives and common sense might tell you that the best way to proceed would be to work from the most recent agreement and look to make changes or modifications from it. However, the NC2 believed that the best option for the Members was to start from scratch.....”

“Unfortunately, NC2 made a significant strategic error in its approach to negotiate from a new contract position rather than going back to a variation of TA1. Although the NC2 had many chances to re-engage the Company and return to TA1 or something close to it, they refused.”

“Never the less, prior to the unsuccessful FOS offer there were several warning signs from various sources that the NC2 FOS approach to negotiate a new contract was not likely to succeed. Individual interviews corroborated that ACPA's legal counsel, ACPA's internal labour relations staff not involved in the negotiations, many of ACPA's Members and even non-ACPA union leaders have indicated that best option would be to either to renegotiate using TA1 as a base or at a later date to start with TA1 as a base for the FOS and make modifications to it in the unions favour. This was a costly error.”

“During the course of NC2's negotiations, several highly reputable experts who acted as ACPA's internal and external advisors and renowned union leader Buzz Hargrove all informed the MEC that the best alternative to proceed would be to negotiate from the TA1 and NOT to start fresh. Their collective opinion seemed to be that it was highly likely that the arbitrator would rule in favour of a proposed agreement that most closely resembled an agreement that had been negotiated by both parties. Once again, hindsight can be 20:20, but it seems that there was more than enough input from various trusted and experienced advisors that should have led the MEC of the day or NC2 to reconsider its strategy. During interviews with the Company members, they confirmed that their greatest concern at FOS would be if ACPA had simply re-issued the TA1 for its FOS contract proposal.”

“The MEC failed to address the critical NC2 error in negotiating style even though it was warned on numerous occasions by various staff and external advisors. The MEC was made up of new young members who wanted to prove themselves and were voted in by an angry Membership who rejected TA1 and were prepared to fight the Company. Unfortunately, the process was resolved in a manner that cost all Members a significant amount.”




https://acpa.ca/Media/ACPA/ACPAUpdates/ ... 136211.pdf

[Daniel Cooper]

I wouldn't vote for anyone that spams my company email that's for sure.

[pilotbzh]

So your option would be to vote for the candidate supported by the group that sold us of with TA1 that was rejected, NC2 didn't have a chance the group of 27 made sure of that, same guys that came back later with this 10year contract that pushed us so far behind, time for NC2 to come back and fight for better pay and working condition, MH sold his soul to the group of 27, he'll be a good manager, probably across the table from NC3....

[Fanblade]

I agree. Sad state isn't it.

How about none of the above then? There is one candidate without all the baggage.

It doesn't matter who gets in right now. No one will be able swing anything substantial due to the 10 year deal. We will get nothing by negotiation or by arbitration. Anyone claiming they can doesn't understand or is full of it.

What is important right now to me is who do I want representing me when we actually do have bargaining power in about 5 years. I'm voting for the person I believe will pull us in ALPA's direction.

[Daniel Cooper]

Congrats Tondy.

[NotDirty!]

Congrats Tondy.

I was impressed by the 2,25255.9% voter turnout! Vote early and vote often!!

[Observer]

20% of eligible members voted for the winner of our by-election.

That's how democracy works, this is actually a better turnout than we're used to seeing! It's good to see member engagement increasing.

Congratulations to our new MEC member!

[Daniel Cooper]

Put ALPA on the ballot. You'll have some turnout either way.

[CanadianEh]

Put ALPA on the ballot. You'll have some turnout either way.

+1

[Ratherbe]

God help us - and please pass the Tums.

[yycflyguy]

God help us - and please pass the Tums.

Somebody got a tummy ache.

Perhaps a move to ALPA is on the horizon.
Perhaps a MEC that will actually say "no" once in awhile.
Perhaps the purging of unnecessary and expensive office staff that drain members' dues.
Perhaps greater transparency.
Perhaps.

[Fanblade]

God help us - and please pass the Tums.

Somebody got a tummy ache.

Perhaps a move to ALPA is on the horizon.
Perhaps a MEC that will actually say "no" once in awhile.
Perhaps the purging of unnecessary and expensive office staff that drain members' dues.
Perhaps greater transparency.
Perhaps.

I hope your right. And I agree with much of your points.

My concern is that perhaps this is yet another swing between two opposing strategies that have both failed us over the last decade.

I don't believe ACPA has done anything close to what is needed from a governance prospective. Now I think we will see removing the little changes we did make.

I really think it highly unlikely we will see any movement toward ALPA.