ACPA votes again....

[Fanblade]

Take it from me- you have several pieces of this factually incorrect. Pivotal pieces that you have reconfigured to suit your opinion. I just dont have the energy to keep duking this out with the uninformed over and over again. Face it....you don't have this as solidly as you purport. I trust that most reading your opinion understand your bias on its face and understand this part of our history with a greater grip on the facts than you are presenting. They have already reached their own conclusions.

I’m sorry Disco. “Take it from me” holds zero weight on a unanimous forum.

Where are my facts, or Ratherbe’s for that matter missing the mark?

I stand by mine. Completely. If I have misrepresented something I will gladly correct it. But for that to happen you need to point out what you think is in error.

Your last comment about people already have reached their own conclusions. Over 1000 pilots on our list currently were not around for TA1 and TA2.

Your right about one aspect. History revision is well at work. My attempt here is to keep history on point and limit my personal bias as best I can.

[Fanblade]

The DB proposal in the TA had a sunshine clause that if the Pension was fully funded at a certain date then the concessions would be restored. That would have happened.

The TA had rouge included into the pay groups. Instead we got $117/hr for L767 captains in FOS.

The course rights were from Tony and Mike’s negotiations attempt but without pay groups.

Also, remember that the TA secured the EMJ175 at mainline. Tony was the scope guy but the arbitrator found his arguments “provided no persuasive explanation for why the TA was not acceptable“. We lost those 250 jobs thanks to Tony and Mike’s inability to argue effectively on our behalf.

The one common trait among this group is they talk tough but history shows they fail to deliver the results they promise.

Wow dude....you are in dreamland. You have a lot of total horse shit to spew. You know very little of which you are speaking. You have bought into some ludicrous reworking of history. Ta1 and its engineers are the sole source of massive concessions. They destroyed major tenets of our agreement that were hard won over decades. Buzz was never an important source of guidance in the way you have bought into. NC2 did their level best given the incredible botch up of NC1. You are totally wrong on components of that process..and try come off like an insider with expertise.....laughably wrong in many places.

Disco wrote


Ta1 and its engineers are the sole source of massive concessions. Correct
They destroyed major tenets of our agreement that were hard won over decades. Correct
Buzz was never an important source of guidance in the way you have bought into. Correct
NC2 did their level best given the incredible botch up of NC1. Correct

This was NC2’s error and a whopper at that.

Refusing to accept that they could not run away from NC1’s memorandum of agreement in arbitration. That decision was made against legal advice, against jurisprudence and cost ACPA pilots millions.

What if.... What if NC2 hadn’t refused to submit a proposal based on TA1 in arbitration. What if they submitted TA1 plus some flat pay enhancements?

[disco]

The DB proposal in the TA had a sunshine clause that if the Pension was fully funded at a certain date then the concessions would be restored. That would have happened.

The TA had rouge included into the pay groups. Instead we got $117/hr for L767 captains in FOS.

The course rights were from Tony and Mike’s negotiations attempt but without pay groups.

Also, remember that the TA secured the EMJ175 at mainline. Tony was the scope guy but the arbitrator found his arguments “provided no persuasive explanation for why the TA was not acceptable“. We lost those 250 jobs thanks to Tony and Mike’s inability to argue effectively on our behalf.

The one common trait among this group is they talk tough but history shows they fail to deliver the results they promise.

Wow dude....you are in dreamland. You have a lot of total horse shit to spew. You know very little of which you are speaking. You have bought into some ludicrous reworking of history. Ta1 and its engineers are the sole source of massive concessions. They destroyed major tenets of our agreement that were hard won over decades. Buzz was never an important source of guidance in the way you have bought into. NC2 did their level best given the incredible botch up of NC1. You are totally wrong on components of that process..and try come off like an insider with expertise.....laughably wrong in many places.

Disco wrote


Ta1 and its engineers are the sole source of massive concessions. Correct
They destroyed major tenets of our agreement that were hard won over decades. Correct
Buzz was never an important source of guidance in the way you have bought into. Correct
NC2 did their level best given the incredible botch up of NC1. Correct

This was NC2’s error and a whopper at that.

Refusing to accept that they could not run away from NC1’s memorandum of agreement in arbitration. That decision was made against legal advice, against jurisprudence and cost ACPA pilots millions.

What if.... What if NC2 hadn’t refused to submit a proposal based on TA1 in arbitration. What if they submitted TA1 plus some flat pay enhancements?

Totally incorrect. NC2 followed all of the legal advice. Only Group 27 idiots and their sympathizers try to suggest otherwise.

Your ignorance is shining through here.

[disco]

Take it from me- you have several pieces of this factually incorrect. Pivotal pieces that you have reconfigured to suit your opinion. I just dont have the energy to keep duking this out with the uninformed over and over again. Face it....you don't have this as solidly as you purport. I trust that most reading your opinion understand your bias on its face and understand this part of our history with a greater grip on the facts than you are presenting. They have already reached their own conclusions.

I’m sorry Disco. “Take it from me” holds zero weight on a unanimous forum.

Where are my facts, or Ratherbe’s for that matter missing the mark?

I stand by mine. Completely. If I have misrepresented something I will gladly correct it. But for that to happen you need to point out what you think is in error.

Your last comment about people already have reached their own conclusions. Over 1000 pilots on our list currently were not around for TA1 and TA2.

Your right about one aspect. History revision is well at work. My attempt here is to keep history on point and limit my personal bias as best I can.

I can assure you that my information is as close to the table as can be achieved and I don't care what you think about that. You are wrong and I am not really interested in trying to turn a misinformed outsider opinion any more than I've attempted in vain here. You dont have an accurate account of these matters...take that to the bank. You're not an informed expert and are on the fantasy side of history here.

[Fanblade]

Wow dude....you are in dreamland. You have a lot of total horse shit to spew. You know very little of which you are speaking. You have bought into some ludicrous reworking of history. Ta1 and its engineers are the sole source of massive concessions. They destroyed major tenets of our agreement that were hard won over decades. Buzz was never an important source of guidance in the way you have bought into. NC2 did their level best given the incredible botch up of NC1. You are totally wrong on components of that process..and try come off like an insider with expertise.....laughably wrong in many places.

Disco wrote


Ta1 and its engineers are the sole source of massive concessions. Correct
They destroyed major tenets of our agreement that were hard won over decades. Correct
Buzz was never an important source of guidance in the way you have bought into. Correct
NC2 did their level best given the incredible botch up of NC1. Correct

This was NC2’s error and a whopper at that.

Refusing to accept that they could not run away from NC1’s memorandum of agreement in arbitration. That decision was made against legal advice, against jurisprudence and cost ACPA pilots millions.

What if.... What if NC2 hadn’t refused to submit a proposal based on TA1 in arbitration. What if they submitted TA1 plus some flat pay enhancements?

Totally incorrect. NC2 followed all of the legal advice. Only Group 27 idiots and their sympathizers try to suggest otherwise.

Your ignorance is shining through here.

Disco,

I still don’t see where you are pointing out my errors. In fact you have reverted to attacking the messenger rather than the message.

It is true NC2 solicited many legal opinions regarding the impact of the TA1 memorandum of agreement on future negotiations. It is also true one of those opinions proposed a possible constitutional challenge, as an option to the accepted jurisprudence being followed at the time. This was but one singular opinion, offered up as an alternative strategy, based on an unproven possibility. It stacked up against a multitude of opinions that said otherwise. Opinions that stated very clearly that in arbitration the MOA would be imposed.

So although you are factually correct in stating NC2 followed legal opinions. It is also correct to state that NC2 was very selective in the legal opinion upon which they relied. A legal opinion that was very much an outlier from what was considered accepted jurisprudence on the subject.

So who now is attempting to revise history? Is it accurate to say NC2 followed legal advise. I would say yes. Is it accurate to state NC2 followed well established and accepted jurisprudence? No it is not. If you were as close to the table during NC2 you would know this. I can only surmise that either you weren’t that close to the table or you have an interest in making sure some of the decisions made by NC2 remain buried.

It is this very subject matter that prompted the group of 27 to act. They knew NC2 was about to ignore the current and accepted jurisprudence. Was about to take a huge risk with the collective future of ACPA pilots.

At the time I thought their behaviour almost treasonous. Now I know they were really just the canary in the coal mine.

NC1 failed us. NC2 failed us. The 10 year agreement failed us.

I and many many others have seen enough.

[disco]

Fan blade, your central premise continues to be that NC2 ignored legal advice and were the cause of massive concessions. You claim 250 mil. Both of those assertions are patently wrong. NC2 followed their legal advice that they had to make their submission as close to the failed TA as possible. You have bad sources. Period.

NC2 were working very hard to repair a colossal list of concessions that were provided by a very misguided and rogue NC1. This is as plain as the light of day. These concessions were not in any way passed by the membership by way of any meaningful WAWCON polling and in fact much of the MEC were in the dark regarding the range and extent of very damaging concessions made by that deeply misguided committee. Their damaging work will live with us forever. They violated most of the very basic tenets of bargaining due to a combination of inexperience, ineptness and a false confidence in their misguided strategy.

The Pension Committee, shockingly, were proposing permanent concessions by way of a permanent change to the normal age of retirement for pension calculations. This was tantamount to a permanent transfer of our wealth to the shareholders. NC2 had a plan that allowed for a snap back that would now be fully realized rather than a closed and permanently damaged DB Pension Plan. The same Pension Committee leaked their position to the Company and the Company essentially submitted their position to FOS.

The Group of 27 were neither amazingly prescient nor were they actually privy to the strategy, efforts or protocols of NC2. They were never in the room and couldn't possibly have any idea what they were afraid of outside of public rhetoric in newsletters (standard practice in positional bargaining). They were simply a scared group of AC pilots who took the rhetoric at face value and were largely instigated by a group of recently scorned NC1 pilots. Rather than outlining anything brilliant in the Negotiating landscape, they caused irreparable damage to our position, reputation and lobbying effort in Ottawa and were the reason negotiations broke down and we were then submitted to the most inappropriate type of arbitration for our situation....FOS.

You can take my word that I dont have any doubt in these facts or not. I cant try to save the world, lol If you choose not to believe me...no problem. I never for a moment expected you to depart your misguided outlook driven by inaccuracies and conjecture. I'm only here to defend against an inaccurate rewriting of history for the rest of the participants here. Your understanding of the events are incorrect and you've reached totally bogus conclusions. I know exactly where you've derived them from as the same alternate reality premise has been swirling around since 2012.

[disco]

You have uttered so many inaccuracies that I simply won't bother to deal with all of them. But this one is a real doozy:

"Also, remember that the TA secured the EMJ175 at mainline. Tony was the scope guy but the arbitrator found his arguments “provided no persuasive explanation for why the TA was not acceptable“. We lost those 250 jobs thanks to Tony and Mike’s inability to argue effectively on our behalf."

Tony was not arguing scope to the arbitrator as that is not how FOS works and the core cause of us being subject to FOS at all (and the associated additional grabs by the company) remains and will always be a totally botched round of negotiations that delivered unprecedented and unexpected concessions which led to a failure to ratify. This was the catalyst for the mess we found ourselves in and the Group of 27 were the final blow with the our CEO and the Harper government which led to the most inappropriate type of arbitration for the circumstance.

Your assertion that Tony and Mike's inability to argue effectively on our behalf is wrong - almost hilariously so. It is all I need to realize how out of touch you are with actual circumstances at the time. You have uttered numerous things just like this and I don't have the time or interest to comb through them all. You are presenting false premises.

[altiplano]

We were never going to win in FOS. NEVER.

It was written into the PASA law that what the company needed was what the arbitrator had to select. The deck was stacked.

The biggest mistake in FOS was the subsequent 2014 agreement and the abandoning of the legal challenge which we would have won.

Convenient the snakes had all made it back into the leadership by that point to torpedo any chance we had... and how quickly they did it, and into a closed contract...

We have not made any meaningful gains in years at this outfit. Our wages are stagnant only recently passing where we were prebankruptcy, our work conditions are suffering, we are working more then ever, our scope is in trouble, our group is divided...

Is that what you want to vote for more of?

Interest based quid-pro-quo approach has been a failure. There is no question that we need people capable of holding their ground, I don't need guys that get along with the suits representing me, because they don't.

Further, any ideas that ACPA is somehow responsible that there are more pilot jobs or advancement opportunities are absurd. The retirements and business plan are the reasons for that... nearly every airline in the world right now is growing... US airline groups are in almost identical positions, retirements, growth, fast upgrades, swelling ranks, and they have made enormous contract gains. It's just the 'UP' in the cycle. Better hurry or we're going to miss it... we already may have... 5 years to go...

[Observer]

Disco. Rhymes with San Francisco. Hmmmm.

Anyways, if you were putting together a submission for a final offer selection arbitration, and I said to you, “We want to lose. Put some crazy a$s sh#t in there to guarantee we lose.” You would be hard pressed to top the ridiculous age 60 discriminatory scheme that NC2 concocted to screw those of us (like me) that have chosen to fly past age 60. Read it for a good laugh. Or cry.

They called it ‘Dual Captains’ or some such thing, but it involved stripping a Captain of his command authority once he turned 60, then relegating him to a relief pilot or First Officer seat simply because he was too old. Talk about discriminatory, what’s the worst thing that could happen?! Even crazier, they proposed continuing to pay the demoted ‘old guy’ $300 000/year to fly as an RP or FO. Somehow the Company didn’t like it, and the arbitrator didn’t buy it. I wonder why.

Ask them about it today and they still refer to it as their brilliant plan!

ALPA may be a great thing for our group in the end. Had we had ALPA experts in 2012, I’m pretty sure they would have said, “An RP earning $300 000/year. That’s your final offer...now that’s some crazy a$s sh#t. We don’t think it’s a good idea.” Would NC2 have heeded that advice?

ALPA will provide experts, who will provide advice. The problem is when you don’t listen to expert advice, and there were plenty of people inside and outside ACPA pleading with NC2 not to submit that ridiculous ‘Dual Captain’ proposal which sealed our fate in FOS.

And soon we may have two of that team back on the MEC. No thanks!

[Fanblade]

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.

[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.

[disco]

Observer,

why do your unmeritorious arguments sound so familiar to me? Maybe I know who I'm talking to here. I'm sorry to advise, you don't really grasp the Age 60 Co-Captain piece of the FOS submission as I suspect we have debated before.

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. It is a known in arbitration that one side should never attempt to benefit from extracting all of the value of a major change in landscape (Age 60). The parties, left to their own devices, would have shared financially in the Age 60 change in landscape.

The Co-Captain proposal:

1) creatively shared in the now hundreds of millions of dollars of annual savings to AC from pilots working past 60.
2) did no damage to the pilots staying past 60 - our Age 60 law firm was very pleased with that aspect...no possible damages would exist should it be changed at a later time
3) partially mitigated the damage inflicted on the career trajectory of Air Canada pilots by continuing to free up the left seat on a regular basis.

Not only was it not a laughable component of FOS, it was fully vetted and improved by all of the parties involved in getting the FOS submission out the door. The FOS decision didn't turn on this piece.

You do realize it isn't 5 Air Canada pilots that put that package together on their own? You misunderstand the submission and attempt to use it as some kind of ridicule of a very large group of professionals involved in it's work.

[Observer]

Observer,

why do your unmeritorious arguments sound so familiar to me? Maybe I know who I'm talking to here. I'm sorry to advise, you don't really grasp the Age 60 Co-Captain piece of the FOS submission as I suspect we have debated before.

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. It is a known in arbitration that one side should never attempt to benefit from extracting all of the value of a major change in landscape (Age 60). The parties, left to their own devices, would have shared financially in the Age 60 change in landscape.

The Co-Captain proposal:

1) creatively shared in the now hundreds of millions of dollars of annual savings to AC from pilots working past 60.
2) did no damage to the pilots staying past 60 - our Age 60 law firm was very pleased with that aspect...no possible damages would exist should it be changed at a later time
3) partially mitigated the damage inflicted on the career trajectory of Air Canada pilots by continuing to free up the left seat on a regular basis.

Not only was it not a laughable component of FOS, it was fully vetted and improved by all of the parties involved in getting the FOS submission out the door. The FOS decision didn't turn on this piece.

You do realize it isn't 5 Air Canada pilots that put that package together on their own? You misunderstand the submission and attempt to use it as some kind of ridicule of a very large group of professionals involved in it's work.

Well, if you’re a B777 FO or RP who’s flown with an over 60 Captain who will talk your ear off about that particular gem, then maybe you do remember me.

Like I said. A $300 000/year RP. Good work if you can get it! Brilliant!

[Fanblade]

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?

[Fanblade]

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?

[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