Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[Rockie]

Norwegian, you can trumpet THE LAW all you want but let's wait and see what reality delivers.

You wouldn't know reality if it drop kicked you in the face, which it did by the way last December 15th. That's also just the beginning of much more painful reality to come, not the end.

[Mig29]

You guys are a real piece of work I tell ya!!

WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT THE MAJORITY OF PILOTS AGAINST THIS AND THE UNION TO DO ABOUT THIS NEW LAW?!!

I'm out of here....I'm not going to give you the excuse to crack another 1000+ posts on here....

ps. I would more worry about this then your new Law.

[Rockie]

WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT THE MAJORITY OF PILOTS AGAINST THIS AND THE UNION TO DO ABOUT THIS NEW LAW?!!

In simple terms even you can understand....comply with it.

Now if we have any brain cells left over we can think of ways to make it work to our advantage in soooo many ways. But I've long since given up hope for that kind of progressive thinking.

The first way I can think of right off the top of my head is solving the company's pension solvency problem for them and extracting a very big price for it. The list goes on from there, and is being completely ignored by ACPA while they cower in the corner in fear of answering for this fiasco.

[777longhaul]

Arbitration Award Jan 09 2012

RE: AC flight attendants-- mandatory retirement at age 65.

In a released Arbitration Award from Arbitrator Kaplan yesterday Jan 9, 2012 Air Canada has been told:

A. maintain employment of FA`s turning 65
B. offer to re-employ those members who had filed a Grievance
C. offer to re-employ those employees who turned 65 since Sept 23/2010 the date of filing the Grievance.


Remember, acpa, has refused to file any Grievances from ANY of the FP60 group. The legal, requirement, to apply to the CHRC and then go to the CHRT, is for EACH pilot to file a formal acpa grievance request. That is step number one.

acpa, has refused to file period.

Wonder if, the ruling today will add any weight to the FP60 issue? acpa, is the only union in AC, that is now refusing to file a Grievance for its active members. The other unions, have filed Grievances, and their members, have been reinstated by the Arbitrators.

[Raymond Hall]

Here is the text of Arbitrator Kaplan's award:

Re: Mandatory Retirement (CHQ-10-46) -Interim Award

Following the filing of a number of grievances pursuant to the collective agreement and complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement at age sixty-five of Cabin Personnel represented by the Union, I hereby issue this interim award:

1. Subject to the successful completion of any training and medical clearance(s) which its rules, regulations or policies may require, Air Canada shall forthwith:

(a) Maintain the employment of any Cabin Personnel who wish to continue to work for Air Canada beyond the month in which they turn sixty-five;

(b) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel for whom the Union filed grievances pursuant to the collective agreement or who filed complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement prior to the date of this award;

(c) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel who retired at age sixty-five on or after September 23, 2010 (the date of filing of Union policy grievance CHQ-10- 46);

2. Cabin Personnel reinstated pursuant to paragraphs 1(b) or (c) shall have their service and seniority dates adjusted to reflect no interruption in service.

3. The continuation of the employment of any Cabin Personnel pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) or the re-employment of any former Cabin Personnel pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (c) is on an interim basis pending a final determination applicable to Cabin Personnel on the constitutionality of s. 15(1 )(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act or an Act of Parliament removing, from that legislation, mandatory retirement as an exception to the rule against age discrimination.

4. In the event that the constitutionality of s. 15(1 )(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is upheld or that that section is not removed by an Act of Parliament, either party may request that I reconsider this interim award or address the grievance on its merits.

5. The parties are directed to meet forthwith to try to resolve any issues regarding benefits/compensation for the aforesaid employees. If resolution cannot be reached, the Parties may agree to hold that issue in abeyance pending the final determination or the Act of Parliament referenced in paragraph 3 above. Otherwise, any such issues may be referred to mediation/arbitration before me.

6. This interim award is without prejudice to the position of either party with respect to, without limitation, the benefits or compensation, if any, to be paid or provided to Cabin Personnel who accept Air Canada's offer of re-employment pursuant to paragraphs 1(b) or (c) or the apportionment of liability for any such benefits or compensation.,

DATED this 9th of January 2012

William Kaplan

[Raymond Hall]

The legal, requirement, to apply to the CHRC and then go to the CHRT, is for EACH pilot to file a formal acpa grievance request. That is step number one. acpa, has refused to file period.

Partially correct. However, the two options, grievance request and CHRC complaint, are totally independent as they stem from the concurrent jurisdiction of the arbitrator under the Canada Labour Code and the Commission under the CHRA. Either can be used, although the process, potential remedies, and obviously the time frame of the final determination of each process varies.

What we have seen in all of the non-ACPA grievances and arbitrations so far is that the arbitrator accepts limited jurisdiction to apply an interim remedy (not available under the other statutory process) and then defers to the CHRT and the existing litigation before the Tribunal and the courts for the final legal determination of the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement exemption.

The Federal Court of Appeal decision of that issue could be released as early as later this month, but most likely will not be released until next month, given the complexity of the legal issues before the court.

You are correct in stating that ACPA has so far refused to file a grievance on behalf of pilots requesting same. So far, the Canada Industrial Relations Board has upheld ACPA's decision to not file grievances.

There is a fifth union at Air Canada that has not been involved in this process, to my knowledge, namely the Flight Dispatchers' union. I have no knowledge of whether there has been a grievance filed with respect to mandatory retirement of those union members. So technically, it may not be correct to say that every union save for ACPA has now taken the mandatory retirement issue to arbitration.

[777longhaul]

Raymond

Thanks for the corrections, and taking the time to post, to help inform those invovled, and those that are surfing this issue.

For those that have read the award:

From the Award today:

Read the second part of line "b" again:

(b) Offer to re-employ any former Cabin Personnel for whom the Union filed grievances pursuant to the collective agreement or who filed complaints pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act challenging mandatory retirement prior to the date of this award;

[Stu Pidasso]

Substantial differentiation between bringing back a retired F/A and a Pilot. Toss the F/A into the next available two day ART class and you're done - fully qualified and highly skilled F/A.

Bring back 200 Pilots into the left seat of Wide Bodies?

[duranium]

Those 200+ pilots you mention are at the top of their profession, 30+ years of experience, quite smart, been there, done that and just waiting to get back to doing what they enjoy a lot, flying metal thru the sky. Makes for a great combo for your Cie to seriously consider, dont you think?

Me thinks you are seriously underestimating your former co workers. As many have written, watch you six, you could be vulnerable big time

[Rockie]

Substantial differentiation between bringing back a retired F/A and a Pilot. Toss the F/A into the next available two day ART class and you're done - fully qualified and highly skilled F/A.

Bring back 200 Pilots into the left seat of Wide Bodies?

Yes, it's going to be disruptive and very, very expensive. But it's not like Air Canada pilots weren't told this could and probably would happen. I guess pushing as many out the door as possible before mandatory retirement was abolished wasn't such a good idea after all.

[Stu Pidasso]

I guess I missed the part about "Retroactivity!" When a "Law" or a "Bill" is passed it has a date attached and the rules change moving forward.

Furthermore, when have we ever reacted to a "maybe" or a "this could" happen. We chose to wait and see what the Canadian Government would rule.

It would have been foolish to make such substantive changes on a "could" and "probably?"

[Rockie]

When a "Law" or a "Bill" is passed it has a date attached and the rules change moving forward.

True enough, but the change in law also doesn't effect the nearly 200 cases grinding their excruciatingly slow way through the CHRT. They will still be decided on their merits.

It would have been foolish to make such substantive changes on a "could" and "probably?"

No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

[vic777]

No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

Wouldn't it make sense to get out of ACPA and avoid these fines.

[Rockie]

No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

Wouldn't it make sense to get out of ACPA and avoid these fines.

No.

I don't think ACPA can declare itself bankrupt when they have the ability to raise the funds through special assessment. And running away from our obligations like that is even more shameful than how and why we attracted them in the first place. We would deserve the scorn and distrust we earn by doing that.

[vic777]

No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

Wouldn't it make sense to get out of ACPA and avoid these fines.

No.

I don't think ACPA can declare itself bankrupt when they have the ability to raise the funds through special assessment. And running away from our obligations like that is even more shameful than how and why we attracted them in the first place. We would deserve the scorn and distrust we earn by doing that.

[sepia]

When a "Law" or a "Bill" is passed it has a date attached and the rules change moving forward.

True enough, but the change in law also doesn't effect the nearly 200 cases grinding their excruciatingly slow way through the CHRT. They will still be decided on their merits.

It would have been foolish to make such substantive changes on a "could" and "probably?"

No. This was only going to go one way and the foolishness was in deciding to fight it. However it will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when this process reaches its conclusion and the massive liability that ACPA is scared s**tless about lands on everyone's shoulders.

Ahh yes, back with the fear mongering again. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how liability works in a case like this?
Call it shameless or whatever you like, but there's a zero percent chance that ACPA members are going to have a special assessment and have to pay for this.

[vic777]

Ahh yes, back with the fear mongering again. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how liability works in a case like this?
Call it shameless or whatever you like, but there's a zero percent chance that ACPA members are going to have a special assessment and have to pay for this.

Sepia, do you have the slightest clue as to where ACPA gets its money? If ACPA pays, it comes out of the Pilot's pocket.

[Stu Pidasso]

Maybe explain to us, what ACPA could be liable for?

They had a Collective Agreement in place, with an age 60 retirement. There were no laws in place that they violated.

The laws have just recently changed and we will move forward, pretty clear and simple.

Bad news for those that were (are) looking for an ACPA Lottery, out of the pockets of the Pilots they flew with.

[Stu Pidasso]

Sorry, duplicate post.

[Raymond Hall]

Maybe explain to us, what ACPA could be liable for? They had a Collective Agreement in place, with an age 60 retirement. There were no laws in place that they violated. The laws have just recently changed and we will move forward, pretty clear and simple. Bad news for those that were (are) looking for an ACPA Lottery, out of the pockets of the Pilots they flew with.

How quickly you forget. The contract provision was ruled by the Tribunal to be of no force and effect, by reason of the unconstitutionality of the mandatory retirement exemption in the statute. That meant that the termination of employment of Vilven and Kelly was in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Air Canada's evidence in the VK remedy hearing was that the difference between the salary and the pension was $10,000 per month for the period between the date of the Charter decision and the date of reinstatement for Neil Kelly. Almost the same for George Vilven. That is what the Tribunal awarded them as damages. As I understand it, ACPA paid half and Air Canada paid the other half. Your suggestion that this issue is some sort of "lottery" not only trivializes the entire subject, but demonstrates a clear lack of awareness of the downside risk of what is taking place.

I will be the first to admit that there is no certainty in the outcome of any legal proceeding. What we are talking about is potential liability. But that is what your question addresses. What could ACPA be liable for? There is a potential liability, based on the issues and based on the precedent of $X dollars per complainant times the number of complainants (approximately 150 at this point), divided by 2. That is what ACPA could be liable for, and the number is quite substantial.