Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#1 Post by Raymond Hall » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:31 am

The Federal Court today released its long-awaited decision regarding three judicial reviews of cases heard by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2007 and 2008 (the "Thwaites" decision).

There were three separate judicial reviews of the single 2011 decision under consideration. The first was filed by the "Coalition Complainants" alleging that the Tribunal had erred in its determination of which groups of pilots constituted what may be termed as the "comparator pilots" to Air Canada Pilots.

The second was filed by Air Canada, arguing that the Tribunal erred in dismissing its arguments regarding the alleged bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) of terminating the employment of pilots over age 60.

The third was filed by ACPA, arguing that the adverse impact on the career earnings of junior pilots resulting from the end of mandatory retirement would result in the loss of substantial career income of those pilots, and thus formed the basis of an undue hardship argument necessary to justify maintaining the mandatory retirement provision, pursuant to the law on BFOR.

The Court overturned the Tribunal's decision on two of the three components: first, it said that the Tribunal's decision that pilots working for carriers that compete with Air Canada (esp. WestJet and Air Transat) did not perform work similar to Air Canada pilots was incorrect. Second, it said that the alleged harm to the career income potential of junior pilots was something that the Tribunal should have considered in its decision. Finally, it dismissed Air Canada's argument that it had demonstrated that employing pilots over age 60 would result in undue hardship as a result of scheduling difficulties.

The decision now goes back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, according to the reasons of the Court.

I will be posting the decision on the Fly Past 60 website shortly.

The major upshot of this decision, it should be noted, is that where many thought that the issues raised by the Fly Past Coalition had been dealt with, with finality, the result of this decision is that the complaints of the over 200 pilots who have ongoing claims before the Commission and the Tribunal are very real, with very substantial liability to both the union and the employer (big numbers....). More importantly, the potential outcome includes the reinstatement of employment of those of the over 200 who may wish to continue their professional work.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Raymond Hall on Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5523
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#2 Post by ahramin » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:39 am

So where does it go now? Back to the same tribunal that produced the earlier results?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#3 Post by Rockie » Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:01 am

I commend you Raymond for your dedication against what have been ferocious odds and nonsensical opposition to obvious trends in societal norms.

Society morality and ethics change, and it embarrasses me greatly that our pilot group is among the very last to recognize that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#4 Post by Raymond Hall » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:38 am

Rockie wrote:I commend you Raymond for your dedication against what have been ferocious odds and nonsensical opposition to obvious trends in societal norms.
Thank you, Rockie, but it isn't about me. Since 2006, I have simply stated my firm belief that what was going to transpire (and what has now transpired) with respect to mandatory retirement was not only inevitable but also entirely predictable. It is unfortunate, in my view, that many, instead of seriously considering the message, chose to simply discredit the messenger. So be it.

Nevertheless, that same message is now clearly stated by the Court. I have posted the decision on the Fly Past 60 web site:

http://www.FlyPast60.com/Documents/2014FC83.pdf

I have also posted a general update on the site, to provide some background to the decision as well as a personal preliminary analysis of the implications of the decision:

http://www.FlyPast60.com/Update.htm
---------- ADS -----------
  

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#5 Post by Raymond Hall » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:05 pm

ahramin wrote:So where does it go now? Back to the same tribunal that produced the earlier results?
Yes, according to the directions of the Court, not only to the same Tribunal but to the same member of the Tribunal.

Also, given the huge potential financial implications of the decision, I would be very surprised in one or more of the three major parts of the decision don't wind up before the Federal Court of Appeal.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Masters Off
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#6 Post by Masters Off » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:55 pm

I guess as an outsider to the subject, I've never quite understood this completely.

If I can pass my medical, sim ride and all applicable testing, stay within good standing with the company and do my job every day, how is it that on a given arbitrary day that my employment should be terminated. Who says 60 is the ripe age to stop being in control, (as opposed to RP, F/O, etc.)

Sounds great for AC, means you really can't get paid all that much if the end is near. Genius writing the contract with the ACPA, most likely saved thousands in pay, limiting how high up the chain guys could get over all those years.
---------- ADS -----------
  

turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#7 Post by turbo-beaver » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:32 pm

where does 'good standing with the company' fit in?
they were trying to fire me for the last 20 years of my career there.......I think when I retired, I was the most highly suspended pilot in history.....now that all those managers are mostly gone, I cant wait to come back in my golden years without all those junkyard dogs nipping at my heels......but then again......I hear they are still having problems with the augment issues and might need a little help
---------- ADS -----------
  
frog

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#8 Post by TheStig » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:50 pm

Masters Off wrote:I guess as an outsider to the subject, I've never quite understood this completely.

Sounds great for AC, means you really can't get paid all that much if the end is near. Genius writing the contract with the ACPA, most likely saved thousands in pay, limiting how high up the chain guys could get over all those years.
Good ol' nonsensical ACPA bashing. Each position is paid at a given rate. Every Air Canada wide body Captain earns the 12th year pay rate for their type. It doesn't matter if they're 45 or 60 (etc). Somebody retires…somebody else moves up the ladder, somebody doesn't retire…the pilot below stays put.
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#9 Post by TheStig » Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:56 pm

Raymond Hall wrote:
ahramin wrote:So where does it go now? Back to the same tribunal that produced the earlier results?
Yes, according to the directions of the Court, not only to the same Tribunal but to the same member of the Tribunal.

Also, given the huge potential financial implications of the decision, I would be very surprised in one or more of the three major parts of the decision don't wind up before the Federal Court of Appeal.
It seems only one side of this story is being told here so I thought I'd post a bit of the ruling here for everyone to read.

One aspect that does not appear to have been referred to in this discussion is that the collective agreement was set up specifically to favour older workers under a rigid seniority regime. As I understand the scheme, this was done by providing older pilots with highly generous economic benefits and better working conditions as they approached the end of their careers. This was made possible by the pilots receiving considerably less in the way of returns, while requiring more effort to achieve them, when younger. In other words, the generous benefits and working conditions made available to older pilots depended on the effort and hardship put in as younger workers.

Any claim therefore, for additional benefits by staying on after the agreed-upon retirement date would not have been “earned”. It would be similar to making contributions X to an RRSP to produce Y results over 35 years. But when the time comes to withdraw funds after 35 years, the pilot asks for Y, plus an additional amount on top of that.

Nor is it arguable that an exception should be made to the age of retirement for those pilots who entered Air Canada late and therefore may have greater needs because their pension income will not be equal to those other pilots whose careers are longer. They argue that they have not been employed long enough to have the same generous benefits as other pilots. They have no desire to take out more than they earned; just let them work longer to generate more pension income and be treated like other pilots who have the advantage of a longer career.

However, the consequences are the same whatever the reason to extend someone’s age of retirement: those that follow must work longer and subsidize the extended careers of those who work past 60. Newcomers cannot expect the rule of equal treatment to be modified to suit their circumstances when the rule was known and agreed to upon joining Air Canada and its violation has an adverse differential impact on other younger employees who jointed before they did.

In a sense, therefore, it is difficult to assimilate how a regime already favouring older workers would be described as discriminatory because at age 60 it cut off the continuation of that generous situation. Termination at that age was intrinsic to the functioning of the collective agreement which based payment out at older ages on effort put in at younger ages.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gravol
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#10 Post by Gravol » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:00 pm

Forgive me for being a) facetious or b) sarcastic

Are there 80 year old drivers @ Westjet, Jazz, Lufthansa, Emirates, Cathay, and so on.

Do you think this decision can be looked at or judged outside of the usual "all about me" hard shell?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#11 Post by Rockie » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:44 am

TheStig wrote:In a sense, therefore, it is difficult to assimilate how a regime already favouring older workers would be described as discriminatory because at age 60 it cut off the continuation of that generous situation. Termination at that age was intrinsic to the functioning of the collective agreement which based payment out at older ages on effort put in at younger ages.
Canadian law is blind to the system Air Canada pilots have been working under. It doesn't matter, and never mattered, if Air Canada pilots don't think mandatory retirement is discriminatory...Canadian law does.

Why is that so hard for people to understand even now?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1700
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#12 Post by Old fella » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:52 am

Jeeez.... here we go. Is this going to be another 20 page thread on the Air Canada fly past 60. What is in this topic that hasn't been trashed out in last years 20 pager......... :roll: :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#13 Post by Rockie » Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:50 am

Are you being forced to read this thread against your will Old Fella?
---------- ADS -----------
  

TheStig
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#14 Post by TheStig » Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:32 am

Rockie wrote:
TheStig wrote:In a sense, therefore, it is difficult to assimilate how a regime already favouring older workers would be described as discriminatory because at age 60 it cut off the continuation of that generous situation. Termination at that age was intrinsic to the functioning of the collective agreement which based payment out at older ages on effort put in at younger ages.
Canadian law is blind to the system Air Canada pilots have been working under. It doesn't matter, and never mattered, if Air Canada pilots don't think mandatory retirement is discriminatory...Canadian law does.

Why is that so hard for people to understand even now?
Rockie, you realize what I'd posted was copied and pasted from the Judges' ruling right? All I was/am really trying to get as this is not a black and white issue to the court, and they do see the details and understand how these pilots forced to retire benefited from the system they are now crying foul about. I'm really not trying to get into a pissing match here. However, I do think a few things need to be put into perspective.

This case has been going on for almost 9 years! The FP60 group wins an appeal and guys start talking about coming back!? I think some expectations need to be tempered. Do you think a judge is going to force 200 pilots out of work by dumping 200 retirees onto the top of the seniority list? Award them some huge monetary penalty?!? I don't want to say anything that's going to get me sued, but from what I've read on the FP60 website's updates over the years, I'd say quiet a large number of its authors predictions have failed to materialize as predicted. This appeal has only ensured that this case will drag on for another few years and cost all parties involved expensive legal fees.

I'd encourage everyone to read, or at least sift through, the ruling posted above and ask themselves if they think the Judge feels there has been some massive discrimination here and there is a need to punish ACPA and AC for the harm they've caused?

Since you've brought it up Rockie, here's some of what was said about discrimination in this case:

"[371] discrimination analysis should be applied. Firstly, it is illogical that a meritorious deviation be considered prima facie discrimination. As already pointed out, laws are intended to prevent injurious conduct. They should have no application to meritorious behaviour resulting from an ameliorative rule. An ameliorative retirement rule would fit the description of a meritorious deviation.

[372] Secondly, discrimination is a highly opprobrious, and therefore effective, label used to discourage a type of behaviour rejected by our society. It should not be cheapened by overuse where common sense suggests no discrimination has occurred. Like crying wolf too often, the term will lose its punch and legitimacy as an effective deterrent to discriminatory conduct.

[373] An example of cheapening rights talk I think is occurring in this case by telling the younger pilots that the older pilots suffered “discrimination” by the retirement rule. One scoffs at the suggestion that a rule which was intended to ensure that all pilots would be treated equally, and which when eliminated results in windfall benefits to the complainants at the expense of all of their colleagues, was based on a prima facie stereotype of prejudice against older pilots. Equally it is Professor Greschner provides a double-barrelled explanation for why a substantive hard to accept that the rule perpetuated a disadvantage to well-off senior pilots of the Baby Boomer generation because they were victims from among a disenfranchised and destitute group that suffers age discrimination in the 21st century."
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#15 Post by Rockie » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:59 pm

TheStig wrote:This case has been going on for almost 9 years! The FP60 group wins an appeal and guys start talking about coming back!? I think some expectations need to be tempered.
Reinstatement is a common remedy in discrimination cases and has in fact been the clearly stated goal of every pilot on that list from the very beginning. This isn't something they just decided to do.

The end of mandatory retirement has also been inevitable from the very beginning. If you don't believe me just ask some of the senior ACPA representatives around at the time and senior Air Canada management. I think facts have borne that statement out as well. It has been ACPA's strategy from the very beginning to draw this process out as long as possible to get as many pilots off the top of the list as possible until the day the law changes. If it's taken nine years it's because ACPA deliberately forced the process out over that time instead of proactively dealing with it when it first came up.

Every month ACPA drew this out they were fully aware there were more pilots added to the list seeking reinstatement. So if the number 200 scares you we should at least be honest about who made it that big.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#16 Post by ZBBYLW » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:50 pm

What I would really like to see happen if these guys get to come back is in 2016 we look at the whole way we are getting paid and change it. How about flatten the entire pay scale out. With guys coming back in from above to ride the surf earning 275k a year working 8 days a month (summers off) while others work double that and get paid anywhere from half to less than a quarter it's time for a change. It worked with mandatory retirement and DB pension plans. Now with fly 'til you die and DC pension plans we need to fix this for everyone's sake the sooner the better.

Also by 2016 Rouge will have another few years of experiment with a socialized bidding system for monthly rosters and vacation. Maybe we should go down that road too. Test the waters anyhow, give people a few years to bid out of current positions so someone who has stayed senior can find another seat somewhere else and then open it up to everyone.

I am not someone who is against seniority. In fact I came to AC recently and knew all about it. It's one thing if people stay past 60, but now to return after some years and take what other people have earned is not right.
---------- ADS -----------
  

accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#17 Post by accumulous » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:37 pm

ZBBYLW wrote:What I would really like to see happen if these guys get to come back is in 2016 we look at the whole way we are getting paid and change it. How about flatten the entire pay scale out. With guys coming back in from above to ride the surf earning 275k a year working 8 days a month (summers off) while others work double that and get paid anywhere from half to less than a quarter it's time for a change. It worked with mandatory retirement and DB pension plans. Now with fly 'til you die and DC pension plans we need to fix this for everyone's sake the sooner the better.

Also by 2016 Rouge will have another few years of experiment with a socialized bidding system for monthly rosters and vacation. Maybe we should go down that road too. Test the waters anyhow, give people a few years to bid out of current positions so someone who has stayed senior can find another seat somewhere else and then open it up to everyone.

I am not someone who is against seniority. In fact I came to AC recently and knew all about it. It's one thing if people stay past 60, but now to return after some years and take what other people have earned is not right.
You'll likely find that most of your concerns will be well met and explained for you in considerable detail in the remedy phase for these 200 pilots and their subsequent accommodation. Air Canada has a long history of discrimination that dates way back to the 1980's. Many aspiring pilots proved that Air Canada's discrimination prevented pilots from being hired at any age as the cut-off was around 26. Discrimination was found way back then, age discrimination at the bottom end was terminated, allowing older and older pilots to be hired. That was about 30 years ago. Many attempts have been made in the intervening 3 decades to level the playing field for Air Canada pilots regardless of age, not just because of overt age discrimination, but for other reasons including the fact that nobody can meet the requirements of years of service in the pension plan because of the act of discrimination that was rectified 30 years ago. ACPA has stonewalled the position at every turn in the face of every other airline in the country having grown up about it over 10 years ago. As far as your thoughts on discrimination go you'll need to consult Parliament about that, because the actual law is diametrically opposed to your concept of it and that's the way it will remain. Age discrimination in this particular case is very well documented and there's no doubt it'll all be coming forward as this case proceeds.

If you are really that adamant about it then what you need to do is proceed to court and prove that there was no age discrimination at Air Canada. That way, after you win it, the court can return you to your forced retirement at the arbitrary age of 60.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by accumulous on Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1700
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#18 Post by Old fella » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:01 pm

Rockie wrote:Are you being forced to read this thread against your will Old Fella?

I am a gawker on this thread, strictly for entertainment value, Rockie. You would be less than honest with yourself (as one of the top contributors) if you didn’t think this topic is “stale dated”. Turn off the BBQ, put this item to one side – it’s done. Pilots can/are flying with your airline beyond 60yrs of age.

The subject “best before” date is long passed.

:wink: :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#19 Post by Rockie » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:10 pm

Old fella wrote:You would be less than honest with yourself (as one of the top contributors) if you didn’t think this topic is “stale dated”. Turn off the BBQ, put this item to one side – it’s done. Pilots can/are flying with your airline beyond 60yrs of age.
No it's not stale dated. It has been on the sidelines while the legal system grinds along at its glacial pace and people forgot about it mistakenly believing it was over. As Raymond's post above demonstrates it still is very much a current issue for the Air Canada pilots.

The end of mandatory retirement was never in question in my mind or that of many other people, including senior Air Canada management and ACPA representatives. Many people including Raymond have been trying to get the Air Canada pilots to be proactive about it and get something for it from the company rather than pursue the short-sighted and self-damaging path ACPA and the pilots chose. Those arguments fell on deaf ears and the consequences of that are not nearly over.
---------- ADS -----------
  

teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2380
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#20 Post by teacher » Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:36 pm

And here I thought it was over already!

I remember the conversation well at the ALPA meeting I attended. A pilot ask what ALPA was going to do to prevent pilots over 65 from staying. The ALPA lawyer said "NOTHING!! You can't fight the law, the law has changed and we must change with it. ALPA will not waste time or money trying to violate the basic human rights of another pilot to work and fight a battle in court that cannot be won." Pilot wants to fly past 65 than fine, right seat you go as that is the law and have a nice life.

For my part I agree, sucks to have you career stagnate a little but in the grand scheme of things the law is the law. We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.
---------- ADS -----------
  
http://www.collegeofpilots.ca/

Norwegianwood
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#21 Post by Norwegianwood » Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:30 pm

teacher wrote: We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.
:prayer: Above the law they are! :prayer:
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1700
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#22 Post by Old fella » Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:01 pm

Rockie wrote:
Old fella wrote:You would be less than honest with yourself (as one of the top contributors) if you didn’t think this topic is “stale dated”. Turn off the BBQ, put this item to one side – it’s done. Pilots can/are flying with your airline beyond 60yrs of age.
No it's not stale dated. It has been on the sidelines while the legal system grinds along at its glacial pace and people forgot about it mistakenly believing it was over. As Raymond's post above demonstrates it still is very much a current issue for the Air Canada pilots.

The end of mandatory retirement was never in question in my mind or that of many other people, including senior Air Canada management and ACPA representatives. Many people including Raymond have been trying to get the Air Canada pilots to be proactive about it and get something for it from the company rather than pursue the short-sighted and self-damaging path ACPA and the pilots chose. Those arguments fell on deaf ears and the consequences of that are not nearly over.
Whatever Rockie, whatever.... I note "Air Canada Pilots" the theme of course. Rest of us outside that bubble could care less, and you are no doubt right in thinking why are you bothering to comment. But I shall end on a positive note:

Did a very recent trip on your airline and as per the standard, the service provided was superb A+ in all aspects. It is my view that Air Canada domestic(cause majority of my travel) in the best in Canada.

By your leave!!!
:drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7561
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#23 Post by Rockie » Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:48 pm

I'm glad you enjoy your experience at Air Canada Old fella, and I really do appreciate the fact you don't fall into the trap of automatically bashing the work we do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#24 Post by accumulous » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:23 pm

TheStig wrote:
Rockie wrote:
TheStig wrote:In a sense, therefore, it is difficult to assimilate how a regime already favouring older workers would be described as discriminatory because at age 60 it cut off the continuation of that generous situation. Termination at that age was intrinsic to the functioning of the collective agreement which based payment out at older ages on effort put in at younger ages.
Canadian law is blind to the system Air Canada pilots have been working under. It doesn't matter, and never mattered, if Air Canada pilots don't think mandatory retirement is discriminatory...Canadian law does.

Why is that so hard for people to understand even now?
Rockie, you realize what I'd posted was copied and pasted from the Judges' ruling right? All I was/am really trying to get as this is not a black and white issue to the court, and they do see the details and understand how these pilots forced to retire benefited from the system they are now crying foul about. I'm really not trying to get into a pissing match here. However, I do think a few things need to be put into perspective.

This case has been going on for almost 9 years! The FP60 group wins an appeal and guys start talking about coming back!? I think some expectations need to be tempered. Do you think a judge is going to force 200 pilots out of work by dumping 200 retirees onto the top of the seniority list? Award them some huge monetary penalty?!? I don't want to say anything that's going to get me sued, but from what I've read on the FP60 website's updates over the years, I'd say quiet a large number of its authors predictions have failed to materialize as predicted. This appeal has only ensured that this case will drag on for another few years and cost all parties involved expensive legal fees.

I'd encourage everyone to read, or at least sift through, the ruling posted above and ask themselves if they think the Judge feels there has been some massive discrimination here and there is a need to punish ACPA and AC for the harm they've caused?

Since you've brought it up Rockie, here's some of what was said about discrimination in this case:

"[371] discrimination analysis should be applied. Firstly, it is illogical that a meritorious deviation be considered prima facie discrimination. As already pointed out, laws are intended to prevent injurious conduct. They should have no application to meritorious behaviour resulting from an ameliorative rule. An ameliorative retirement rule would fit the description of a meritorious deviation.

[372] Secondly, discrimination is a highly opprobrious, and therefore effective, label used to discourage a type of behaviour rejected by our society. It should not be cheapened by overuse where common sense suggests no discrimination has occurred. Like crying wolf too often, the term will lose its punch and legitimacy as an effective deterrent to discriminatory conduct.

[373] An example of cheapening rights talk I think is occurring in this case by telling the younger pilots that the older pilots suffered “discrimination” by the retirement rule. One scoffs at the suggestion that a rule which was intended to ensure that all pilots would be treated equally, and which when eliminated results in windfall benefits to the complainants at the expense of all of their colleagues, was based on a prima facie stereotype of prejudice against older pilots. Equally it is Professor Greschner provides a double-barrelled explanation for why a substantive hard to accept that the rule perpetuated a disadvantage to well-off senior pilots of the Baby Boomer generation because they were victims from among a disenfranchised and destitute group that suffers age discrimination in the 21st century."
The three paragraphs you quote contain a grand total of squat law. Zero.

It adds up to nothing more than a lop-sided myopic insulting view of everything that constitutes Human Rights in modern society. In fact it is the very modernity of society that has resulted in the clear recognition of the values in the Human Rights Act.

Eight hundred thousand, almost a million, federally regulated jobs have had indefinite career extensions put in place by the Government of Canada. Most if not all of them have pension plans. The three paragraphs you quote are nothing more than misguided doggerel applied way out of context, and given the raft of laws that has led to the abolishment of age discrimination for almost a million federally regulated employees in this country, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that any of those 3 paragraphs can possibly withstand any kind of legal test. You can't substitute somebody's misguided opinion for law. The law is not going to tolerate a little oasis of pilots in a sea of almost a million federal employees trying to clear out a seniority list so they can work an indefinite career at their chosen profession for as long as they want while the rest of the entire country goes in exactly the opposite direction. You're dreaming in technicolor.

ACPA has a long history of this, culminating in the total sacrifice of an entire collective agreement getting hammered into a round file because they chose, in final offer selection, to call upon an Arbitrator to cancel the careers of every single Captain in the airline. There wasn't one single senior pilot orchestrating that gong show. The contract went up in smoke at the hands of junior pilots. Examples of hard core discrimination against senior pilots are well documented outside the legal arena and there's no doubt it will all come home to roost as prime adjuncts to why the current Human Rights laws have been enacted for everybody in the country.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

#25 Post by Raymond Hall » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:15 am

Old fella wrote:Jeeez.... here we go. Is this going to be another 20 page thread on the Air Canada fly past 60. What is in this topic that hasn't been trashed out in last years 20 pager.......
What is in this thread that hasn't been in previous threads is the fact that the Federal Court has given an express interpretation of the characteristics that define the comparator group for the purposes of the "normal age of retirement" issue, expressly rejecting the interpretation put forward to the Tribunal by Air Canada.


In addition the Court has weighed in on the bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) defence. In its reasons for decision it has significantly expanded not only the nature of the defence itself, but also underlying principles on which the defence can be purportedly be based. Not since the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) was enacted in 1978 has there been such a dramatic purported modification to the defence.

While I am not willing to discuss the merits of this and other parts of the decision in this public forum, I will comment one of the not-so-obvious consequences of the decision, should it remain governing at the end of the day. That is this:

Because a BFOR defence is an absolute defence against all discrimination proscribed by the CHRA, upholding the defence on the factual situation before this Tribunal could have the effect of entirely overcoming the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption that Parliament enacted to be effective December 15, 2012.

As I suggested above, "It ain't over 'till its over."
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”