Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Mig29]

maybe we should just stop using the word "right" and ask ourselves is this "alright?".

Yes, I know you can go in McDonalds and burn your lips on hot coffee and sue them after.....or sue AC for not giving you 7 Up in French and win! Yes, you can sue a carrier for not giving you an extra free seat if you happen to be overweight.....and so on, but is this "alright"??

That answer of course will be different depends who you ask, but so far the decision has been one sided in this case.

[Rockie]

maybe we should just stop using the word "right" and ask ourselves is this "alright?".

That's a good idea.

I don't think it's alright that anybody should be forced to retire from a job they're capable of doing simply because of their age. I don't think it's alright that the pilot union failed to see the massively huge writing on the wall and fought an expensive and futile fight trying to prevent the unpreventable. I don't think it's alright that most pilots were happy to delay the inevitable as long as possible to further advance themselves up the list until the hammer dropped and pay whatever consequences resulted later. I don't think it's alright that those same pilots are now bitching about those consequences that they themselves knowingly created.

[Raymond Hall]

Interestingly the company chose to limit the career choices of all wide body FO's based on their age and the union seemed to have nothing to say about it. Moot now that the over/under requirement has been eliminated, but I think it was only a matter of time before someone mounted an age discrimination complaint against AC/ACPA over that as well.

Indeed. A complaint was filed last month with respect to that and with respect to other aspects of LOU 75 as well, including the age-prejudicial aspects of the GDIP.

[Ah_yeah]

Interestingly the company chose to limit the career choices of all wide body FO's based on their age and the union seemed to have nothing to say about it. Moot now that the over/under requirement has been eliminated, but I think it was only a matter of time before someone mounted an age discrimination complaint against AC/ACPA over that as well.

Indeed. A complaint was filed last month with respect to that and with respect to other aspects of LOU 75 as well, including the age-prejudicial aspects of the GDIP.

Insurance is full of age discrimantion...gender too.
Every pimpley 16 year old male that wants to drive a car can attest to that. Acknowledging that senior Air Canada pilots are "special", do you really want to go there ?

[ahramin]

Well said Rockie.

[Old fella]

Yer on a roll, boys. Seven pages and counting.............

[Rockie]

Insurance is full of age discrimantion...gender too. Every pimpley 16 year old male that wants to drive a car can attest to that. Acknowledging that senior Air Canada pilots are "special", do you really want to go there ?

I don't totally disagree with your comment regarding insurance since I think they use statistics to gouge their customers, but at least they have statistics backing up their argument. But you are mistaken thinking this change has anything to do with acknowledging that senior Air Canada pilots are special.

This is a human rights issue that effects everybody in the Canada. Provincially regulated workers have had protection from age discrimination for a long time and now the federal government has finally caught up with the rest of the country. This isn't about Air Canada pilots, but Air Canada must comply with Canadian law however much it annoys the junior pilots.

[777longhaul]

This issue, a long time ago, went to an acpa IVR vote. The "junior" pilots, did not respond all that much. So it must not have been a big deal to all of the juniors, as the COMPLETE lack of interest in the IVR vote shows, that the total pilots, only 44% even bothered to vote against this issue, and that includes all the pilots, not just the juniors. So, all this banter is coming from a few.....who like to stir it up, but have no size to their numbers.

The only vote acpa did, and published. The questions were carefully worded, and still.....the lack of interest in this IVR vote shows how un-important this issue was to ALL the pilots.

The IVR vote, # 72 had 3083 possible voters, (pilots eligible to vote) of that amount, 1382, voted to support the age discrimination rule, in the acpa contract. That is far less than the 75% that Justice Annis refers to.



IVR vote # 72:

3083 eligible

1382 yes

458 NO

Total votes 1840.

The total lack of interest, of the remaining pilots, who did not vote, (1243) shows, that acpa did NOT have a majority vote. They failed on the the yes vote, and on the total amount of voters that even showed any interest in the IVR vote.

This is a great difference that needs to be corrected. ONLY 44% of the pilots voted to maintain the discriminatory acpa contract.

[Raymond Hall]

Until about 10 years ago, legal knowledge was generally either a proprietary asset or it was expensive to obtain. Very expensive. Several dollars per minute to get results from QuickLaw or WestLaw.

Not so any more. The Federation of Law Societies, representing all of the Law Societies in Canada, formed a collective to make decisions from all courts, Boards and tribunals, and arbitrators and most adjudicative administrators available to the public for free.

Visit: http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html to obtain copies of all decisions related to the legal issue of your particular interest. You can search CanLII using Boolean search terms to narrow the results.

Almost all of the decisions related to this thread are posted on that site. To obtain only the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on a particular issue, select Federal / Supreme Court of Canada. You will find the binding case law precedent that governs the determinations of the lower courts and the Tribunals on this issue.

One of the specific issues of relevance to this thread is the SCC's dealing with the issue of differential treatment. Does any differential treatment constitute discrimination? Answer: Not always. Some differential treatment, based on gender, age etc. is just that, differential treatment, but not discrimination. Examples: survivor pension benefits and welfare payments to young persons. As Justice Binnie pointed out, quoting Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, a sign that says "Men Only" has a different significance when it is posted on a bathroom door than when it is posted on a courtroom door.

Of course, some differential treatment does meet the threshold of discrimination. The SCC has set out number of legal and factual tests to assist the lower courts in analyzing these issues, to determine when the threshold is met.

Keep in mind that this area of the law is a "moving target." Each new decision from the SCC provides new nuances, with some previous decisions and principles of legal analysis falling out of favour.

Nevertheless, recently the SCC has been quite consistent, in my view, in a number of areas of administrative law. Most importantly, it has become more aggressive in encouraging or requiring the lower courts to not interfere with the final decisions of administrative tribunals unless the applicants on judicial review can demonstrate that the decisions in question are not just wrong, but wholly unreasonable, given the facts and the law of the particular case.

[Fanblade]

This issue, a long time ago, went to an acpa IVR vote. The "junior" pilots, did not respond all that much. So it must not have been a big deal to all of the juniors, as the COMPLETE lack of interest in the IVR vote shows, that the total pilots, only 44% even bothered to vote against this issue, and that includes all the pilots, not just the juniors. So, all this banter is coming from a few.....who like to stir it up, but have no size to their numbers.

The only vote acpa did, and published. The questions were carefully worded, and still.....the lack of interest in this IVR vote shows how un-important this issue was to ALL the pilots.

The IVR vote, # 72 had 3083 possible voters, (pilots eligible to vote) of that amount, 1382, voted to support the age discrimination rule, in the acpa contract. That is far less than the 75% that Justice Annis refers to.



IVR vote # 72:

3083 eligible

1382 yes

458 NO

Total votes 1840.

The total lack of interest, of the remaining pilots, who did not vote, (1243) shows, that acpa did NOT have a majority vote. They failed on the the yes vote, and on the total amount of voters that even showed any interest in the IVR vote.

This is a great difference that needs to be corrected. ONLY 44% of the pilots voted to maintain the discriminatory acpa contract.

A large enough cross section participated for a reasonable individual to determine that 75%, +/- a small margin of error, were in favor of maintaining the practice.

No one with any credibility, would read the vote otherwise while trying to determine support for either direction.

Why exactly are you trying redifine the meaning of the results anyway? What relevance does that have now?

[Ah_yeah]

Now, if he could only figure out who the 1382 were so he could go after them for additional damages.

[Bored]

What was the question in IVR 72? If I recall it wasn't a call to defend mandatory retirement to the bitter end.

[777longhaul]

You can go onto the acpa site, and look up the IVR vote, assuming you are an AC pilot with acpa website access.

[duranium]

regardless, few thousands bucks more or less, these guys are retiring with more net income then majority of line captains are taking home today in Canada.

I said it before and I say it today again....greed of the humanity is what will bring the end of our civilization. The "democratic" rights of minorities are slowly chocking the democratically established rights of the majority, but the ones in power don't care, as long as it doesn't affect them...

Why can your side of the equation not stop from inventing new ways for us readers to not believe you? You write '' regardless, few thousands bucks more or less''. You start off by brushing aside with your regardless the importance of the inaccuracy then compound it with the importance of the sum of this same inaccuracy. A few thousand bucks is no small change for most income earners, may I suggest. You must suspect that more than a few readers on this site can and will checks the veracity of what is written but there you go trying to snow us under with creative prose.

Facts sells ideas not lies, try it sometimes, then we will consider believing you.

As for the second part of your post about minorities chocking majority rights, you should read the news about a certain Vladimir Putin's medlings in Ukrane. That could slightly change your opinion on the goings on in certain parts of the world when muscle replaces rights

[duranium]

Now, if he could only figure out who the 1382 were so he could go after them for additional damages.

I would presume that the way things are going for one side, that could be forthcoming in the not too distant future ... but, one never knows for certain untill the hammer falls. Stay tuned for the next chapters in this saga

[Mig29]

creative prose??? Give me a freaking break Duranium

What do you think this is other then forum where your opinion is just that, an opinion. Just like mine. As for the money, I didn't quote any specific amounts, but I know how much AC guys make vs other airlines, those are not opinions but its out there in the public. So when you consider the actual pension potential of AC guys, I just can't feel sorry for those few that chose to stay in order to pay "their bills and feed their family". Many pilots in Canada can only wish they had the earning potential and stability that AC provided to them. That's a fact.

As for your Ukrainian topic, I didn't want to get in this discussion as the moderators may get upset As much as I'm media skeptic, I (choose to) have access to a lot more then your typical copy cats of Western media. Including European, Russian, Asian and Middle Eastern media. You speak of Putin's meddling.....have you seen how the "pro-democratic" protesters savagely beat the crap of Ukrainian police for almost 3 months?? In the name of democracy??? If this was Canada or US, those protesters would be shot dead point blank! You can bet your life on this!

Open up your eyes my friend....

[777longhaul]

Fanblade

Your questions:

A large enough cross section participated for a reasonable individual to determine that 75%, +/- a small margin of error, were in favor of maintaining the practice.

No one with any credibility, would read the vote otherwise while trying to determine support for either direction.

Why exactly are you trying redifine the meaning of the results anyway? What relevance does that have now?



My answers:

It was not a large cross section, large implies more than the 44% of the whole group. That was not large. When there is LESS than 50% that voted NO, that is not a majority vote. There is NO MANDATE to continue to fight this issue, way back then, and now.

acpa, did not get the majority vote that it was after. They never ever did. So the continued fight, that ONLY acpa is doing, as the other unions at AC saw what was wrong with the situation, and accepted their members back, after a grievance was filed and ruled upon. Some, members came back without grievances being filed. Wow-eh! ONLY acpa refused to allow, (file a grievance) for the active pilots who were not yet retired. These were pilots who were in good standing with the union, and were paying max union dues.

The credibility to read the IVR vote, is very simple, a yes or no answer. DID acpa GET A MAJORITY NO VOTE, .....NO IS THE ANSWER.

I am not redefining the meaning of the results. That cant be done by anyone. The results, speak, clearly for themselves.

The purpose of discussing this issue, is simple, many on this forum, do not know about the actual IVR vote, and that acpa did not get a majority vote, yet, they have spent over a million dollars fighting this issue, and they continue to do so, even, though, all the other unions at AC have changed their stance, and accepted their members back. So.....maybe they are right, and all the others are wrong, the courts will decide. So the fight continues, with all the other unions at AC doing a totally different dance than acpa. The courts will decide, regardless.

[accumulous]

Fanblade

Your questions:

A large enough cross section participated for a reasonable individual to determine that 75%, +/- a small margin of error, were in favor of maintaining the practice.

No one with any credibility, would read the vote otherwise while trying to determine support for either direction.

Why exactly are you trying redifine the meaning of the results anyway? What relevance does that have now?



My answers:

It was not a large cross section, large implies more than the 44% of the whole group. That was not large. When there is LESS than 50% that voted NO, that is not a majority vote. There is NO MANDATE to continue to fight this issue, way back then, and now.

acpa, did not get the majority vote that it was after. They never ever did. So the continued fight, that ONLY acpa is doing, as the other unions at AC saw what was wrong with the situation, and accepted their members back, after a grievance was filed and ruled upon. Some, members came back without grievances being filed. Wow-eh! ONLY acpa refused to allow, (file a grievance) for the active pilots who were not yet retired. These were pilots who were in good standing with the union, and were paying max union dues.

The credibility to read the IVR vote, is very simple, a yes or no answer. DID acpa GET A MAJORITY NO VOTE, .....NO IS THE ANSWER.

I am not redefining the meaning of the results. That cant be done by anyone. The results, speak, clearly for themselves.

The purpose of discussing this issue, is simple, many on this forum, do not know about the actual IVR vote, and that acpa did not get a majority vote, yet, they have spent over a million dollars fighting this issue, and they continue to do so, even, though, all the other unions at AC have changed their stance, and accepted their members back. So.....maybe they are right, and all the others are wrong, the courts will decide. So the fight continues, with all the other unions at AC doing a totally different dance than acpa. The courts will decide, regardless.

A lot of confusion about the mysteries of the vote was left twisting in the wind because the results of the 'vote', were characterized both in-house and right across the country, in a multitude of venues, namely every major piece of newsprint, as representing an 'OVERWHELMING' majority, and in some papers as a 'VAST, OVERWHELMING' majority.

Was the majority really big? Well it was bigger than just big. It was Vast, and not only that, it was downright Overwhelming.

So out of 3083 eligible voters, the 1701 (ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND ONE) pilots, the REAL MAJORITY of pilots, a number that likely exceeded the combined total of all pilots in the Montreal, Vancouver, and Winnipeg bases combined, who either did not vote or voted against the scheme, must have entered a transcendental state of cross-eyed delirium when they were told that a vast, overwhelming majority of pilots, actually, every pilot, was about to cough up several million in legal fees, and unbeknownst to them, several hundred million in windfall gains to the Corporation, and who knows how many more millions if the only group of pilots in the entire nation pursuing such a scheme, were to get convicted of discrimination.

If you have a huge agenda, you will need mega-funding. Get some numbers, blow them up in the press until they're just downright overwhelming, and then get all your colleagues to fork it out. Trust us, we know what we're doing.

[Fanblade]

777longhaul,

This is way before my time and is now infact irrelevant. And thanks for the explanation why.

You could poll a much much smaller group on a question and be reasonably sure, within a fairly small margin of error, the groups opinion. The more people polled the smaller the margin of error gets. Polling more than 50% of the pilot group leaves a very small margin of error.

I understand your explanation but it doesn't hold water. It is clear from the vote that 75% of ACPA pilots, within a small margin of error, wanted a specific direction taken. No one with any kind of statistical back ground would interpret it any other way.

[ahramin]

I am not an AC pilot.

Fanblade, was this a poll? It sounds like it was a vote that everyone was open to vote to. If so then that's different from a poll of a random section of a population. Yes you can get results from random polls that show the opinion of a group, but it has to be random. There is nothing random about opening up a vote to everyone and only counting the ones who care enough about the issue to vote on it.