China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

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

Post Reply
User avatar
NewCommercialPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:22 am

2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by NewCommercialPilot » Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:56 am

ALPA has announced they will seek a common employer designation from the CIRB regarding WJ and S, and concluded a recent message with the following statement: "This raises the question of who the true employer of Swoop really is."

I raise the above statement to direct your attention to the fact that the case law is well established regarding a common employer ruling from the CIRB. There are no secrets. Both WJ (and hence S) and ALPA and their respective legal teams are well aware of the hurdles involved. That established, it is not enough, as the MEC chair intimates, to prove who the "true employer" of Swoop pilots is. You can, of course, ignore the following post. If you like supporting lost causes and prefer to spend your time saying "wowzy wowzy woo woo" then by all means stick your head in the sand, your fingers in your ears, and your career aspirations wherever one puts such things. But you cannot ignore reality forever.

And if I am correct that a common employer challenge will be unsuccessful, what is ALPA's back up plan? What is your back up plan?

As always, there is an alternative to futility, and that is the decertification of ALPA. Stay tuned for more information in the coming months. Activity is occuring far from public view, but more than that I cannot say.

The following decision will show you why a common employer application will be unsuccesful. I do sympathize with ALPA. For political reasons they do have to show that they are attempting to remedy the situation vis-à-vis WJ and S.

From the CIRB's decision, here are some facts that share a nexus with the WJ and S situation. I have highlighted in red what I think are the relevant talking points but I encourage you to read the decision in its entirety to understand what is at stake, and call BS the next time you smell/see/hear/step in it. I suggest one could view Bell Canada as WJ and BEV (Bell ExpressVue) as S.

p.s. If anyone is triggered by the color red, please let me know and I will change the font colour.

I know some of you will want to offer me some money for doing all this work but it really isn't necessary. I consider the pursuit of knowledge truth a sufficient remuneration for my time.

Your Humble WingNut

Johannes Schwalbe

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

[4] Bell Canada and BEV are companies under federal jurisdiction that carry on their business in the sector.

[47] Bell Canada and BEV do not challenge the fact that they are associated or related businesses and that they have common control of their businesses. Therefore, for the purposes of the present application, it is not necessary to conduct a detailed analysis to determine whether the objective criteria necessary for a single employer declaration are present. The only question regarding the application for a single employer declaration is whether the Board must exercise its discretion to grant this application.

[49] Under section 35 of the Code, the Board has the discretion to declare that two companies are a single employer. This section states the following:

35 (1) Where, on application by an affected trade union or employer, associated or related federal works, undertakings or businesses are, in the opinion of the Board, operated by two or more employers having common control or direction, the Board may, by order, declare that for all purposes of this Part the employers and the federal works, undertakings and businesses operated by them that are specified in the order are, respectively, a single employer and a single federal work, undertaking or business. Before making such a declaration, the Board must give the affected employers and trade unions the opportunity to make representations.

(2) The Board may, in making a declaration under subsection (1), determine whether the employees affected constitute one or more units appropriate for collective bargaining.


[50] However, the Board must be satisfied that five criteria have been met in order to make a single employer declaration. These conditions are set out as follows in Murray Hill Limousine Service Ltd. et al. (1988), 74 di 127 (CLRB no. 699): 2017 CIRB 852 (CanLII)

1. two or more enterprises, i.e., businesses,
2. under federal jurisdiction,
3. associated or related,
4. of which at least two, but not necessarily all, are employers…
5. the said businesses being operated by employers having common direction or control over them.


[51] As stated earlier, the employer acknowledges that the five criteria are present in this case. In light of the evidence provided by the parties, the Board is satisfied that Bell Canada and BEV are federal employers and that they constitute two or more associated or related businesses that operate under common control and direction. Consequently, the Board acknowledges that the five criteria have been met in this case, as agreed by the parties.

[52] That said, it is not sufficient for a party to demonstrate that the five criteria are present. It must also demonstrate to the Board that the declaration is justified for labour relations purposes. The underlying principles of this purpose were described as follows in S.V.N. Enterprises Ltd., doing business as S & K Trucking, 2003 CIRB 219:

[54] The Board will only grant a declaration under section 35 if the declaration will serve a labour relations purpose. The Board’s decision in Air Canada et al. (1989), 79 di 98; 7
CLRBR (2d) 252; and 90 CLLC 16,008 (CLRB no. 771) provides useful guidance when considering whether a labour relations purpose would be served by a single employer declaration:
The purpose of section 35 has always guided the exercise of the Board’s discretion in these matters. That purpose is aimed at preventing the undermining or evading of bargaining rights through corporate or business arrangements (see British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian Telephones and Supplies Ltd., supra; and Beam Transport (1980) Ltd. and Brentwood Transport Ltd. (1988), 74 di 46 (CLRB no. 689)). Section 35 is not aimed at enhancing existing bargaining rights (British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian Telephones and Supplies Ltd., supra). Its purpose is remedial in nature. It is designed to ensure that employers only distinct in appearance do not succeed in circumventing their obligations under the Code by resorting to corporate restructuring or other types of business arrangements: “... It was, after all, to prevent a management from escaping collective bargaining obligations owed under one corporate entity by transferring work to another controlled entity that Parliament put section 133 [now section 35] into the statute. ... (Bradley Services Ltd. et al. (1986), 65 di 111; 13 CLRBR (NS) 256; and 86 CLLC 16,036 (CLRB no. 570), pages 126; 272; and 14,432)”

Section 35 is not aimed at exempting a bargaining agent from having to organize an otherwise genuinely distinct group of employees. In some cases, the issuance of a declaration by the Board may have that effect, but that is not its purpose. When the Board addresses the issue of discretion, the question ceases to be whether common control exists; it becomes whether common control contributes to the erosion of bargaining rights. (pages 118–119; 271; and 143,098; emphasis added)


[53] Thus, the purpose of section 35 is to prevent two or more businesses from concealing the true nature of the relationship between the employer and its employees. At the outset, the analysis of section 35 relied on its remedial nature, which resulted in an analysis that sought to prevent the erosion of its representation rights or to prevent an employer from disregarding its obligations under the Code by transferring its activities from one company to another nonunionized company (Télébec ltée, 2004 CIRB 300, paragraph 65). Thus, the union correctly argued that the Board expanded the scope of this provision by recognizing other labour relations purposes that could warrant a single employer declaration. In this regard, the Board stated the following, in Certen Inc., 2003 CIRB 223:

[126] The single employer declaration under the Code was originally considered as having a remedial purpose to prevent the erosion of the representation rights of a bargaining agent, or to prevent an employer from disregarding its obligations under the Code by transferring some of its activities to non-unionized employees, or by other means. The purpose of section 35 is not less valid today, but has been expanded to enable remedial action in situations where the five criteria are met, and the structure of bargaining units has become obsolete, bargaining units are no longer appropriate, or the configuration of bargaining units has given rise to inter-union jurisdictional conflicts. Irrespective of the peculiar circumstances of each case, the consistent purpose the Board has sought to achieve in deciding whether to issue a single employer declaration is the maintenance or enhancement of sound labour relations. More recently, the Board made the following comments in Air Canada et al., [2000] CIRB no. 78; and 2000 CLLC 220-059:

[34] In consideration of the recommendations of the Sims Task Force, the precise wording of the statute which was adopted and the Board’s experience in labour relations, the criteria actually expressed in the statute or implied in its context should be viewed as the defining or limiting criteria for a declaration. A careful consideration of section 35 and section 18.1 in their present statutory context leads the Board to conclude that a broader basis for the exercise of its discretion is required. The Board considers that rationalization of bargaining units which will promote sound labour relations and which will prevent disruption caused by inter-unit conflicts is an appropriate labour relations purpose to make a section 35 declaration. In this case, a single employer declaration is appropriate in order to rationalize the CUPE CAIL and CUPE ACC bargaining units. (pages 18; and 14,508; emphasis added)

[54] By applying this broader scope of section 35, the Board recognized, in certain circumstances, that an appropriate purpose was the rationalization of unit structures that promote sound labour relations. That said, each case must reflect a need to promote the objectives of the Code, and although other objectives are possible, the main purpose of section 35 remains preventing the erosion or fragmentation of bargaining rights (TELUS Communications Inc., 2004 CIRB 278; and City West Cable & Telephone Corp., 2011 CIRB 590).

[55] There is no doubt that the Trio initiative has led to a wider integration of customer services offered by Bell Canada and BEV. It is also not disputed that the customer service employees and technical support employees at BEV and at Bell Canada essentially perform similar duties that are interchangeable between the two companies. However, the question that arises in the present case is whether the circumstances warrant the Board’s exercise of its discretion to promote an objective of the Code.

[57] It should be noted that in its single employer application, the union alleged that the collective rights of the bargaining unit for Bell Canada’s clerical employees had been eroded, because there were job losses caused by the transfer of duties and positions to BEV, a nonunionized company. When the Board is required to assess the presence or absence of erosion, it must examine the layoffs or alleged changes to working conditions in their overall context (Télébec ltée, supra). Evidence of layoffs or erosion of working conditions for the members of the applicant union is not sufficient in itself to warrant a declaration, because these changes can very well be independent of structural or organizational transformations brought about by restructuring. It is important to note that the objective is to assess the economic situation in its overall context or the potential impact on the bargaining nit that the union seeks to protect through its single employer application.

[79] Nonetheless, even though the BEV employees do not have the same working conditions as Bell Canada employees, this cannot in itself constitute a valid reason for issuing a single employer declaration. The BEV employees recently decided to be represented by the union and to begin collective bargaining with the employer. The union will therefore have to negotiate the working conditions with the employer. The purpose of section 35 of the Code is not to improve a union’s situation or to have rights granted to it that it does not already have.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1787
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by digits_ » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:05 am

Don't [54] and [79] contradict each other?

The purpose is to not erode bargaining rights, but at the same time it's not its purpose to give the union more bargaining power? Then what is its purpose?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Snagmaster E
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:45 am

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by Snagmaster E » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:05 am

8CE4A3CC-FD3A-439E-8997-AE1E08EC6A79.jpeg
8CE4A3CC-FD3A-439E-8997-AE1E08EC6A79.jpeg (53.77 KiB) Viewed 5624 times
---------- ADS -----------
  
Money, wish I had it...

rudder
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by rudder » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:47 am

“The BEV employees recently decided to be represented by the union and to begin collective bargaining with the employer. The union will therefore have to negotiate the working conditions with the employer. The purpose of section 35 of the Code is not to improve a union’s situation or to have rights granted to it that it does not already have.”

This is the fundamental difference between the case cited and WJ/SWOOP.

ALPA will quite properly argue that SWOOP is an alter ego created for the purpose of evading the obligation to bargain in respect to the ULCC initiative. The SWOOP employees are all ‘at will’ employees and therefore have no such bargaining rights (yet).

Everybody has to take steps to protect their position but it is still in the parties interest to settle the matter now rather than through litigation. However, it takes two to tango.
---------- ADS -----------
  

DropTanks
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:56 am

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by DropTanks » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:59 pm

. Edited
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
NewCommercialPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:22 am

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by NewCommercialPilot » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:26 am

hey
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
skybaron
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Hotel De Glace

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by skybaron » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:16 am

Isn’t common employer status also being sought for Encore and WestJet as well?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Longtimer
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:31 am

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by Longtimer » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:20 pm

ALPA Takes Legal Action Against WestJet and WestJet Encore

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/a ... 68123.html
---------- ADS -----------
  

Dizzy D
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:12 pm

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by Dizzy D » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:53 pm

NewCommercialPilot wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:56 am
ALPA has announced they will seek a common employer designation from the CIRB regarding WJ and S, and concluded a recent message with the following statement: "This raises the question of who the true employer of Swoop really is."

I raise the above statement to direct your attention to the fact that the case law is well established regarding a common employer ruling from the CIRB. There are no secrets. Both WJ (and hence S) and ALPA and their respective legal teams are well aware of the hurdles involved. That established, it is not enough, as the MEC chair intimates, to prove who the "true employer" of Swoop pilots is. You can, of course, ignore the following post. If you like supporting lost causes and prefer to spend your time saying "wowzy wowzy woo woo" then by all means stick your head in the sand, your fingers in your ears, and your career aspirations wherever one puts such things. But you cannot ignore reality forever.

And if I am correct that a common employer challenge will be unsuccessful, what is ALPA's back up plan? What is your back up plan?

As always, there is an alternative to futility, and that is the decertification of ALPA. Stay tuned for more information in the coming months. Activity is occuring far from public view, but more than that I cannot say.

The following decision will show you why a common employer application will be unsuccesful. I do sympathize with ALPA. For political reasons they do have to show that they are attempting to remedy the situation vis-à-vis WJ and S.

From the CIRB's decision, here are some facts that share a nexus with the WJ and S situation. I have highlighted in red what I think are the relevant talking points but I encourage you to read the decision in its entirety to understand what is at stake, and call BS the next time you smell/see/hear/step in it. I suggest one could view Bell Canada as WJ and BEV (Bell ExpressVue) as S.

p.s. If anyone is triggered by the color red, please let me know and I will change the font colour.

I know some of you will want to offer me some money for doing all this work but it really isn't necessary. I consider the pursuit of knowledge truth a sufficient remuneration for my time.

Your Humble WingNut

Johannes Schwalbe

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

[4] Bell Canada and BEV are companies under federal jurisdiction that carry on their business in the sector.

[47] Bell Canada and BEV do not challenge the fact that they are associated or related businesses and that they have common control of their businesses. Therefore, for the purposes of the present application, it is not necessary to conduct a detailed analysis to determine whether the objective criteria necessary for a single employer declaration are present. The only question regarding the application for a single employer declaration is whether the Board must exercise its discretion to grant this application.

[49] Under section 35 of the Code, the Board has the discretion to declare that two companies are a single employer. This section states the following:

35 (1) Where, on application by an affected trade union or employer, associated or related federal works, undertakings or businesses are, in the opinion of the Board, operated by two or more employers having common control or direction, the Board may, by order, declare that for all purposes of this Part the employers and the federal works, undertakings and businesses operated by them that are specified in the order are, respectively, a single employer and a single federal work, undertaking or business. Before making such a declaration, the Board must give the affected employers and trade unions the opportunity to make representations.

(2) The Board may, in making a declaration under subsection (1), determine whether the employees affected constitute one or more units appropriate for collective bargaining.


[50] However, the Board must be satisfied that five criteria have been met in order to make a single employer declaration. These conditions are set out as follows in Murray Hill Limousine Service Ltd. et al. (1988), 74 di 127 (CLRB no. 699): 2017 CIRB 852 (CanLII)

1. two or more enterprises, i.e., businesses,
2. under federal jurisdiction,
3. associated or related,
4. of which at least two, but not necessarily all, are employers…
5. the said businesses being operated by employers having common direction or control over them.


[51] As stated earlier, the employer acknowledges that the five criteria are present in this case. In light of the evidence provided by the parties, the Board is satisfied that Bell Canada and BEV are federal employers and that they constitute two or more associated or related businesses that operate under common control and direction. Consequently, the Board acknowledges that the five criteria have been met in this case, as agreed by the parties.

[52] That said, it is not sufficient for a party to demonstrate that the five criteria are present. It must also demonstrate to the Board that the declaration is justified for labour relations purposes. The underlying principles of this purpose were described as follows in S.V.N. Enterprises Ltd., doing business as S & K Trucking, 2003 CIRB 219:

[54] The Board will only grant a declaration under section 35 if the declaration will serve a labour relations purpose. The Board’s decision in Air Canada et al. (1989), 79 di 98; 7
CLRBR (2d) 252; and 90 CLLC 16,008 (CLRB no. 771) provides useful guidance when considering whether a labour relations purpose would be served by a single employer declaration:
The purpose of section 35 has always guided the exercise of the Board’s discretion in these matters. That purpose is aimed at preventing the undermining or evading of bargaining rights through corporate or business arrangements (see British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian Telephones and Supplies Ltd., supra; and Beam Transport (1980) Ltd. and Brentwood Transport Ltd. (1988), 74 di 46 (CLRB no. 689)). Section 35 is not aimed at enhancing existing bargaining rights (British Columbia Telephone Company and Canadian Telephones and Supplies Ltd., supra). Its purpose is remedial in nature. It is designed to ensure that employers only distinct in appearance do not succeed in circumventing their obligations under the Code by resorting to corporate restructuring or other types of business arrangements: “... It was, after all, to prevent a management from escaping collective bargaining obligations owed under one corporate entity by transferring work to another controlled entity that Parliament put section 133 [now section 35] into the statute. ... (Bradley Services Ltd. et al. (1986), 65 di 111; 13 CLRBR (NS) 256; and 86 CLLC 16,036 (CLRB no. 570), pages 126; 272; and 14,432)”

Section 35 is not aimed at exempting a bargaining agent from having to organize an otherwise genuinely distinct group of employees. In some cases, the issuance of a declaration by the Board may have that effect, but that is not its purpose. When the Board addresses the issue of discretion, the question ceases to be whether common control exists; it becomes whether common control contributes to the erosion of bargaining rights. (pages 118–119; 271; and 143,098; emphasis added)


[53] Thus, the purpose of section 35 is to prevent two or more businesses from concealing the true nature of the relationship between the employer and its employees. At the outset, the analysis of section 35 relied on its remedial nature, which resulted in an analysis that sought to prevent the erosion of its representation rights or to prevent an employer from disregarding its obligations under the Code by transferring its activities from one company to another nonunionized company (Télébec ltée, 2004 CIRB 300, paragraph 65). Thus, the union correctly argued that the Board expanded the scope of this provision by recognizing other labour relations purposes that could warrant a single employer declaration. In this regard, the Board stated the following, in Certen Inc., 2003 CIRB 223:

[126] The single employer declaration under the Code was originally considered as having a remedial purpose to prevent the erosion of the representation rights of a bargaining agent, or to prevent an employer from disregarding its obligations under the Code by transferring some of its activities to non-unionized employees, or by other means. The purpose of section 35 is not less valid today, but has been expanded to enable remedial action in situations where the five criteria are met, and the structure of bargaining units has become obsolete, bargaining units are no longer appropriate, or the configuration of bargaining units has given rise to inter-union jurisdictional conflicts. Irrespective of the peculiar circumstances of each case, the consistent purpose the Board has sought to achieve in deciding whether to issue a single employer declaration is the maintenance or enhancement of sound labour relations. More recently, the Board made the following comments in Air Canada et al., [2000] CIRB no. 78; and 2000 CLLC 220-059:

[34] In consideration of the recommendations of the Sims Task Force, the precise wording of the statute which was adopted and the Board’s experience in labour relations, the criteria actually expressed in the statute or implied in its context should be viewed as the defining or limiting criteria for a declaration. A careful consideration of section 35 and section 18.1 in their present statutory context leads the Board to conclude that a broader basis for the exercise of its discretion is required. The Board considers that rationalization of bargaining units which will promote sound labour relations and which will prevent disruption caused by inter-unit conflicts is an appropriate labour relations purpose to make a section 35 declaration. In this case, a single employer declaration is appropriate in order to rationalize the CUPE CAIL and CUPE ACC bargaining units. (pages 18; and 14,508; emphasis added)

[54] By applying this broader scope of section 35, the Board recognized, in certain circumstances, that an appropriate purpose was the rationalization of unit structures that promote sound labour relations. That said, each case must reflect a need to promote the objectives of the Code, and although other objectives are possible, the main purpose of section 35 remains preventing the erosion or fragmentation of bargaining rights (TELUS Communications Inc., 2004 CIRB 278; and City West Cable & Telephone Corp., 2011 CIRB 590).

[55] There is no doubt that the Trio initiative has led to a wider integration of customer services offered by Bell Canada and BEV. It is also not disputed that the customer service employees and technical support employees at BEV and at Bell Canada essentially perform similar duties that are interchangeable between the two companies. However, the question that arises in the present case is whether the circumstances warrant the Board’s exercise of its discretion to promote an objective of the Code.

[57] It should be noted that in its single employer application, the union alleged that the collective rights of the bargaining unit for Bell Canada’s clerical employees had been eroded, because there were job losses caused by the transfer of duties and positions to BEV, a nonunionized company. When the Board is required to assess the presence or absence of erosion, it must examine the layoffs or alleged changes to working conditions in their overall context (Télébec ltée, supra). Evidence of layoffs or erosion of working conditions for the members of the applicant union is not sufficient in itself to warrant a declaration, because these changes can very well be independent of structural or organizational transformations brought about by restructuring. It is important to note that the objective is to assess the economic situation in its overall context or the potential impact on the bargaining nit that the union seeks to protect through its single employer application.

[79] Nonetheless, even though the BEV employees do not have the same working conditions as Bell Canada employees, this cannot in itself constitute a valid reason for issuing a single employer declaration. The BEV employees recently decided to be represented by the union and to begin collective bargaining with the employer. The union will therefore have to negotiate the working conditions with the employer. The purpose of section 35 of the Code is not to improve a union’s situation or to have rights granted to it that it does not already have.
It’s my understanding that case law doesn’t apply when it comes to common employer status. Every request goes in front of a tribunal and is looked at with “fresh” eyes and ears. Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m definitely not a lawyer.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by JBI » Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:32 pm

NCP: Pilots with no legal training practice law just as well as lawyers with no flight training fly airplanes. (bede excluded :lol:)
---------- ADS -----------
  

flyinhigh
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: my couch

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by flyinhigh » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:30 pm

JBI wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:32 pm
NCP: Pilots with no legal training practice law just as well as lawyers with no flight training fly airplanes. (bede excluded :lol:)

LOLOL, that made me laugh hard.
---------- ADS -----------
  

plhought
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Calgary

Re: 2017 CIRB Single Employer decision

Post by plhought » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:32 am

NewCommercialPilot wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:56 am
I know some of you will want to offer me some money for doing all this work but it really isn't necessary. I consider the pursuit of knowledge truth a sufficient remuneration for my time.
It's always funny to see someone discover CanLii.

Oooo you're so special. You've learned how to use an online search tool. You've done something first year poli-sci students learn in their first week inbetween basket-weaving electives and trips to the liquor store.

Even if you've had the most cursory academic exposure, you'd at least know how to cite these cases correctly and provide links to the judgement. Not pretend to others you are using those flight-benefits (or wing-suit?) to high-tail to some deep underground library in Ottawa - flipping through thousands of binders of fiche.

It's pretty evident you aren't even using the tool very well. You're random thread on CanJet 'Hugs' and others make it pretty evident. Throwing in some labour buzzwords and airline names into search box doesn't qualify as legal research.

Do yourself a favour and do what real legal nerds do for fun on CanLii - Type in "admiralty law" or "freeman on the land". Read those judgements. Much more entertaining.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
NewCommercialPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:22 am

alpa hidden agenda

Post by NewCommercialPilot » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:43 am

Been at westjet 13 years now. Haven't said boo to anybody about anything except my close friends. Just did my job. But I have to speak up.

I am disgusted at the way things have turned out. We were told the relationship would not change with wppa and then with alpa. Well it did. And how are we better off?

Now I see our mec is promising a contract before summer because we derseve it. How about you just negotiate the best possible contract and take your time to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the rush???????? We already have a good contract vaild till 2019. Why the threats to cause economic harm after conciliator and cooling off????????? What's the agenda???????

Then a friend told me why management thinks there is an agenda to make westjet look like the bad guy.

This is about money.

Jetblue pilots have been paying dues for almost three years month after certifying and still no contract for them. Maybe explains why not so much pressure for alpa to get them a contract. they're getting their money.

But westjet pilots??????? We don't pay dues yet because Canada laws are different. 8 months since certifying, alpa gets nothing from us and wont until we get our first cba. That's why its a contractr by the summer and forget about a good conmtract one list and instead blacklist and poison waters. they want a conciliator to get us a contract no matter how crappy and how badly it screws encore. and how bad it is for the rest of us. it just doesn't matter. dues dues dues

Alpa just wants our money.

I heard a few more guys resigned from alpa last week. I'm so mad. I think I'll do it too. I dont care. I'm done with the lies and agenda. i dont recognize westjet in how they descibe it. I have just a few years to retirement, i hope. Maybe we'll get unifor or back to wjpa before my last day here. anything is better than the joke that is these guys. i guess it would be a joke if it was funny but this aint funny. except for senior guys who saw this coming. funny and sad. then mad at alpa supporters.

done
---------- ADS -----------
  

lostaviator
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by lostaviator » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:35 am

At first I was going to say JS, but he uses punctuation.

ALPA can't take their time to negotiate when the company ISN'T SHOWING UP to negotiating sessions and are breaking Canada Labour Code to disrupt the process. Have you taken the time to ask a member of the LEC/MEC if ALPA is pushing for these steps? I'm going to go ahead and say you probably haven't.

It's amateur hour around here, and it isn't because because of the pilots/ALPA.

Give your head a shake, of course "management" is going to say things like that. They want our old agreement to last for as long as possible. If we are as overpaid and treated as fairly as they claim we are, and they had the facts to back those statements, they would be showing up and trying to get a new (reduced) contract in as soon as possible.
---------- ADS -----------
  

lostaviator
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by lostaviator » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:46 am

P.S. ALPA member or not, you'll be paying the union dues once a contract is in place. So you are only harming yourself by not being involved in the process in a constructive manner. Rushed or not, we will need to vote on it after.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by Fanblade » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:08 am

WeedPro2000 wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:43 am

Then a friend told me why management thinks there is an agenda to make westjet look like the bad guy.
Just step back from all the things stepping up the anxiety levels.

When your group unionized WJ management had a choice to make. Were they going create a constructive working relationship or an acrimonious one. They made a choice.

Forget what they are saying to you. Look only at the actions. Notice the words and actions are polar opposites.

They have chosen to have an acrimonious relationship with your pilot group. It is just strategy. It’s not personal. Don’t let it divide you as that is what management wants.

A year from now this will be a distant memory and WJ pilots will be at the controls at swoop.

As for your money rationalization. Everything is about money. But you have the motivation wrong. The more you make? The more ALPA makes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cjet
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: yyc

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by cjet » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:11 am

Weed pro.

I don’t know if you’ve taken the time to read our contract but it is terrible. It needs to be fixed fast not in 2 years.

Cjet
---------- ADS -----------
  

Longtimer
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:31 am

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by Longtimer » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:41 am

CEOs with MBAs VS. CEOs without MBAs
Published on November 21, 2016
Like7Comment0ShareShare 0
Nicolas Neysen
Nicolas Neysen
FollowNicolas Neysen
A striking research on CEOs' behaviour.

"Danny Miller, a research professor at HEC Montreal, partnered with Xiaowei Xu, an assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island, to analyze the performance of 444 celebrated U.S. CEOs—those featured on Fortune, Forbes, and BusinessWeekcovers from 1970 to 2008. Miller and Xu tracked their firms’ growth strategies and performance and the CEOs’ compensation, and found that CEOs with MBAs were more likely to engage in behavior that benefited them but hurt their companies. Specifically, they pursued costlier growth strategies and were less able to sustain superior performance than their non-MBA counterparts" An article by Nicole Torres.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by Victory » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:50 pm

How about pilots with degrees vs pilots without degrees. This rant reads like a school girl's text message.
---------- ADS -----------
  

flyinhigh
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: my couch

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by flyinhigh » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:06 pm

I love how all the posts that bitch about ALPA are coming from people that just signed up here.

They all read like NCP, which apparently has to much time on his hands and won't answer anyone's questions.
---------- ADS -----------
  

seriousflyer
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by seriousflyer » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:57 pm

OP sounds a little emotional and on edge from last week's news. This is all part of negotiations. Let the professionals at ALPA and the trusted MEC do their jobs.

Nobody wants a successful outcome more than ALPA and MEC.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Greenbastard
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:33 am

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by Greenbastard » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:29 am

JS you need to go get, and enjoy life. It’s fine that you chose not to support your representatives and your pilot group, that’s your choice. Let’s be clear nobody will follow your lead off a cliff. People read your posts with mild amusement ( like a Trump tweet ).Your posts are foolish and cowardly.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Checklist
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:06 am

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by Checklist » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:00 am

I see your “coming clean” thread was removed, Rotten. Very unfortunate, easily your best work.

Otherwise, I feel you were a tad overpaid.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
saltypilot
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:56 am

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by saltypilot » Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:58 am

Copied from another thread because it needs to be repeated

Rotten Apple #1, observing your posts I can’t help but feel they most certainly read like an individual with designs to draw out the worst in others. I don’t like it at all. You shouldn’t like how the words you choose seem to bring out incredibly negative responses not just from one but many. Nobody should be feeding into this awful game. It’s one nobody will win. I’d like to respectfully suggest that we divert some energy and attention away from inciting divisiveness & infighting over to adding value to aviators lives. Can we agree that would be a more constructive use of our time?

I’ll be the first to say I’m as guilty as anyone else of getting swept up in the emotion after all it’s really easy to get caught up in the politics of it all because our professional careers are attached to the outcomes so they MUST be positive outcomes. The alternative is unacceptable. Our families or our future families suffer every ounce as much as we do in every decision that is made throughout this process.

In a day and age where everyone is offended so easily

From one human to another, Live in grace man.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
NewCommercialPilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:22 am

Re: alpa hidden agenda

Post by NewCommercialPilot » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:00 am

I might have been wrong about ALPA's motivation for choosing the conciliation approach to bargaining. Although, it does get them dues money which they are not getting (unlike JetBlue), it appears from this memo from the JetBlue MEC that all members are responsible for dues from the time they were eligible for membership in ALPA. For JetBlue this was about three months after certification, so for the WJ, I guess we could say that ALPA will be looking for dues back dated to roughly August 1, 2017.

Although ALPA won't be able to force the money from its members, anyone who doesn't pony up will be considered in bad standing and unable to vote etc.

In any event, better that ALPA get the dues flowing sooner rather than later like any corporation.

If were to become a member, my dues owing would be roughly $2000 at this point.

Cheers Big Ears!
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
IMG_1717.JPG
IMG_1717.JPG (582.23 KiB) Viewed 5536 times

Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”