(32 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

The WestJet Pilot Seniority List referred to by Kaplan in his Interim Order/Award:

Poll ended at Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:08 pm

1) Includes WJE pilots and is ordered by DOH at WJ or WJE, whichever is earlier (duplicates WPDL).
13
39%
2) Does not include WJE pilots, but is ordered by DOH at WJ or WJE, whichever is earlier (same order as WPDL).
5
15%
3) Does not include WJE pilots, and is ordered only by DOH at WJ (no credit for service at WJE).
15
45%
 
Total votes: 33

cloak
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: (30 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Post by cloak »

If it weren't for the relentless personal attacks and rude comments, this could have been an interesting debate. The case has been made for its merit. One can wonder if this poster changes handles from time to time to take a break from the incessant onslaught!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mostly Harmless
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
Location: Betelgeuse

Re: (30 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Post by Mostly Harmless »

China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:46 am I always had the legal right to negotiate unilaterally with my employer. Whether they would have agreed to my terms is not of consequence. The point is, I only lost those "legal" rights with certification.
Fair enough if you want to look at it that way. I suspect you would not have been very successful in convincing the company to negotiate 1500 individual contracts... but I see where you are coming from.
China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:46 am BTW, nice to see you back. I thought you gave up on me.
Never. :) Just busy working.
---------- ADS -----------
 
hurtin'albertan
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: (30 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Post by hurtin'albertan »

China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:27 am Alright, that was worth the read. And thank you for the citations regarding the JAZZ LOU. I honestly did think that Wasaya prsee release would trumpet the most beneficial things they could regarding the LOU. The fact that they didn't highlight the bidding for position (base, equipment, status) seems odd. Oh well, I'm odd too.

The problem with this LOU as you have described it is that the Wasaya/Bearskin pilots are taking reserved positions on a list, that are below existing bargaining unit members as of the date of the LOU. That is not the situation that would recreate the One List. Using your example, if we made the scenario resemble the One List, the Wasaya/Bearskin pilots would be able to jump ahead (significant numbers) of existing bargaining unit members as of the date of the LOU. That is a huge difference.

Remember, following ALPA rules, the current seniority list at WestJet will be organized according to DOH at WJ, with no recognition for WJE service. That's a supposition, to be sure, but based on all the evidence I have been able to unearth, nothing supports a contrary position. Kaplan, in his order of June 8, ordered all pilots hired at WJ with DOH's after the Swoop pilot DOH's, to be added at the BOTL, with no mention of credit for time at Encore. It is hard to see him missing such a crucial fact.

At this point, I'd just be blowing air to go any further. The ball is in the court of the current MEC if they want credibility going forward. I am told, by a WJ pilot who receieved the email, that the current MEC Chairman believed, four weeks ago, when he was the LEC Capt Rep that the WestJet Pilot Seniority List was the same as the WestJet Pilot Departmental List. If that is a true representation of events, that is unfortunate. There is absolutely no evidence that that is in any way possible. The WPDL contained pilots from two bargaining units. The WPSL contains pilots from one bargaining unit.

As I said, the time for truth from ALPA is more than past.

TTYL
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. i think your conclusions and hypothesis regarding the make of the WP(D)(S)L are incorrect and based on supposition. I also think your interpretation of the alpa bylaws etc and how they apply in this scenario are incorrect.

Anyway, we have hashed this out enough. Won't be long now to see how it all shakes out. Hope your move went smooth. :goodman:

L8tr alligator. :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
 
cloak
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: (30 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Post by cloak »

There! Wasn't it nice, being nice! :D

Upon further reflection on this issue, it may actually be better to have seniority based on DOH at WestJet, which has many benefits.
- It encourages people to flow the first opportunity they get, as opposed to waiting for more favourable time based on various factors.
- It makes upgrades more orderly at WestJet/Swoop, as those with more experience will be eligible for upgrades sooner.

At the same time, the corporation should recognize tenure at the group for benefits, vacation and pay level. As people flow, they maintain pay level on whatever equipment they go. This way the company gives credit for service at its own expense (pay, vacation, benefits) and not the pilots' (seniority).

If one were to examine this issue objectively and without personal bias or emotions, it makes the most sense, especially considering the level of experience at Encore, and at a time when people can flow to Swoop with very little time on the property.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: (32 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Post by Diadem »

I'm posting the following on every thread in which John Swallow has raised the issue of seniority at ALPA, because it's pretty devastating to his "case":
I don't know why I didn't think to actually do it earlier, but I finally decided to stop taking Mr Swallow at his word that the references he was posting were correct, and actually look up the documents he's claiming make the One List "impossible". I thought it was strange that he was contacting the ALPA archivist and getting documents from 1956, but it turns out the reason he had to do that is because those documents are archived and no longer relevant. As an ALPA member, I those docs at my fingertips, whereas Mr Swallow wouldn't be privy to such info. Perhaps he hoped that if he bombarded us with screenshots, that we wouldn't take the time to actually look it up.
Mr Swallow asserts that the ALPA constitution of 1956 and Merger Policy require that all seniority be based on date-of-hire, and that those are the only sources of guidance that would be relevant to the current negotiations. It turns out that the ALPA constitution has been updated at least eleven times since 1956, with the most recent version dated Oct 18, 2018. The constitution itself doesn't actually have any guidance regarding seniority lists of any kind, so I looked at the Merger Policy, since Mr Swallow thinks it's the ultimate guide to forming a seniority list. This document was last updated Apr 30, 2009, and now states the following:
4. Seniority List Integration - Negotiations
(c) In cases where one or more parties to the merger has flight deck crew members with grandfather or similar special seniority rights that are limited as to job classification or status within the flight deck crew, the merger representatives shall commence efforts to arrive at a mutually satisfactory method of integration and compilation of such separate special seniority lists as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve and protect such rights in addition to the flight deck crew seniority list.
In addition, ALPA released an information sheet to explain this change in layman's terms: ALPA merger policy calls for the fair and equitable integration of seniority lists. Under the new policy, merger representatives are encouraged to consider themselves primarily as negotiators who should make a strong and focused effort to resolve seniority integration issues, with mediation and final binding arbitration mandated on unresolved issues. As the Committee evaluated the old policy, it became clear that the factors for seniority list integration (SLI) had become a source of controversy. The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category. The new merger policy mandates that the merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate."
ALPA addressed Mr Swallow's concerns a decade ago. The constitution he quotes is 52 years out of date. The LEC reps, MEC reps, and ALPA president are not violating any bylaws. I'm not sure Mr Swallow will know what this means, but the policies he's quoting have been superceded. The OTS pilots have no grounds for a complaint to the CIRB.
END OF STORY. CASE CLOSED.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dizzy D
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:12 pm

Re: (32 votes cast): WPSL Poll

Post by Dizzy D »

Diadem wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:43 pm I'm posting the following on every thread in which John Swallow has raised the issue of seniority at ALPA, because it's pretty devastating to his "case":
I don't know why I didn't think to actually do it earlier, but I finally decided to stop taking Mr Swallow at his word that the references he was posting were correct, and actually look up the documents he's claiming make the One List "impossible". I thought it was strange that he was contacting the ALPA archivist and getting documents from 1956, but it turns out the reason he had to do that is because those documents are archived and no longer relevant. As an ALPA member, I those docs at my fingertips, whereas Mr Swallow wouldn't be privy to such info. Perhaps he hoped that if he bombarded us with screenshots, that we wouldn't take the time to actually look it up.
Mr Swallow asserts that the ALPA constitution of 1956 and Merger Policy require that all seniority be based on date-of-hire, and that those are the only sources of guidance that would be relevant to the current negotiations. It turns out that the ALPA constitution has been updated at least eleven times since 1956, with the most recent version dated Oct 18, 2018. The constitution itself doesn't actually have any guidance regarding seniority lists of any kind, so I looked at the Merger Policy, since Mr Swallow thinks it's the ultimate guide to forming a seniority list. This document was last updated Apr 30, 2009, and now states the following:
4. Seniority List Integration - Negotiations
(c) In cases where one or more parties to the merger has flight deck crew members with grandfather or similar special seniority rights that are limited as to job classification or status within the flight deck crew, the merger representatives shall commence efforts to arrive at a mutually satisfactory method of integration and compilation of such separate special seniority lists as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve and protect such rights in addition to the flight deck crew seniority list.
In addition, ALPA released an information sheet to explain this change in layman's terms: ALPA merger policy calls for the fair and equitable integration of seniority lists. Under the new policy, merger representatives are encouraged to consider themselves primarily as negotiators who should make a strong and focused effort to resolve seniority integration issues, with mediation and final binding arbitration mandated on unresolved issues. As the Committee evaluated the old policy, it became clear that the factors for seniority list integration (SLI) had become a source of controversy. The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category. The new merger policy mandates that the merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate."
ALPA addressed Mr Swallow's concerns a decade ago. The constitution he quotes is 52 years out of date. The LEC reps, MEC reps, and ALPA president are not violating any bylaws. I'm not sure Mr Swallow will know what this means, but the policies he's quoting have been superceded. The OTS pilots have no grounds for a complaint to the CIRB.
END OF STORY. CASE CLOSED.
Slow clap.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”