To your point, whatever the MEC's "say" means nothing. They are essentially political organizations and therefore their utterances have the same believeability as any other politician's "facts". When you have a copy of a LOU in your hand that somehow, magically, like pixie dust, allows a person to usurp someone else's property, i.e. their contractually guaranteed seniority rights, then you should find some relief. For a bit. Any possible solution that restores what Encore pilots had under the WPDL will by necessity violate ALPA policy. And that, is where the show stops.
I suspect, without having any information other than what you have mentioned, is that political cover can be had by ALPA if they can misdirect blame for a failure to deliver the WPDL doppelganger.
On WJ's part, the only way it could sign such an LOU is to have ALPA indemnify it against any and all losses suffered by it if a court or the CIRB reversed the LOU based on a successful attack on it by an OTS pilot. Meaning, if it were to be reversed, the ALPA members of WJE and perhaps WJ would be levied by ALPA to cover WJ's losses.
If indeed an LOU has been submitted to WJ for its consideration, the clock has started ticking for OTS pilots. The 90 day window for a Duty of Fair Representation claim with the CIRB starts ticking the moment a damaged party learns of the act alleged to have caused the damage. A Breach of Contract claim in civil court would still be an option, but a DFR claim is much simpler: fill out a form.
Capt Brian Woodley learned the hard way about the 90 day limitation in his CIRB ULP claim here.
28 The first preliminary issue before the Board deals with the many dates put forward by the complainants as the operative one that begins the so-called “ticking of the 90-day clock” for filing a complaint. To be timely, the circumstances giving rise to this complaint must have come to the complainants’ attention on or after March 13, 1997, unless the Board decides to extend the time limit pursuant to section 16(m.1) of the Code.
29 The complainants sought to establish timeliness by linking a series of events that ultimately suggest a continuing basis for their complaint, the first of which is the negotiation of the Quebec Accord. According to the documents filed with the Board by the complainants, they were advised by Captain Al Carmichael, CRA MEC Chairman, on or about November 25, 1996, about the existence of the Quebec Accord through the following email:
CALPA CONVENTION:
The CALPA Convention has now drawn to a close in YQB; there have been significant developments in a number of concerns to our pilot group.
The first was the results of the move to ALPA. After extensive debate in which your MEC was quite active, the Convention Delegates approved balloting members on the ALPA merger document, with a simple majority as the threshold for implementation. The results of the secret roll call ballot was near 90% in favour of ALPA. The deadline for returning your ballot on this issue has been delayed, though it MUST Be postmarked 02 January 1997 or earlier to be valid. I have received calls from quite a few pilots concerned that they did not get ballots on the 10% poll. If you want to exercise your democratic right to vote, you must have your correct address at CALPA HQ’s. If you have any problems, call them at 1‑800‑561‑9576.
CAI / CRA MEETING:
The second development was a joint MEC Meeting between CAI and CRA that explored the issues surrounding scope, merger, 10%, and third-tier erosion, to name a few. An ad hoc committee was struck to study the merger item, and after in-depth discussion, an accord was reached that forms a working document on which to build an agreement. This document has been entered into without prejudice, and in the event that a final agreement is reached, you will be balloted. There will be base meetings in the near future to discuss what the agreement contains, should we be successful; at this point talks are ongoing.
NEGOTIATIONS:
Thirdly, we are standing by to negotiate with the Company during the last week of November. To say that the situation is fluid is to understate the obvious. Your MEC will use all available means to pass the facts on to you as this week progresses, and most likely by the time you read or hear something, events will have overtaken us and the situation will change again. You MEC is counting on your support in this most critical period; please take the time to ensure that you will be able to participate in the ratification ballot. [sic]
30 At the hearing, the complainants stated:
59. In late November, 1996, the Complainants Woodley and Morgan heard rumours that a non-binding working document had been reached by the CRA and CAI MEC’s at the November, 1996 CALPA Convention, that CRA pilots would “flow through” to the bottom of the CAI seniority list and that this document was to be used as a basis to build an agreement. They also saw a CRA newsletter dated November 25, 1996, which confirmed that an accord concerning seniority merger had been reached in the form of a working document that was said to be without prejudice and which, once final agreement had been reached, would be voted on by the CRA pilots. The Complainants were otherwise unaware of the terms of the document, nor did they obtain a copy of the Quebec Accord until July 18, 1997, when they received the Respondent Union’s response to their Complaints.
31 Therefore, by their own admission, the complainants were informed of the existence of the Quebec Accord as early as November 1996. This fact on its own makes any complaint clearly untimely. In order to bring this part of the complaint within the confines of the 90-day requirement, the complainants have linked it to the CRA pilots’ seniority and transfer rights negotiated in the 1997 collective agreement and ultimately to the filing of grievances in March 1997.
