China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

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

Post Reply
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by The Tenth Man »

A bit old, this reference from the 1982 McGill Law Journal, but I think the quoted passages add some colour to the discussion of the duty that a union owes its members. A duty, I suggest, that ALPA has not achieved in regards to some of its members in the WJ bargaining unit.
ALPA_DFR_Superseniority_McGill_Law_Journal_p3_JPEG_LI.jpg
ALPA_DFR_Superseniority_McGill_Law_Journal_p3_JPEG_LI.jpg (1.59 MiB) Viewed 4911 times
ALPA_DFR_Superseniority_McGill_Law_Journal_p4_JPEG_LI.jpg
ALPA_DFR_Superseniority_McGill_Law_Journal_p4_JPEG_LI.jpg (1.83 MiB) Viewed 4911 times
ALPA_DFR_Superseniority_McGill_Law_Journal_p8_JPEG_LI.jpg
ALPA_DFR_Superseniority_McGill_Law_Journal_p8_JPEG_LI.jpg (1.42 MiB) Viewed 4911 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by The Tenth Man »

In composing my synopsis of the theory that ALPA violated the DFR of some WJ pilots, I have attempted to defend the opposite side of the argument. That requires finding that there was "some labour relations purpose" for ignoring established ALPA policy.

As I have previously posted in this thread, the communication from ALPA's agents prior to certification was only that ALPA could replicate the WPDL in an ALPA CBA if WJ pilots so desired. In one communication the OC further stipulated that the WPDL would require the agreement of WJ.

So, prior to certification, ALPA offered no substantive reasons why the bargaining unit would benefit from replicating the One List. The Organizing Committee and the ALPA VP Administration-Treasurer only said that it could be done.

After certification, a survey was conducted by ALPA covering numerous topics, one of which was the One List. The only official communication I am aware of that addressed the issue of the desire of WJ pilots in this regard was the MEC Update of November 2, 2018:
"...This initiative follows the original intent of the “One List,” a policy that was overwhelmingly supported by pilots (based on survey results) at WestJet...."
If the vast majority of WJ pilots indicated a desire to place NewCommercialPilot/WeedPro/TheTenthMan on the bottom of the seniority list, that alone (the majority's wishes) would not be a valid labour relations purpose for discrimination.

As was highlighted in the third attachment of the preceding post (McGill Law Journal), any rights of an employee prior to certification are extinguished with certification, and instead, a statutory regime replaces the individual employment contracts. This means that the "rights" of employees with Encore employment histories to preferential upgrade opportunities over employees with longer service at WJ also extinguish.

Ergo, there was no "right" of a pilot to a position on an ordered seniority list that favoured he/she over his/her colleagues. All employees in the bargaining unit were to be treated fairly in the negotiations that established seniority rankings.

The MEC confirmed this “tabula rasa” state of affairs with regard to the seniority list in February, 2018, when they stated that the order of the seniority list was a matter of negotiation and there was nothing pre-ordained:
13AB2F3B-BE5A-4095-A63F-7B0DB2678E28.jpeg
13AB2F3B-BE5A-4095-A63F-7B0DB2678E28.jpeg (591.82 KiB) Viewed 4819 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by The Tenth Man »

With the February 1, 2018 MEC Alert (above) regarding the seniority list, and Kaplan’s June 8, 2018 Order placing Swoop pilots and new hires onto the WPSL by date of hire, all pilots could be forgiven in thinking that ALPA had followed its established seniority policy and ordered the entire seniority list by date of hire, showing favouritism to none and fairness to all.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: The Lure of a Combined Bargaining Unit

Post by The Tenth Man »

However, it also indicated that if the plaintiffs proved that the union had acted to sacrifice the jobs of certain members in an attempt to increase the size of the bargaining unit and thereby increase its own strength, a breach of the union's duty of fair representation "would probably be shown", as a lack of the "complete good faith" and "honesty of purpose" required of a union by that duty in the con­text of negotiations "would probably be present".

(Abramowitz v. OPSEU, Ontario Labour Relations Board, 1987)

The above paragraph is from a 1987 OLRB ruling and shows how improper motives during negotiations might raise the issue of the duty of fair representation. In the negotiations between ALPA and WJ, "jobs of certain members" were not sacrificed, but the seniority rankings of some pilots were. Allegedly WJ did not ask for these seniority rankings to be impaired; it came unilaterally from the union negotiators.

Was ALPA acting during the negotiations to increase the size of the bargaining unit and thereby increase its own strength? And is it trying to do so with the proposed LOU? The MEC Vice-Chairman (now ALPA Canada Board President) stated in October 2018:
Our first MEC resolution was to recognize Encore pilots as WestJet pilots – essentially to remove any professional barriers between our pilot groups that exist because of corporate branding or aircraft type. Since then I’ve been working with their MEC officers to cement ... the unification of our pilot groups starting with eventually creating a single MEC structure. This unity work very much captures my union philosophy. Stronger together.
The MEC's November 2, 2018 Update referred to a proposed LOU that was:
"... only a first step of many toward fully uniting with the Encore pilots, this will serve as an excellent example of how unity between pilot groups can benefit the pilot profession and airlines in Canada.

For far too long, we have allowed corporations to divide pilots, and this has been to the detriment of our profession. We firmly believe that when we have all the professional pilots working together across Canada, we will be in a much stronger position to advocate for pilots and start moving forward together. It will only be our unity that will give us the strength to make the changes to our industry and our profession that pilots have desired for so long ..."
It is hard to avoid a conclusion that the MEC wants to unite the two bargaining units into one and thereby increase its bargaining power.

One major problem that stands in the way of uniting the two bargaining units is the seniority list. ALPA's merger policy requires that a merged seniority list cannot change the order of the pre-merger seniority rankings. If ALPA had followed its seniority policy and ordered the WPSL by DOH, this would mean that any former Encore pilot would have flowed to the bottom of the list. In the event of a merger, unless the Encore pilots were simply stapled to the bottom of the WJ seniority list, many flowthrough pilots who were formerly senior to colleagues at Encore would end up being junior to these same pilots on the integrated list.

The only solution for ALPA was to ignore its seniority policy, and give superseniority credit to Encore flowthrough pilots. This enabled a future merger at any time by date of hire that would maintain the One List philosophy. All it took to achieve the One List philosophy in the CBA was to harm the seniority rankings of the OTS pilots hired since Encore commenced operations.

In any event, a merged bargaining unit is very unlikely unless WJ decides to merge the two companies. If a merged bargaining unit is not a likely outcome, what could the reason be for ALPA doing harm to the very pilots it was tasked with representing?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
CaptainHaddock
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:22 am
Location: Nowhere fast

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by CaptainHaddock »

WTF. So him rambling on quoting his own enormous irrelevant quotes just runs on. I come back to see what’s changed here-not much. It’s public, I get it. But he’s just jackhammering the WestJet forum. Is it just here, or is taking over other sections too?

Peace out
---------- ADS -----------
 
Billions of Bilious Blue Blistering Barnacles!
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by Schooner69A »

What I'm getting from all this is that some WJ pilots got a burr under their blanket, got all hussied up, got some big guns, and shot themselves in the foot.


A bit of a mixed metaphor but what can you do with something this mixed up...?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shady McSly
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:28 am

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by Shady McSly »

What?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by The Tenth Man »

Captain Haddock, you will be happy to know that the jackhammering is complete. I have exhausted my research on the topic. I am comfortable with my understanding on the subject and and content that I achieved my primary goal, which was to make some aware that their rights under labour law may have been violated, and that they had a limited time within whcih to act.

I talked to a CIRB staff member yesterday and as of 1 pm, there were no DFR complaints lodged against ALPA by members of the WJ bargaining unit. She gave me information regarding the 90 day limitation window for filing a DFR complaint that I'm not sure I agree with (re: the time the clock starts), but employees of the CIRB do not give legal advice. As was found in Woodley, their information or advice cannot be relied on in a legal sense.

In Woodley, the Board suggested that the limitation period may have commenced when the pilot first heard that CALPA announced the formation of a policy between the CAI and CRAL MEC's that "illegally" favoured flowthrough pilots ("The Quebec Accord"). In any event, by the time of the CBA being ratified, the pilots would have know, and even with this later time frame, the 90 day window was still closed, so the Board didn't need to rule on any of the other issues.

As 2019 is starting off great for me, I'm going to cease my activities here and go back to concentrating on the other activites in my life that I have been neglecting due to my recent relocation. I'm going to be careful, but I can't say for sure that I won't make the YYZ LEC Captain Rep's day at some point. No hard feelings Jim, hoping for a fellow employee to die is an entirely rational statement... :)

Three. Two. One...

See ya!
---------- ADS -----------
 
JAHinYYC
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:20 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by JAHinYYC »

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

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by cloak »

It's a sad "human(?)" response to find comfort in shooting the messenger and calm the hot emotions by ridicule and sarcasm!
---------- ADS -----------
 
cloak
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by cloak »

The Tenth Man wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:15 am I'm going to be careful, but I can't say for sure that I won't make the YYZ LEC Captain Rep's day at some point. No hard feelings Jim, hoping for a fellow employee to die is an entirely rational statement... :)
Wait, are you saying an LEC rep said those things? And he is still in that position? Wow no wonder then with the ALPA results!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mostly Harmless
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
Location: Betelgeuse

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by Mostly Harmless »

The Tenth Man wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:15 am Captain Haddock, you will be happy to know that the jackhammering is complete. I have exhausted my research on the topic. I am comfortable with my understanding on the subject and and content that I achieved my primary goal, which was to make some aware that their rights under labour law may have been violated, and that they had a limited time within whcih to act.

I talked to a CIRB staff member yesterday and as of 1 pm, there were no DFR complaints lodged against ALPA by members of the WJ bargaining unit. She gave me information regarding the 90 day limitation window for filing a DFR complaint that I'm not sure I agree with (re: the time the clock starts), but employees of the CIRB do not give legal advice. As was found in Woodley, their information or advice cannot be relied on in a legal sense.

In Woodley, the Board suggested that the limitation period may have commenced when the pilot first heard that CALPA announced the formation of a policy between the CAI and CRAL MEC's that "illegally" favoured flowthrough pilots ("The Quebec Accord"). In any event, by the time of the CBA being ratified, the pilots would have know, and even with this later time frame, the 90 day window was still closed, so the Board didn't need to rule on any of the other issues.

As 2019 is starting off great for me, I'm going to cease my activities here and go back to concentrating on the other activites in my life that I have been neglecting due to my recent relocation. I'm going to be careful, but I can't say for sure that I won't make the YYZ LEC Captain Rep's day at some point. No hard feelings Jim, hoping for a fellow employee to die is an entirely rational statement... :)

Three. Two. One...

See ya!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyJZeXVo-g
---------- ADS -----------
 
hurtin'albertan
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: China_CAAC's Merged Threads

Post by hurtin'albertan »

Thanks for doing all that research John.

:smt008
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “WestJet”