Statutory Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Discuss topics relating to Westjet.

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

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

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by The Tenth Man »

Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies); I wish it could help the Encore pilots. Additionally, until someone forwards a copy of the LOU we can’t very well verify what you maintain is applicable.

As well, the CIRB is not bound by precedent, not even its own, and that is a fact.

Finally, now that a WJ Pilot Seniority List is in existence, any effort to tamper with the seniority rights of OTS pilots, for no valid labour relations purpose, will invite a DFR challenge.

PS, “my brother’s upgrade will be delayed if we don’t do the LOU” is not a valid labour relations purpose.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by The Tenth Man on Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hangry
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:05 am

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by Hangry »

SPR wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:07 am
Hangry wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:10 pm I realize that. Encore pilots will have their seniority begin to accrue when they are on property as a WJ pilot. DOH

Real easy to comprehend. Things will be as they should have been.
I don't care what you think "should have been"; the fact of the matter is that OTS pilots hired since Encore was created knew the terms of the seniority list when they joined the company, and now they want to change the rules to benefit themselves. If they have their way, hundreds of Encore pilots who have flowed will be passed over for upgrades and the consequent pay raises. Those pilots will resent the OTS pilots for the rest of their careers, and will give the new captains no leeway. Expect every tiny, insignificant SOP infraction to be reported; if you're going 251 knots at 9999 feet, that'll be reported; if I'm going to the back to get a cup of coffee and you ask for one too, I'm coming back with only one cup. It's petty, but if you make the bed you'd better expect to lie in it.

Ahh. So you’re a little baby man child. Are all Encore folk the same?
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by mbav8r »

cloak wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:37 pm
SPR wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:10 am
cloak wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:56 pm Jazz is hardly an example to follow. Under the watchful eyes of ALPA no less, it has lowered the standard in piloting profession at least twice in recent times, once when it underbid Skyservice on the B757 flying and drove the final nail in its coffin, all in similar pay to Dash8 flying to make matters even worse, and second when it introduced B scale. And now to start at Jazz not only to be subject to second class status but also discover there are hundreds of pilots ahead that are not even on the property and do not contribute to the same airline? This is hardly worthy of emulation.

It could be argued that barring a true national system where all pilots get credit for service in airline operations and are members of a national organization, any sort of an "agreement" to allow members of other airlines on the seniority list puts current members of the said airline at a disadvantage. Furthermore, to use a simple "rule of majority" to attempt to pass such agreement is a failure of the representing union to discharge its "fiduciary responsibility" to every of its members to protect them and to do them no harm.
I'm not talking about setting standards for WAWCON, I'm talking about legal precedent. The fact is that Jazz, Bearskin, and Wasaya MECs created a system to allow pilots at different companies to hold seniority; that system has been allowed to stand for over a year by ALPA, which establishes a legal precedent.
Let's try to understand this. You are saying that Jazz has allowed unknown number of pilots from Bearskin and Wasaya to have reserved seniority spots on its master list and therefore it is precedent set by ALPA that it can/should/must do the same thing between WestJet and Encore?

I'm not sure if the numbers are even known, but at any rate, what happens at one airline represented by ALPA must not necessarily happen at another. There are many problems with this scheme, especially since there is no material partnership with these outfits and especially again since presumably these individuals automatically move when they wish. Among the many problems is that their hiring practices may not be similar, their cultures and values may not be similar, the expectations are not similar, their spheres of operations are not similar, etc.

Furthermore, it restricts Jazz to attract more experienced pilots as they don't feel rewarded to join the organization behind unknown number of other pilots not even working for and benefiting the same organization. It is clear that by such practices, not to mention its B scale, Jazz is devolving into a much more humble operations with lower expectations for remuneration. Air Canada is clearly saying that if one wishes to make a "high-paying" career in aviation in its group of companies, one can only do so when/if one makes it to Air Canada. This may be partly in response to insubordination it must have felt when Jazz ventured off to gain Thomas Cook B757 flying. While that process culminated effectively in bankrupting Skyservice, it seems it did not bring such good fortunes for Jazz either. This is how it is perceived from an unbiased perspective.

Again, none of these events are something that another group of pilots wants to recreate or emulate. And if one wishes to argue for a case it has to go beyond threats and vilification, and must be founded in reason and expandable to the larger group beyond putting individuals on the spot.
For what it’s worth, you certainly don’t come across as unbiased, your disdain towards Jazz is quite obviously from a perceived slight, perhaps you were at Sky service or have friends who were. The final nail was of their own doing, since Thomas cook obviously felt they couldn’t be trusted to last the last season through. Thomas Cook approached Jazz, but if it makes you feel better to blame the Jazz pilots for accepting industry standard wages, which included Sky Service, go ahead then.
Next, there is no doubt the way the Thomas Cook venture was handled with regards to Air Canada did put a strain on the relationship but make no mistake, the biggest driver behind the diversification of the Express flying was because 98% of the already highly paid regional pilots voted to strike, right from Rovinescus mouth. That being said AC has taken around 800 pilots from Jazz in the last few years, not sure we’re having a problem with pilots who don’t qualify.
Lastly, these pilots don’t come to Jazz at free will, they interview as per normal and if successful they join with a determined seniority number, which according to John, aka China, etc... is not possible under ALPAs constitution.
Now, I’ll ask again, did you join WJ knowingly on the one list? If so, do you feel WJ owes you seniority now because you’re represented by ALPA?
The main reason that one list was basically demanded by WJ pilots was to avoid the whipsaw that a good portion of WJ pilots experienced prior to joining.
The outcome of a successful undoing of this list is very predictable, yet some selfish pilots will forge ahead anyhow.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by mbav8r »

China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies); I wish it could help the Encore pilots. Additionally, until someone forwards a copy of the LOU we can’t very well verify what you maintain is applicable.

As well, the CIRB is not bound by precedent, not even its own, and that is a fact.

Finally, now that a WJ Pilot Seniority List is in existence, any effort to tamper with the seniority rights of OTS pilots, for no valid labour relations purpose, will invite a DFR challenge.

PS, “my brother’s upgrade will be delayed if we don’t do the LOU” is not a valid labour relations purpose.
Do you always talk out of both sides of your face, you wish you could help the Encore pilots but a few post back encouraging OTS pilots to file a CIRB challenge before it’s too late, man oh man you are rich!
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
SPR
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by SPR »

cloak wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:05 pm Remembering names, retaliation, vilification, personal attacks...in other words mob mentality! Argue for a case based on reason and labour law!
I have, but you've ignored all of my factual points and focused on the emotional ones. That you completely ignore my actual arguments while demanding more says a lot more about you than the fact that I include emotional points among my logical arguments says about me. Your bias is tangible, and no argument will dissuade you, so you simply avoid them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SPR
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by SPR »

Hangry wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:24 pm Ahh. So you’re a little baby man child. Are all Encore folk the same?
If someone shits in my mouth, you think I should say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" If I don't have the ability to shit back in theirs, I'm going to wipe my ass-sweat in their sandwiches every chance I get.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1948
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by goingnowherefast »

China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies)
Except that Bearskin/Wasaya are held to the same ALPA constitution and policies as WJ, Jazz, Delta and FedEx, Transat, Mesa, etc.

How did Jazz offer seniority under an LOU to "career pathway pilots" from Bearskin and Wasaya. Surely a pilot who's not on property can not acquire seniority...oh wait, Jazz did that already.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SPR
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by SPR »

China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:23 pm Precedent in the Bearskin/Wasaya has precious little to do with the contract signed between WJ pilots and their union (Constitution and policies); I wish it could help the Encore pilots. Additionally, until someone forwards a copy of the LOU we can’t very well verify what you maintain is applicable.

As well, the CIRB is not bound by precedent, not even its own, and that is a fact.

Finally, now that a WJ Pilot Seniority List is in existence, any effort to tamper with the seniority rights of OTS pilots, for no valid labour relations purpose, will invite a DFR challenge.

PS, “my brother’s upgrade will be delayed if we don’t do the LOU” is not a valid labour relations purpose.
The CIRB may not adhere to the precedent, but the argument will still be presented by lawyers that the precedent exists. The Board might not accept it, but it's still difficult to ignore precedent, and makes for a stronger argument that the Merger Policy regarding seniority is not the end-all, be-all determining the status of the One List.
Since you didn't answer my question previously, I'm going to press you on this: in your estimation, according to your reasoning, will all DECs at all ALPA airlines be demoted in favour of more senior FOs if you have your way?
---------- ADS -----------
 
SPR
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by SPR »

Here's another thought that occurred to me: Mr Kaplan ruled that as of Dec 1, all Swoop pilots will hold positions based on seniority. I'm pretty sure there are some captains at Swoop who moved there directly from Encore, meaning that they joined WestJet after the Swoop OTS pilots. And yet, they have the seniority to bump the OTS captains out of their positions. Doesn't that mean that Mr Kaplan considers seniority at Encore to be equivalent to seniority at WestJet?
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrMerth
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by MrMerth »

SPR

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

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by cloak »

mbav8r, contrary to my usual practice I say that it seems that you like practicing "do as I say, not as I do!", especially when Jazz is mentioned, or Swoop or WestJet direct-hire pilots. To prove no bias, let's change those names to unknown ones.

Let's say pilots of airline A negotiated a small 2% raise for themselves in exchange for introducing a B scale for future pilots, plus eliminating their pensions and replacing them with inferior plans. They did that under the watch of ALPA. Meanwhile pilots in airline B accepted positions that were advertised at wages that were comparable with similar airlines. Which of these two do you honestly think lowers the piloting standard more?

If you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise attacking others doesn't necessarily help you. Fare well.


SPR, perhaps some individuals may have been lent back to Encore for operational reasons?
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by mbav8r »

cloak wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:19 pm mbav8r, contrary to my usual practice I say that it seems that you like practicing "do as I say, not as I do!", especially when Jazz is mentioned, or Swoop or WestJet direct-hire pilots. To prove no bias, let's change those names to unknown ones.

Let's say pilots of airline A negotiated a small 2% raise for themselves in exchange for introducing a B scale for future pilots, plus eliminating their pensions and replacing them with inferior plans. They did that under the watch of ALPA. Meanwhile pilots in airline B accepted positions that were advertised at wages that were comparable with similar airlines. Which of these two do you honestly think lowers the piloting standard more?

If you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise attacking others doesn't necessarily help you. Fare well.


SPR, perhaps some individuals may have been lent back to Encore for operational reasons?
Have a look back at mine and your previous posts, someone’s been attacking alright, you’ve contributed absolutely nothing but criticism against others, deflected questions directed at you and simply put are likely just another one of John’s personality’s.
However, I am done with you and John, I wish WJ pilots good luck navigating this mess their in and hope common sense prevails.

One side note, one of John’s supporters made a good point, no one list Encore will have to raise the bar to get pilots, well probably not but one could dream I suppose. The aviation worlds seems filled with tbaylxs
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by The Tenth Man »

Whew! That was work! I just finished 70 hours of OT in the last 14 days, for a cool $22,680 in 11 days of work. That's not Delta Airlines money, but I'll take it. With the coming contract, it sounds like we're being told to reduce our expectations.

So, I have today off. Back to being a content creator.

Regarding Bearskin/Wasaya/Jazz: that LOU can in no way be compared to the One List. For it to do so, it would have had to allow Bearskin/Wasaya pilots to jump ahead of existing (as of the date of the LOU) Jazz pilots on the seniority list (which is what the substitute One List would require in the upcoming CBA). That didn't happen, so the example at Jazz is not applicable.

With that matter disposed of, we are back left with no examples where ALPA has a One List style agreement in place.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by The Tenth Man »

I don't think I need to say much about the following case for you to recognize the differences between how ACPA treated the seniority concerns of former CAI pilots ("Blue" pilots may argue otherwise...) with how ALPA has investigated and discussed and treated the seniority concerns of WJ OTS pilots hired since mid 2014. I have highlighted what I think are some important sections. While you are reading, ask yourself what the MEC has done to ensure the rights of OTS pilots are protected or dealt with fairly.

It is somewhat ironic, given the current situation, that in the following case, it is ALPA who is complaining about a violation of the DFR.

ALPA v. ACPA, 2006

All underscoring and bold is mine.

C - Duty of Fair Representation Complaint - File No. 25435-C


1 - Position of the Parties



62 The complainants submit that ACPA has violated the duty of fair representation because it “abused its powers as bargaining agent in exclusive support of the seniority interests of its so-called ‘original’ Air Canada pilot majority constituency - to the exclusive detriment of the former Canadian Airlines pilot minority.”

63 The complainants state that ACPA has expressly acknowledged that it has acted due to pressure brought to bear by a seniority-based protest movement which consists of two large factions of pilots advocating the use of their voting power to bring about seniority change. The complainants submit that ACPA has induced or coerced Air Canada into cooperating with ACPA’s seniority objectives. According to the complainants, Air Canada agreed to cooperate with ACPA in establishing the Teplitsky mediation process in return for ACPA’s agreement to send the dispute regarding the acquisition by Air Canada of the B777 and B787 aircraft to arbitration. ALPA argues that the two Teplitsky exercises were directly linked. According to ALPA, the aircraft acquisition deal the company wanted was delivered, without change and without pilot ratification, by the arbitration award and the changes ACPA wanted made to the Keller seniority list were included in the mediation recommendations. Furthermore, the complainants submit that the appearance of Mr. Teplitsky’s neutrality was compromised because he took on both the seniority mediation and the aircraft arbitration assignments.

64 The complainants argue that the Board’s decision in George Cairns et al., [2000] CIRB no. 70, prevents collective bargaining from reshuffling seniority rights, to the detriment of a minority group of employees, after the integration of bargaining rights. They rely on the following passage from George Cairns et al., supra:

"[64] ... The notion that seniority rights, essential working conditions, the right to employment and other rights of minority employees already in existence under one collective agreement could be arbitrarily and conclusively terminated by a collective agreement supported by a narrow majority and that any inquiry by the Board as to whether this was done fairly would be prohibited by section 37’s wording appears to this Board to be inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of that section of the Code…"

65 ACPA, however, argues that the process adopted to develop negotiated changes to the seniority list is free of arbitrariness, discrimination and bad faith. ACPA states that it and Air Canada took careful steps to ensure that the seniority rights of all affected pilots were fairly considered. For example, they retained an experienced mediator/arbitrator with extensive understanding of the bargaining relationships at Air Canada and they invited ALPA to participate in the seniority mediation, without prejudice to its right to challenge the process and any seniority change resulting from it.

66 ACPA submits that no changes have been made to the seniority list. It states that ACPA and Air Canada agreed “that before Mr. Teplitsky’s recommendations are incorporated into the collective agreement, they will seek confirmation that such implementation would not breach the Canada Labour Code.” In any event, according to ACPA, Mr. Teplitsky recommended that the parties maintain the seniority list as constructed by Mr. Keller and only make two adjustments to it. Lastly, ACPA argues that the Board’s jurisprudence states that existing seniority rights can be changed through collective bargaining.

67 Air Canada takes no position on the merits of this complaint, other than on the allegations concerning Air Canada’s own conduct. Air Canada states that it has always maintained a position of neutrality in the seniority integration dispute and its sole interest is labour peace in the pilot bargaining unit.

68 Air Canada points out that the section 37 duty of fair representation obligation only applies to unions. In any event, it denies that a process resulting in a mediator’s report and recommendations on ways to ease tensions concerning the pilot seniority list can make it liable to the complainants.


2 - Analysis and Decision


69 ACPA is certified to represent all pilots, including the former Canadian pilot minority, in the pilot bargaining unit at Air Canada. The complainants submit that ACPA’s involvement in the Teplitsky exercise deprives the former Canadian pilots of their settled seniority rights and constitutes a violation of the section 37 duty of fair representation.

70 The Board does not believe that ACPA has contravened section 37 of the Code.

71 Section 37 reads as follows:


"37. A trade union or representative of a trade union that is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit with respect to their rights under the collective agreement that is applicable to them."


72 The duty of fair representation arises out of the exclusive power given to the bargaining agent to speak on behalf of all employees in the bargaining unit. It has been the subject of countless Board decisions. In Canadian Merchant Service Guild v. Gagnon et al., 1984 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509, the Supreme Court set out the following principles that relate to a union’s duty of fair representation:


"1. The exclusive power conferred on a union to act as spokesman for the employees in a bargaining unit entails a corresponding obligation on the union to fairly represent all employees comprised in the unit.
...

4. The union’s decision must not be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or wrongful.

5. The representation by the union must be fair, genuine and not merely apparent, undertaken with integrity and competence, without serious or major negligence, and without hostility towards the employee."(page 527)



73 The Board’s jurisdiction to review a union’s actions is very narrowly focussed. The Board has continuously maintained that a union is entitled, without interference, to exercise its judgment in representing its membership. It is therefore not up to the Board to interpret the collective agreement or any other collateral agreement that might ensue.

74 The complainants state that the former “Canadian pilots now have acquired legal rights in the form of a legal entitlement to a settled sequenced seniority list.” The Board agrees that the integrated seniority list sets the post-merger pilot seniority rankings and that it must be used to determine seniority-related rights for each pilot in the bargaining unit. The question that must be answered in this complaint, however, is whether those rights have been interfered with in any tangible way. In other words, have any of the former Canadian pilots’ seniority rankings been changed as a result of the Teplitsky exercise?

75 While ACPA participated in a process directed towards changing the seniority list, the fact remains that no changes have been made to the pilots’ seniority rankings. Not a single former Canadian pilot’s order on the integrated seniority list has been affected by the Teplitsky exercise. Furthermore, it was clear throughout the exercise that before proceeding with the implementation, ACPA and Air Canada would be asking the Board to determine whether adoption of the recommended changes would violate the Code.

76 The present case and the George Cairns et al., supra, case, relied on by ALPA, have some similarities. In a general way, both deal with situations involving merged bargaining units, seniority integration and minority rights. However, the two cases deal with significantly different fact situations. In George Cairns et al., supra, the Board found that the union had breached its statutory duty of fair representation in negotiating a Crew Consist Adjustment Agreement, which was put to the membership for a ratification vote. Following ratification, the Agreement formed part of the collective agreement. Three items of the Agreement were found to have treated a minority of employees in the bargaining unit unfairly.

77 In the present case, we are dealing only with recommendations from a mediator. They were not put to a ratification vote. They did not become part of the collective agreement. Most importantly, they did not change the seniority rights of any members of the bargaining unit.

78 For these reasons, ALPA’s section 37 complaint is dismissed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Alpa Male
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:13 am

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by Alpa Male »

SPR wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:48 pm Here's another thought that occurred to me: Mr Kaplan ruled that as of Dec 1, all Swoop pilots will hold positions based on seniority. I'm pretty sure there are some captains at Swoop who moved there directly from Encore, meaning that they joined WestJet after the Swoop OTS pilots. And yet, they have the seniority to bump the OTS captains out of their positions. Doesn't that mean that Mr Kaplan considers seniority at Encore to be equivalent to seniority at WestJet?
Hmmmmm. You might want to reread those interim orders. In short, Kaplans first order was to offer Captain bypass positions to "WESTJET PILOTS" while OTS Swoop pilots maintain rank and pay. Nowhere does it state Encore pilots. Kaplans second interim order was to place OTS Swoop pilots in a position corresponding with their spot on the Westjet Pilot Seniority List, with pay protection. Kaplan could not, would not and did rule on behalf of Encore pilots. He can't; Kaplan is arbitrating an agreement between Westjet and the Westjet pilots union, not the Encore pilot union. Applying considerations on behalf of Encore pilots could compromise the process and put Kaplan at risk of a judicial review.

Let us be clear; it was WJ that promoted Encore pilots to Swoop captain status, NOT Kaplan. WJ and ALPA made a mistake in this regard. They honored a flawed seniority list that, created from the "good intentions" of a flawed representational structure. As my colleague, Mr. Swallow has stated - if the current "one list" is not amended to reflect the date of hire at WJ only, then a DFR claim will be forthcoming. And like John, I too encourage OTS pilots to press this issue; it's their right.

The layers are many and the waters muddy...
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by The Tenth Man »

In a similar case, former CAI pilots filed another DFR complaint against ACPA and Air Canada in 2009. They were unsuccessful, but the following paragraph is illustrative of the efforts one might expect of a union to fairly represent all members. Once again, it is necessary to ask yourself what the WJ MEC has done to consider the rights of OTS pilots in the proposed LOU announced November 2, 2018, in a manner that is not arbitrary.

ALPA has a statutory duty to consider the best interests of the bargaining unit as a whole, which is not the same as considering the best interests of a majority of the bargaining unit.

McInnis et al. v. ACPA and Air Canada
9 ACPA argues that it is discharging its statutory duty to represent all of its members fairly by addressing a labour relations issue that affects a substantial number of its members and that has created a fractured bargaining unit. ACPA created an ad hoc seniority sub‑committee to investigate whether the “unfairness” attributed to the application of the adjustments was real or merely perceived, to report its findings to the Master Executive Committee (MEC) and, if any real unfairness was found, to submit recommendations as to how that unfairness should be addressed. ACPA submits that in conducting this investigation, ACPA and its seniority sub‑committee had the right to consult and retain experts and advisors to provide the best possible advice, and that the former Chairperson of the Board was chosen because of his expertise. Mr. Lordon’s mandate was to consider the nature of the complaints, to attempt to mediate their resolution and to make recommendations to the sub‑committee, which would then determine what recommendation should be made to the MEC. ACPA states that the input of the former CAIL pilots was repeatedly sought throughout the process.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Alpa Male
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:13 am

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by Alpa Male »

China_CAAC_Exam wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:33 am Whew! That was work! I just finished 70 hours of OT in the last 14 days, for a cool $22,680 in 11 days of work. That's not Delta Airlines money, but I'll take it. With the coming contract, it sounds like we're being told to reduce our expectations.

So, I have today off. Back to being a content creator.

Regarding Bearskin/Wasaya/Jazz: that LOU can in no way be compared to the One List. For it to do so, it would have had to allow Bearskin/Wasaya pilots to jump ahead of existing (as of the date of the LOU) Jazz pilots on the seniority list (which is what the substitute One List would require in the upcoming CBA). That didn't happen, so the example at Jazz is not applicable.

With that matter disposed of, we are back left with no examples where ALPA has a One List style agreement in place.
Nice, John! That's some good bank - nicely done!

That comment also caught the eye - "remain realistic in their expectations." Yeah, I'll remain realistic; I will not hold reserve, I will not work more than 12 days and so and so forth. Like a recent Encore flow pilot told me, "I help build Encore, so I expect WJ to accommodate for that sacrifice." Well, John, like you, I remember the old 200 days and we "built" mainline. I think we have some "accommodations" coming our way. :D

You should sign a card and join the "dark side," my friend. This ALPA thing is sure to exceed "expectations" for guys like you and me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by The Tenth Man »

I know hindsight is 20/20, but 20/20 vision wasn't needed to see this issue steam rolling towards WJ and WJE pilots. From the time of certification onwards, the MEC should have had as one their priorities, with as much stature as Swoop and as negotiating the CBA, the issue of how to deal with the One List. I don't think much could have been done, given the handcuffs imposed by ALPA policy and of Canadian Labour Law, but politically, at least the two bargaining unit members could have seen, in a transparent manner, with regular reporting and updates, that their representatives were dealing with this issue in a professional and responsible manner.

What do we have instead? Nothing for a year, then an 11th hour memo, on the cusp of the final stages of CBA negotiation, coming ironically in the 11th month, with only vague promises of the LOU meeting constitutional and legal standards and an expectation that the pacified pilot groups should just sit back and let the pros deal with it.

I will deal with the issue of the incoming Canada Board President in this matter and his suitability for the position in a separate thread in which I will be very careful not to be libelous, but seriously examine his involvement in an effort to defeat ALPA policy, and ignore the rights of OTS pilots.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Tenth Man
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by The Tenth Man »

Alpa Male wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:39 amNice, John! That's some good bank - nicely done!

That comment also caught the eye - "remain realistic in their expectations." Yeah, I'll remain realistic; I will not hold reserve, I will not work more than 12 days and so and so forth. Like a recent Encore flow pilot told me, "I help build Encore, so I expect WJ to accommodate for that sacrifice." Well, John, like you, I remember the old 200 days and we "built" mainline. I think we have some "accommodations" coming our way. :D

You should sign a card and join the "dark side," my friend. This ALPA thing is sure to exceed "expectations" for guys like you and me.
I will consider joining ALPA, after a CBA is in place and once the matter of the One List is addressed fully and transparently. I won't be party to any organization attempting to misdirect blame or obfuscate the issues.

I am realistic though. I do sincerely believe that my behaviour here on this forum might make me ineligible for membership. At the very least, I would be expected to meet the standards expected of an ALPA member going forward, and I'm not sure that is my role on this planet.

I really love my job, and I really am appreciative and thankful to my employer. I'm content staying in that happy place.

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

Re: Duty of Fair Representation: LOU (One List)

Post by cloak »

Alpa Male wrote: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:16 am
SPR wrote: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:48 pm Here's another thought that occurred to me: Mr Kaplan ruled that as of Dec 1, all Swoop pilots will hold positions based on seniority. I'm pretty sure there are some captains at Swoop who moved there directly from Encore, meaning that they joined WestJet after the Swoop OTS pilots. And yet, they have the seniority to bump the OTS captains out of their positions. Doesn't that mean that Mr Kaplan considers seniority at Encore to be equivalent to seniority at WestJet?
Hmmmmm. You might want to reread those interim orders. In short, Kaplans first order was to offer Captain bypass positions to "WESTJET PILOTS" while OTS Swoop pilots maintain rank and pay. Nowhere does it state Encore pilots. Kaplans second interim order was to place OTS Swoop pilots in a position corresponding with their spot on the Westjet Pilot Seniority List, with pay protection. Kaplan could not, would not and did rule on behalf of Encore pilots. He can't; Kaplan is arbitrating an agreement between Westjet and the Westjet pilots union, not the Encore pilot union. Applying considerations on behalf of Encore pilots could compromise the process and put Kaplan at risk of a judicial review.

Let us be clear; it was WJ that promoted Encore pilots to Swoop captain status, NOT Kaplan. WJ and ALPA made a mistake in this regard. They honored a flawed seniority list that, created from the "good intentions" of a flawed representational structure. As my colleague, Mr. Swallow has stated - if the current "one list" is not amended to reflect the date of hire at WJ only, then a DFR claim will be forthcoming. And like John, I too encourage OTS pilots to press this issue; it's their right.
Very good observations.

It's very simple; read the top of Kaplan's interim rulings, it's between WestJet, Swoop, and WestJet pilots represented by ALPA MEC.
It does not include Encore because Encore has its own MEC and engaged in its own negotiations. The case of Encore is NOT before Kaplan.

The company decided on its volition to allow Encore pilots to also flow to open Swoop FO positions, instead of hiring from outside. To be fair, it always did intend to do that, but was not able to due to ALPA ban and restrictions.

However, if there were individuals that made it to Swoop left seat and bumped existing Swoop captains and were NOT already on WestJet's list, it would be a breach of Kaplan's order and he would not be amused to discover that.

It will likely be a case of few individuals that had flowed to WestJet, but based on their previous experience and contributions, were lent back to Encore for operational reasons. That would be fair.

Otherwise to engage in an emotional personal vendetta against a group of its own current members will not be wise for ALPA MEC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by cloak on Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:57 am, edited 7 times in total.
Locked

Return to “WestJet”