Receiving Your Pension While Remaining Employed

[Raymond Hall]

Today the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released decision 2025 CHRT 11 that strikes down the policy of Local 500 of the ILWU (Vancouver longshoremen) that specified that anyone who availed themselves of their pension benefits while continuing to remain employed would be denied their exercise of seniority, essentially placing senior workers at the bottom of the seniority list.

This decision could have major implications for airline employees, including pilots because it essentially means that after mandatory retirement was eliminated in the federal jurisdiction in 2012, all employees can start receiving their pension benefits as soon as they are entitled to do so pursuant to their union's pension plan, while continuing to exercise their full seniority and gaining their full income in their profession.

For Air Canada pilots, as I understand the plan, that means that pilots at or over age 60 (provided they have accumulated at least 25 years of service) can receive both their pension income and their wages. For those that have reached the maximum 35 years of pensionable service, there would be no benefit to deferring the receipt of the pension after age 60 until actually retiring. In fact, the person who deferred the receipt of the benefit would forfeit it completely for the remaining period of their employment.

The qualifying age for most of the other union plans may specify a different minimum age and accumulated years of service.

Here is the final paragraph of the decision ('PDR' is 'Pension Dispatch Rule'; 'PER' is 'Pension Equalization Rule'; ):

VII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
[114] The Complaints are substantiated. The Union’s implementation of the PDR and PER constitutes discrimination contrary to sections 9 and 10 of the CHRA.

[Raymond Hall]

Here is the full decision:

CHRT-Decision 2025 CHRT 11.pdf

(293.34 KiB) Downloaded 78 times

[Protonpilot]

The longshoremen have an agreement that allows for double dipping, i.e. you can start collecting a pension but aren't required to terminate employment and leave the bargaining unit. Looks like they can even retain their seniority.

Air Canada doesn't allow double dipping of this sort in their pilots DB plan, to my knowledge. In order to draw a pension, you have to retire. And when you retire, you leave the bargaining unit and lose your seniority.

So, from my initial read, this is a decision about seniority bidding rights in a workplace that allows double dipping. Not a decision that forces an employer to offer double dipping.

Happy to be educated if I'm reading this wrong.

[digits_]

Nice, now you'll be able to afford a golden casket when you fly yourself into your grave

[Inverted2]

Are Air Canada pilots flying past 65 yet for domestic flights? (For the record I don’t agree with the double dipping scheme; pensions are meant for retirees)

[cdnavater]

Are Air Canada pilots flying past 65 yet for domestic flights? (For the record I don’t agree with the double dipping scheme; pensions are meant for retirees)

What difference does it make to you if someone double dips?
If they are able to draw the pension, the date they lock it in, I assume they are no longer contributing but also the liability has been calculated.
Now they are paying way more tax than they would be on just salary, seems the CRA is the only real winner here.

[Raymond Hall]

The collective agreement may have changed on this point since I was forced to retire at age 60, but to my knowledge there is nothing in any of the collective agreements of Air Canada with any of its unions that requires an individual to retire in order to receive the pension.

In fact, recently I was consulted by a flight attendant regarding the form that they are required to complete when they attain the age of 71 and are required by the CRA regulations to take their pension not later than the beginning of the end of the calendar year in which one acquires the age of 71.

The form asked the person to confirm that they were requesting retirement. That form is misleading, now. Because of the repeal of mandatory retirement, there is no requirement to retire in order to receive one's pension. The individual consequently refused to sign the form.

Having said that, some collective agreements in other industries do have a provision that requires retirement in order to receive a pension. But those provisions may conflict with the CRA regs requiring one to take a pension at age 71, because nothing can override the repeal of any requirement to retire at any age.

Regarding the issue raised above, one cannot simultaneously contribute to a plan and receive benefits from the plan. If you elect to receive your pension, no further contributions to the plan are allowed.

[Can Pilot]

Are Air Canada pilots flying past 65 yet for domestic flights? (For the record I don’t agree with the double dipping scheme; pensions are meant for retirees)

No we do not have that let.

[Raymond Hall]

Although the mandatory retirement exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed effective December 15, 2012 and as a result companies cannot have a blanket policy requiring termination on the basis of age, there is a 'common law' defence permitting such a policy. It is called 'bona fide occupational requirement', (BFOR).

Because over 80% of Air Canada's flights operate in or through USA airspace, and because the USA does not recognize the licences of pilots who are age 65 or older, Air Canada cannot be expected, in law, to continue to employ those pilots. The legal test requires that an employer must 'accommodate' the individual subject to discrimination up to 'the point of undue hardship.' Although some airlines might be able to schedule pilots to operate only flights that remain within domestic airspace, the issue is obviously seriously problematic for Air Canada, given its route structure.

Any flight with a crew member who is age 65 or older, including a relief pilot, would not be able to enter any USA airspace nor could it use a USA alternate. Think, SEA, GFK, IAG, BOS. Nor could they operate YVR or YYZ to Asia (Alaska airspace) or SYD (HNL airspace). Even flights to Europe would be problematic. YYZ-YHZ flights would have to route around the State of Maine.

Accordingly, no-one has successfully challenged the airline's forced mandatory retirement of pilots at age 65, for that reason.

[Bede]

Accordingly, no-one has yet challenged the airline's forced mandatory retirement of pilots at age 65, for that reason.

It went to arbitration.
https://canlii.ca/t/jjcg6

[Protonpilot]

The collective agreement may have changed on this point since I was forced to retire at age 60, but to my knowledge there is nothing in any of the collective agreements of Air Canada with any of its unions that requires an individual to retire in order to receive the pension.

Did some digging...this was asked on another forum a few years back and was answered by the committee chair at the time. It's not in the collective agreement itself. It's in the pension plan text. Various definitions of a member, retired member, pension eligibility, etc... Basically says you need to retire to collect your pension.

[Raymond Hall]

Did some digging...this was asked on another forum a few years back and was answered by the committee chair at the time. It's not in the collective agreement itself. It's in the pension plan text. Various definitions of a member, retired member, pension eligibility, etc... Basically says you need to retire to collect your pension.

That may have been the Committee Chair's opinion, but that is not what my copy of the plan text says. My (older) copy defines 'normal date of retirement' as the first day of the calendar month after acquiring the age of 60, then later it states that the pension will commence on that date. It There is nothing that specifies that a person must retire in order to commence receiving pension benefits, especially after the provision in the plan text requiring retirement not later than the normal date of retirement was rendered unlawful with the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption in the CHRA.

The key issue in this case is the fact that because pension benefits are property belonging to the employee (as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of IBM v. Waterman), neither the union nor the employer can deny the employee's right to access pension benefits once entitlement, according to the plan, has been achieved, nor can they arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the individual exercising the legal right to avail oneself of the pension benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.

Even the Thames Valley case (mentioned in Paragraph [79]) did not alter the working conditions of individuals who were still actively employed. It simply imposed restrictions, through clear contractual language, on the ability of those who had already retired to return to work part-time. It wasn't about pre-retirement employment.

[rudder]

Did some digging...this was asked on another forum a few years back and was answered by the committee chair at the time. It's not in the collective agreement itself. It's in the pension plan text. Various definitions of a member, retired member, pension eligibility, etc... Basically says you need to retire to collect your pension.

That may have been the Committee Chair's opinion, but that is not what my copy of the plan text says. My (older) copy defines 'normal date of retirement' as the first day of the calendar month after acquiring the age of 60, then later it states that the pension will commence on that date. It There is nothing that specifies that a person must retire in order to commence receiving pension benefits, especially after the provision in the plan text requiring retirement not later than the normal date of retirement was rendered unlawful with the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption in the CHRA.

The key issue in this case is the fact that because pension benefits are property belonging to the employee (as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of IBM v. Waterman), neither the union nor the employer can deny the employee's right to access pension benefits once entitlement, according to the plan, has been achieved, nor can they arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the individual exercising the legal right to avail oneself of the pension benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.

Even the Thames Valley case (mentioned in Paragraph [79]) did not alter the working conditions of individuals who were still actively employed. It simply imposed restrictions, through clear contractual language, on the ability of those who had already retired to return to work part-time. It wasn't about pre-retirement employment.

I would suggest that plan text would apply - if included - with the caveat that it cannot contravene the law, statute, or subsequent prevailing ruling.

My plan states the following: “ Upon retirement, you can elect to receive your pension benefit in one of the following ways: ”

So it makes clear, pension benefits are only available after I retire. I cannot be an active employee of the company associated with the pension plan and draw a pension benefit.

I am curious - how did things work for AC staff (agents) that retired, took severance, and returned as part-time staff? Were they eligible to draw the pension benefit as well?

[Protonpilot]

I would suggest that plan text would apply - if included - with the caveat that it cannot contravene the law, statute, or subsequent prevailing ruling.

My plan states the following: “ Upon retirement, you can elect to receive your pension benefit in one of the following ways: ”

So it makes clear, pension benefits are only available after I retire. I cannot be an active employee of the company associated with the pension plan and draw a pension benefit.

I got a look at our DB plan text, the latest version is circa 2016. We have similar language at mainline (bold emphasis added):

"A member who retires...shall be granted during his lifetime a monthly pension..."

This also seems to apply for deferred pensions payable to members who retire before being eligible for an unreduced pension:

"On termination of employment, a member shall be granted a deferred annual pension..."

I don't think this a surprise to most people, that a pension is paid when you retire. Not before.

Even our CWIPP plan, which is managed entirely by a third party, holds to this rule. Air Canada pilots have to retire from Air Canada before they can start drawing their CWIPP pension.