Has WJ ALPA expressed any commentary on the new company edict?JBI wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 8:53 pmrudder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 3:52 pmWJ would have to file a response if an individual or class action complaint was filed with the CHRT.
WJ would also have to file a response if a grievance filed was as an individual or a group in relation to an alleged violation of the terms of the WJ ALPA CBA.
Given that AC has been successful in defending such challenges, one can reasonable presume that WJ would prevail provided it can supply accurate and verifiable data that a BFOR for line flying is sustained and that accommodation is either not possible or creates an excessive or unreasonable burden.
rudder is spot on on the process.
While the AC decision is definitely something that will be looked at closely and there's a very highly likelihood that it will ultimately rule the day, I think there are some key differences between WJ and AC when it comes to determining both if it's a BFOR or if accommodating pilots on the 737 is undue hardship.
Even though I have represented clients at the CHRT before, it's been over 10 years and I'm not up to date on the latest caselaw, so I'm not sure how the CHRT weighs accommodation in a person's main job (i.e. pilot) or if an entirely separate job (i.e. dispatcher) is sufficient. For as long as I've been at WJ/Encore, the Company has provided accommodation to those over 65 by having domestic only schedules. I think one of the key considerations would be why, now, doing those domestic only schedules has become undue hardship. At some point with more and more pilots over 65, there is a strong argument that making such schedules is indeed becomes undue hardship. Conversely, I'd say there's also an argument that for a limited number of pilots, the company has already shown that accommodations are possible.
While the Company deciding to create a deadline for pilots to retire doesn't surprise me, the manner in which they've done it all but guarantees a CHRT challenge. I would have preferred to see them take a more strategic approach of given options of a pay-out, limited time period of domestic only flying (Some airlines in Oceana/Asia do this - pilots can fly international until 65 and then domestic only until 67), opportunities to go to Encore as a DEC with their YOS or perhaps training roles. It would give pilots more opportunities to earn an income after 65 if they so choose and allows the company to both retain a certain amount of experience and, more likely, avoid years of CHRT applications.
For those putting out negative GTFO posts, while maybe ethically it's different, legally, it's the same thing as saying "ugh, why do women want to fly? If you're a woman you should be married, have kids and be supported by a husband and not fly for airlines. They need to take longer maternity leave anyways, why should we let them fly?" Age, like gender, race, religion and disability etc are protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The reality is that an AR exception can only exist with an ally. So it will require either the employer or the bargaining agent or the CHRT to advocate. One can presume that the employer would only do so if retention of AR pilots was critical to the operation. The bargaining agent must enforce the terms of the CBA being cognizant of DFR exposure. And the CHRT is only there to enforce the Charter subject to local application (meaning BFOR and duty to accommodate issues specific to the case).
Any WJ pilot has the right to file a grievance. But the ability to advance to arbitration is subject to WJ MEC approval.
Any WJ pilot has the right to file a complaint of age discrimination before the CHRT. However, there is no obligation on the bargaining agent to either represent the complainant nor support the arguments made in the filing. In point of fact, the bargaining agent can take a position in opposition to the application or the requested remedies.
This will go one of two ways:
1. An AC style CHRT ruling (no AR)
2. A Jazz/ALPA style AR LOU (would require either a positive CHRT AR ruling or WJ ALPA support). Limits on total AR candidates. Limits on equipment types and bases for AR candidates. No reserve bidding. Mandatory bidding on pairings containing domestic only city pairs (further restricted by routings transiting US airspace). No obligation for the company to generate such pairings. Bidding on flying remains seniority based (no AR elevated bidding seniority). No eligibility for disability benefits. Ability to bid training positions subject to availability, qualification, and requirements of flying currency per the CBA and the CAR’s.
What Jazz and JAZ ALPA did was the bare minimum based on potential CHRT intervention with the WJ AR provisions known. Each party set out to do the least on behalf of AR pilots. The result is extremely unappealing to most AR eligible pilots (perhaps by design).
