Interesting perspective on AC/WJ Lawsuit....

[exbengal]

I shouldn't be wading into this Picher Award debate but I wanted to make one quick point.

Paragraph 13 in the Supreme Court decision to dismiss the Air Ontario lawsuit based on contract law states, "The Air Canada pilots were in negotiation with Air Canada for a new collective agreement at the time that the Picher Award was released. They refused to present a merged seniority list to Air Canada. The Picher Award had no practical force or effect without the agreement of the employer."

So in essence the Supreme Court says that the Picher Award was impotent without the agreement of the employer (Air Canada).

On March 23, 2004 under cross-examination Hollis Harris (the CEO of Air Canada at the time of the Picher Award) states...

1. He would never have agreed to a pilot seniority merger where the operations themselves were not merged

2. It was his personal view that any seniority merger which puts a regional pilot ahead of any mainline pilot would be unacceptabley unfair.

3. He opposed and would not have agreed to implement any seniority merger between Air Canada pilots and regional pilots under the Picher Award.

Now I am no lawyer, although I did play one in a high school play once, but the way I see it, no matter what was or wasn't agreed to vis a vis the Picher Award, Air Canada would not agree to it's implementation anyway.

Therefore, the Air Ontario pilots have no claim of harm as the list would not have been implemented.

Here we go again, yes the SCC dismissed it in contract law, but TORT law was upheld, thats why we have a certified class action lawsuit, with the blessing of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hollis Harris can say whatever he wants, unions agree to seniority lists and implement them not CEO's. That my friend is the Law in Canada otherwise this lawsuit would have been dismissed years ago.

[exbengal]

Certainly without the blessing from Air Canada and Jazz any Global Solution agreement would not be implemented. However, it may be nice to have it negotiated between the unions, even if the company(s) don't agree to it. Some day they may change their tune and agree to implementing it.

Bottom line is, the company(s) will want to have a look at any Global Solution before deciding on whether to implement it or not. Let's face it, no employer will agree to any seniority list until he determines the effect on his operation. If the employer deems it a good thing, it gets implemented. If the employer deems it detrimental to the operation, it gets shelved (for the time being anyway).

You are absolutly wrong Raven, unions implement seniority lists not companys or CEO's

[The Raven]

exbengal,

I refer you once again to paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court decision dismissing your lawsuit based on contract law. "The Picher Award had no practical force or effect without the agreement of the employer." Those aren't my words. They are the words of the Supreme Court.

Just a reminder, you failed to prove common employer. As far as the courts are concerned, Air Canada and Jazz are separate employers. You cannot force an employer to integrate seniority lists with another employer.

Finally, yes you may proceed under tort law. Paragraph 64 of the same Supreme Court decision states, "...a member who is harmed by the breach of the unions rules by another member may, if the requisite elements are present, have an action in tort against that member." I think that in light of the fact that Air Canada as a corporation was not going to agree to the Picher Award you will have a hard time proving any harm.

[The Raven]

exbengal,

One last tidbit before I shut down the computer and open the wine.

While you may proceed under tort law remember that the Ontario Court of Appeal expressed serious doubts that those tort claims had any merit. The Ontario Court of Appeal wrote, and I quote:

"It is by no means clear to me that, in the final analysis, the tort claims asserted are tenable. The tort claims are significantly dependent upon the same contract that has been found not to give rise to a right of action. Union activities are inherently colllective in nature. The collective action alleged to give rise to a conspiracy claim is the same collective action that does not give rise to the right of action in contract put forward here."

Now, I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule on your class action law suit. This is your final Hail Mary pass, so to speak. If you win, congratulations. If you lose, you will be on the hook for some huge legal fees.

[cyyz]

If you lose, you will be on the hook for some huge legal fees.

Thats what the union dues are for....

[RussD]

Actually you are absolutely wrong. Common employer was assumed (from previous board action) the issue of harm from seperate bargaining units was the issue. Madam Pinot dismissed this notion. Of interest she has subsequently (and for all the mainline freeks) privately admitted to making grave errors given consequential actions of the common employer.

"Court sanctioned auctions" to capture employment opportunities. Good grief how complelling does it need to be. However,, might is right and all of that. Good luck to the ex AON complainants.

exbengal,

I refer you once again to paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court decision dismissing your lawsuit based on contract law. "The Picher Award had no practical force or effect without the agreement of the employer." Those aren't my words. They are the words of the Supreme Court.

Just a reminder, you failed to prove common employer. As far as the courts are concerned, Air Canada and Jazz are separate employers. You cannot force an employer to integrate seniority lists with another employer.

Finally, yes you may proceed under tort law. Paragraph 64 of the same Supreme Court decision states, "...a member who is harmed by the breach of the unions rules by another member may, if the requisite elements are present, have an action in tort against that member." I think that in light of the fact that Air Canada as a corporation was not going to agree to the Picher Award you will have a hard time proving any harm.

[sportingrifle]

Quick comparison with a less high tech situation.

Lets say you lay off an employee but forget to collect the key to front door. He goes to work for your compeditor and tells them that he still has a key to the door. They ask him to go back after closing time and photocopy some commercially strategic files. A little while later they actually make a copy of the key for themslvrs and go back every night for a year and make use of the companies files. They even talk about hiring more employees from the company in case they change the locks! So what's the difference? Just curious?

sportingrifle

[sportingrifle]

By the way, that was about the AC/WJ lawsuit, not the off topic Picher rant.

[exbengal]

exbengal,

I refer you once again to paragraph 13 of the Supreme Court decision dismissing your lawsuit based on contract law. "The Picher Award had no practical force or effect without the agreement of the employer." Those aren't my words. They are the words of the Supreme Court.

Just a reminder, you failed to prove common employer. As far as the courts are concerned, Air Canada and Jazz are separate employers. You cannot force an employer to integrate seniority lists with another employer.

Finally, yes you may proceed under tort law. Paragraph 64 of the same Supreme Court decision states, "...a member who is harmed by the breach of the unions rules by another member may, if the requisite elements are present, have an action in tort against that member." I think that in light of the fact that Air Canada as a corporation was not going to agree to the Picher Award you will have a hard time proving any harm.

Raven, what a load of crap your posting is, you just take a selected line from the SCC decision and twist it, just like the media in dealing with airline issues.

To paraphrase the whole paragraph 13, in the SCC decision, it starts off by saying that the ac pilots were in negiotations at that time and refused to bring the Picher award forward, then it says without the decision to bring it forward by the ac group the award had no pratical effect without the agreement from the employer.

AC is a publicly traded company, the minutes from the meeting's with the AC negots team and management are entered as evidence, I'm quite comfortable with them, the SCC must be comfortable with them otherwise this would have been dismissed years ago, but its still alive and well.

FYI after every battle in the courts damages are awarded, not at the end of all this, why don't you ask acpa what they have paid so far.

I'll take my chances with the "hail mary"

[land3]

OK gents.......I'm afraid there's enougfh interest here for another topic.

I'm starting a new string called "Picher"....so let's separate the two strings.

I'll post the last Picher reply there.

Thanks