Age 65 Ruling

[yycflyguy]

The Human Rights Tribunal determined that it is not discriminatory to have an age 60 retirement and does not contravene the Charter.

[circlingfor69]

Great news! But where are you hearing this from? I cant' seem to find this anywhere else. I sure hope its true!!

[CD]

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision

Yahoo! News:

Air Canada can force pilots to retire at 60, human rights tribunal rules

ROSS MAROWITS

MONTREAL (CP) - Two former Air Canada (TSX:AC.B - news) pilots didn't face age discrimination when Canada's largest airline forced them to retire at age 60, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled Friday.

The tribunal said the position of pilot carries significant prestige and neither man experienced "age-related disadvantages or negative stereotyping."

"The tribunal finds that age 60 is the normal age of retirement ... for persons working in positions similar to the positions of the complainants," said the judgment.

"As such, the mandatory retirement policy of Air Canada does not constitute a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act."

The decision followed hearings that took place in January and March.

George Vilven of Airdrie, Alta., and Robert Neil Kelly of Oakwood, Ont., launched their challenges after the airline forced them into retirement when they turned 60 in 2003 and 2005 respectively.

Supporting their cause was a group of pilots who belong to the Fly Past 60 Coalition.

Vilven said he's disappointed with the ruling and plans to appeal, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court.

"I thought maybe it would happen that way but I just assumed that in Canada this wouldn't be the case," he said in an interview.

The 62-year-old said the policy is out of synch with Canadian society and the airlines of many other countries.

His real fight appears to have been with his union, which he said rejected Air Canada's offer to mediate a resolution.

Capt. Andy Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said the ruling recognized the rights of the collective bargaining process, which resulted in the setting of the retirement age on behalf of the airline's 3,000 pilots.

"Collective bargaining is a process that is one of the policies of Canada and obviously as an association we think members of the union are in the best position to understand what their self-interests are and should be allowed to negotiate that," he said in an interview.

Wilson said the fixed age of retirement benefits its members and received vast support from pilots.

"They determined by a three-to-one margin that they prefer the system that's been in place for over 50 years."

Air Canada welcomed the ruling.

"It confirms that our retirement policy complies with the law and was fairly applied in the case of these individuals," spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said.

Although some pilots are employed by the airline following retirement, they work as instructors in ground schools and simulators.

The tribunal said 60 is the normal retirement age for pilots who fly with regularly scheduled, international flights with major airlines. Consequently, it is neither discriminatory nor contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The purpose of (the section of the Act) is to strike a balance between the need for protection against age discrimination and the desirability of those in the workplace to bargain for an organize their own terms of employment," read the 20-page ruling.

Both complainants quickly resumed their piloting careers with other Canadian airlines that have no age maximums.

Kelly testified that he was offered employment with Skyservice Airlines as he was returning his security pass to Air Canada.

As a pilot with nearly 33 years of service, Kelly earns about $10,000 a month in pension. His Skyservice job adds another $72,000 per year. Vilven's pension is less lucrative because of his shorter work history.

Canada has no maximum licensing age for airline pilots.

However, pilots over 40 are required to have physical examinations every six months, while younger pilots undergo annual exams.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed in January to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial pilots. The move adheres to new standards approved in March 2006 by the International Civil Aviation Organization that raises the maximum age for pilots.

The United Nations agency also established a standard that one of the pilots in a two-pilot crew be younger than 60.

[twinpratts]

This is HUGE.

[hithere]

ACPA's lawyers win again. Can someone tell me the last time they lost? These guys are bloody invinceable! Only problem is that soon AC will soon be the only airline in the world who must retire at 60

[Crackberry]

ACPA's lawyers win again. Can someone tell me the last time they lost? These guys are bloody invinceable! Only problem is that soon AC will soon be the only airline in the world who must retire at 60

And who cares that they are the only ones with an age 60 retirement that's what we wanted at AC. But thanks for caring.

[Lakelad]

ACPA's lawyers win again. Can someone tell me the last time they lost?

Dec28/06 - failed in injunction against AC for distribution of Aeroplan shares
Sep01/06 - CIRB dismissed ACPA challenge of Teplitsky seniority decision

[Watch Out]

ACPA's lawyers win again. Can someone tell me the last time they lost?

Dec28/06 - failed in injunction against AC for distribution of Aeroplan shares
Sep01/06 - CIRB dismissed ACPA challenge of Teplitsky seniority decision

That's why ACPA chose to go with Bruce Laughton this time around. He was the lawyer who represented the Former Canadian Pilots in the Adam's Award (on pension). He hasn't lost in a long time.

[sportingrifle]

Um, uh I thought that legal decisions sometimes were dependent on the merits of the case.

[JayDee]

Battle lost or War Won !

http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm

[Lost in Saigon]

The Human Rights Tribunal determined that it is not discriminatory to have an age 60 retirement and does not contravene the Charter.

Not quite.

The HRT determined that it is not discriminatory to have age 60 retirements for Vilven and Kelly.

They retired prior to the ICAO age 65 rule.


[57] This normative approach asks one to search for the existence of a rule governing the maximum age of retirement in the airline industry. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the ICAO maximum age provision qualifies as such a rule or standard because it governs the same community of international carriers that the Tribunal has chosen as comparators to determine “positions similar” to the complainants’ position.

[69] This data reveal that age 60 was the mandatory retirement age for the majority of positions that were similar to that of the complainants at the time of their retirements in 2003 and 2005. This was the normal age of retirement for the purposes of s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA. The result is that Air Canada’s mandatory retirement age policy is not a discriminatory practice under the CHRA.

[Rockie]

ACPA's lawyers win again. Can someone tell me the last time they lost? These guys are bloody invinceable! Only problem is that soon AC will soon be the only airline in the world who must retire at 60

And who cares that they are the only ones with an age 60 retirement that's what we wanted at AC. But thanks for caring.

It's not what me and a lot of others wanted. And those hired since the vote and on into the future have not been asked and have no say in the matter...yet.

You are denying me the right to retire after sixty because you want to be as high up the seniority list as possible when you retire at sixty. That displeases me greatly especially since I have no wish to take away your right to retire at sixty with no penalty if you want to, and would vehemently support any measure to ensure that short of giving up my own rights.

This is going to turn bitter eventually and ACPA is on the wrong side of the tide. If ACPA were smart they would recognize the inevitablility of this and support age sixty five while working to guarantee the right of those already on the property to retire at sixty if they wish with no penalty. That's what ALPA's doing and if our pilot's weren't so self-centered (and ultimately self-defeating) they would get on board and combine forces to ensure the rights and interests of everyone are protected.

[Brick Head]

The Human Rights Tribunal determined that it is not discriminatory to have an age 60 retirement and does not contravene the Charter.

Not quite.

The HRT determined that it is not discriminatory to have age 60 retirements for Vilven and Kelly.

They retired prior to the ICAO age 65 rule.


[57] This normative approach asks one to search for the existence of a rule governing the maximum age of retirement in the airline industry. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the ICAO maximum age provision qualifies as such a rule or standard because it governs the same community of international carriers that the Tribunal has chosen as comparators to determine “positions similar” to the complainants’ position.

[69] This data reveal that age 60 was the mandatory retirement age for the majority of positions that were similar to that of the complainants at the time of their retirements in 2003 and 2005. This was the normal age of retirement for the purposes of s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA. The result is that Air Canada’s mandatory retirement age policy is not a discriminatory practice under the CHRA.

The decision needs to be read as a whole.

Paragraph 57 refers to maximum age and not normal age. The tribunal has upheld that ACPA has a right to set a mandatory retirement age as long as it is the normal age of retirement for "similar positions".

So what does the Tribunal think is normal? What is similar? Well that is spelled out too. Similar is other world wide legacy carriers. Normal is determined by adding the total number of pilots up and seeing what percentage retire at 60.

So the tribunal in all it's wisdom has not only upheld ACPA's right to set a mandatory date but has also given clear guidance to ACPA and AC on how to stay within what the Tribunal views as normal. For the moment we are within what they consider normal. 80% in fact retire at 60.

However, as we know, things are changing.

Once 50% of world wide legacy carrier pilots no longer retire at 60 the age has to be raised. It can be raised just enough to regain a majority or it can be raised to 65. Our choice. We still have that right. The Maximum of 65 is to protect us from a foreign county that say goes to 75 or something. It prevents a foreign jurisdiction from having unwanted affects on what is normal here in Canada.

They made it easy for us pain in the ars, always bickering, self centered, pilots. A formula to a maximum of 65. Even we can figure that out.

The tribunal has set out both guidance determining what is normal mandatory retirement age and at the same time done so in a fashion that lets us mitigate harm to younger pilots through both time and control within certain boundaries.

[Brick Head]

[quote="Rockie"][quote="Crackberry"][quote="hithere"]

You are denying me the right to retire after sixty because you want to be as high up the seniority list as possible when you retire at sixty. That displeases me greatly especially since I have no wish to take away your right to retire at sixty with no penalty if you want to, and would vehemently support any measure to ensure that short of giving up my own rights.

quote]

Rockie,

"Short of giving up my own rights" wiped out everything you said prior it. You a lawyer?

Pension penalty (for going early) and not achieving your best 5 years of pay, are separate issues. You know full well that for every individual that goes beyond 60 another does not get their best 5 years in for pension purposes. I understand you very clearly when you state "will vehemently support any measure to ensure that does not happen short of " you giving something up.

Considering the collective pie is only so big. And considering the collective pie would not have gotten larger after a favorable ruling for you. How on earth would people junior to you, not be hurt, unless you were willing to give something up?

This is the Tribunals view.

[22] Air Canada pilots are covered by a very generous pension plan. It has two parts: the first is the Registered Retirement Pension Plan governed by the Income Tax Act and the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act; the second is the Supplemental Pension Plan. It provides pensions higher than the maximum permitted by the Income Tax Act. These supplemental pensions are funded by payments from Air Canada’s general revenues. The pension plan benefits are part of the compensation package negotiated on behalf of Air Canada pilots by ACPA.

[100] In the present case, ACPA and Air Canada agreed to retirement at age 60 in exchange for the rich compensation package, including a pension plan that put Air Canada pilots in an elite group of pensioners. Mr. Harlan Clarke, Manager Labour Relations Flight Operations at Air Canada, identified an important characteristic of a mandatory retirement policy, namely, that employees, including Air Canada pilots, are not faced with the indignity of retiring because they have been found to be incapable of performing the requirements of their position or because of failing health. Rather, retirement at age 60 for pilots is the fully understood and anticipated conclusion of a prestigious and financially rewarding career.

[Rockie]

Brickhead

I'm defending my rights that you took away. Why would I willingly give them up. I am also, unlike you, not prepared to scrifice one side of this debate for the other. ALPA is working to make sure neither side of the debate loses out while recognizing that they can't stop this change from happening. The degree to which they are successful depends on the persistence of their pilot group. You guys haven't even tried and aren't willing to. You want to have one vote, keep the status quo and wash your hands of the whole affair. Well...you can't. The world's changing.

People junior to me (and there aren't many) won't be hurt because they will still be governed by the same rules I am. It's an even playing field. If I want to still retire at 60 that's my business and should be my choice. If I don't want to give up my working conditions or increase my best five years I still have the absolute ability to do that by working to sixty five.

[circlingfor69]

Rockie,

How are your 'Human Rights' being voilated? You took the job at AC knowing that they had a mandated retirement age of 60. It is the height of hypocrisy to now say that you are somehow being voilated!

A major reason for the latest hiring wave at AC is due to pilots retireing. If you want the choice to fly to 65 then go work for SkyService, WestJet, or Jazz. There are plenty of other great choices.

Part of being a pilot at AC is "enjoying" the representation of a union. However the protection of a union comes with a price, and that price is giving up some things for yourself for the greater good of the pilot group at large. At like it or not the vast majority of pilots at AC want the madated retirement age of 60 to stay!

[lawndart]

I wonder how much this issue would change if (for argument's sake only) the retirement plan at AC was a defined contribution, self directed type, rather than a defined benefit plan.

[Al707]

"height of hipocracy" YUP!

Totally agree circling.

These same fellows were not arguing for 65 when they were 45 now were they? They wanted a chance to move up just like everybody else does now.

Full pension at 60's a good gig and worth holding onto.

You joined on it so, live with it or negotiate or vote for change.

[Lost in Saigon]

Many pilots being hired now are in their 30's and even 40's. These pilots will not retire with a full pension if they retire at 60.

[. .]

the guys who are being hired in the late 30's or 40's won't get the full pension even if they let them fly to 65. Perhaps they need to reduce the term to get full benefits to 30years or perhaps even 25 to allow most of these new hires to be able to max out.

[augustus777]

Rockie “People junior to me (and there aren't many) won't be hurt”

If there is something I can’t stand, it’s young argent bastards so I’m going to be as deferential as possible.
The tribunal said that the current system allows younger pilots to move up the seniority ranks and eventually fly the coveted international routes.
What this amounts to is carpadium.
You had your 30 years now give us ours please.

[The Raven]

From the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Ruling:


[107] In addition, the pilots’ status, income, the base from which they flew, the choice of
schedules and the pension plan benefits they received, among other things, were negotiated on the
basis of the mandatory retirement provision. Having reaped the benefit of mandatory retirement,
it should not be perceived as unfair to require the complainants to ultimately bear the burden of
that policy.


[108] The complainants may be unhappy about ending their rewarding careers as pilots with
Air Canada. But that situation cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in the context of a
system that was designed to assign the responsibilities and benefits of being an Air Canada pilot
over different stages in the pilots’ careers. All pilots in Air Canada understand that they will share
these benefits and burdens equally at the appropriate stages in their careers.

In other words, throughout their career, the senior pilots at Air Canada have reaped the rewards of a mandatory retirement provision.
When they reach age 60 it is their turn to bear the burden of that policy and retire gracefully (as others before them have done).

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

"I'm defending my rights that you took away. "

When was the right to work past 60, at AC, taken from you? Did you ever have that right? Maybe it would be a little more accurate to state that you were prevented from extending your rights? Secondly it is called collective bargaining. We, including you, choose this for ourselves. The length of time at AC is directly related to the opportunity to institute change, therefore the longer you have been here, the more ownership of the collective agreement, and your own fate. You chose this for yourself when you accepted employment at AC and every time you voted yes to a collective agreement.

ALPA is working to make sure neither side of the debate loses out while recognizing that they can't stop this change from happening. The degree to which they are successful depends on the persistence of their pilot group.

They lost their pensions. See above quote from CHRT. Our collective ability to attain that pension is the reason the CHRT is leaving us alone. It is the reason exceptions were placed in the human Rights Act in the first place. Rights are never limitless. Sometimes limiting the rights of individuals is acceptable in the face of the collective good. The Human rights Act recognizes that.

That is why this is part of the Act.

[i]"Mandatory retirement is not a discriminatory practice when a person has reached the normal retirement age for employees performing the same type of work.[/i]

You guys haven't even tried and aren't willing to. You want to have one vote, keep the status quo and wash your hands of the whole affair.

That is correct. It is called collective bargaining and under present rules we can legally set a mandatory retirement age if we collectively decide to do so as long as it is normal.


Well...you can't. The world's changing.

Correct again. You won. The tribunal just gave us a formula to determine normal. We now have clear goal posts. Those goal posts are moving as we speak. You know it. I know it. ACPA knows it. The ruling just came out yesterday. Perhaps a little time to access, and discuss is not inappropriate?

I would think if the changes in the states do happen we will be forced to change as well. But for that to happen, first the legislation will have to be passed. Then it will have to be negotiated into collective agreements US. Once 50% of pilots in legacy carriers no longer retire at 60 we will have to change upward ourselves. Maybe incrementally or in one leap. We will have to decide.

People junior to me (and there aren't many) won't be hurt because they will still be governed by the same rules I am. It's an even playing field.

Doesn't look that level from down here. Looks like one field for those who have enjoyed mandatory retirement at 60 and another for those who retire post changes.

You won. Just a matter of time now.

[Old fella]

Question. If an Air Canada pilot has to officially retire at age 60 what is the length of service required for said individual to get max pensionable time of 70% (35 years x 2% per year) because it would be highly unlikely that pilot would get to the 35 yrs of service unless he/she started with AC at 25 yrs of age.

Just asking and not meaning to flame any pro/con debate

[Brick Head]

Question. If an Air Canada pilot has to officially retire at age 60 what is the length of service required for said individual to get max pensionable time of 70% (35 years x 2% per year) because it would be highly unlikely that pilot would get to the 35 yrs of service unless he/she started with AC at 25 yrs of age.

Just asking and not meaning to flame any pro/con debate

35 years is required service for a max pension with a 2% reduction for every year less than 35. The term penalty in our pension is reserved for retiring before 60. It is also 2%/year. They are compounded for an individual retiring at 58 and 30 years of service for example.

However of equal importance is your final average earning for the last 5 years. The pension is more like 60% of the best 5 years.

Being able to work longer does not necessarily mean a larger pension. The 2% reduction per year will be reduced but you can easily end up with a situation where someone works a few years longer but ends up with less pension because their final average earnings are lower, due to senior people staying to 65, blocking individuals from achieving a high enough final average earnings for a max pension.

Since CCAA there are only about 600 jobs that still have a high enough wage to achieve a max pension. Prior to CCAA this number was way larger.

Fact is most do not get 35 years in, nor will most get a left seat in a wide body for 5 years. Raising the retirement age does not mean more pension. It may for those determined to go to 65, but the flip side is that it means less pension for those who still want to retire at 60.