Labour code

[Meatservo]

Today, I got a form letter from the Labour guys. The fellow writing the letter claims to have been asked by the Honourable Joe Fontana to undertake a comprehensive review of Federal Labour Standards. He writes that his mandate is to consider how the needs of workers and employers have changed over time and to consult Canadians about workplace issues that concern them. He goes on to write that he encourages and welcomes written submissions and comments from interested parties. This can be done through the website or by mail at:

Federal Labour standards review
165 Hotel de Ville
Place du Portage, Phase II
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0J2


info@fls-ntf.gc.ca

Now, what I should point out at this point is that MY program at work is a damn sight better than the conditions stipulated in the Federal Labour Code. So I'm not trying to start a riot here. But I've noticed that many other hardworking (and some not so hardworking)people have jobs that fall well short of these guidelines.
There are some perfectly legal reasons for this:

(I'm directly quoting the Labour code here:)

"The hours of work provisions of the Code do not apply to employees who are managers or superintendents or who excersise management functions or to members of architectural, dental, engineering, legal, or medical professions. Managers are also excluded from coverage under the unjust dismissal provisions."

In my opinion, whether your current employer wants you to feel like you are a professional or a manager or not, no employer would hesitate to concede that any flight crew member "excersises management functions" if it suited his purpose to do so in a labour dispute.

"Special regulations cover certain classes of workers in specific industries, such as, for example city and highway transport drivers"

"Special provisions apply to workers in "continuous operations" and to managerial and professional employees"

Pilots are, incidentally, clasified as "semi-professional", along with nurses, teachers, police officers, accountants, etc. What I have to believe this means is that we're exempt from regulations that would protect our right to some time off, but not to those that don't.

My point is that a great deal of text in the federal labour code is devoted to the purpose of excluding anyone who isn't a lazy, uneducated, hourly paid, unskilled underachieving drone.

Therefore, the only Labour Guidelines your employer needs to heed are the duty time and flight time regulations in the CARS.

We are all familiar with these. You think that "one period of 24 consecutive hours" means a whole day off. It doesn't. If the end of your 14-hour duty day is at noon on thursday, and you are entitled to 24 consecutive hours off because of the 60 hours you've flown in the last 7 days, you don't have to come in to work until noon on Friday. That's your "day off".
There's more, of course. We're all familiar with the way Transport Canada pretends to protect us and the public with these regulations, while pandering to employers who believe that these are a minimum expectation of effort on your part. (" I don't understand why he's so tired and cranky- he's not even dutied out".)

Now, I understand that those who are paid by the mile stand to make a great deal more money if they are allowed to work more than the standard federal maximum 48 hours a week, or 8 hours a day. (interestingly, standard hours are 8 per day or 40 per week, overtime to be paid after the 8 hours or for any in excess of 40 up to an absolute maximum of 48 per week) I'm sure this is the original spirit of the exemptions that are made for "proffesionals". Employers, however, have distorted the spirit of these exemptions, by lowering wages to compensate (so that you have to work maximum hours to make enough) and by encouraging people to feel as if they are only working to the minimum expectation if they exceed the maximum permissible by law.

This is a separate, but related, issue to the WAGE issue. Some people work as co-pilots for far less than they can live on, and I can't find anything in the labour code that makes that legal, unless they are being classified as "part time" labour.

Anyway, that's what you're up against. The Federal Labour Code offers us no protection, or recourse to the Law, as professionals or managers, or "continuous service" workers, against abuses to our quality of life by some, dare I say most, employers. I personally consider myself to be imposed upon if I don't receive days off in the ratio of two off for every five worked. If I was working a seasonal job like firefighting or seaplane flying, I would work on holidays and days off with the expectation of having these days banked and given back, paid, at the end of the season.

In response to the inevitable comment "If you don't like it, get out", I would say, somebodyneeds to fly the aeroplanes in this country, and that somebody should receive equitable treatment. Every single person in this country absolutely deserves adequate time to spend with their wives, or kids, or boats, or whatever it is, besides flying, that makes your life worth while. Don't let your employer let you feel as if he has a right to this time.

People who have something to say, should first read the Labour code to discover for themselves the extent to which they are not being protected, then write an intelligent, well-considered and polite letter to Harry W. Arthurs at the address above. Get your wife or girlfriend to proof-read it before you send it. You can bet that your employer, who may or may not be better at writing letters than you, has this guy's address. I am some people's employer, and I got this guy's letter inviting me to comment. Make sure you get your two cents in too. Just make sure your spelling is correct. We should not wish to appear unprofessional.

Cheers guys.

[ahramin]

I never realized the fed labour code was so useless. Like meatservo i do not have any complaints anyone who does have complaints is welcome so send me your draft in confidence and i will proof-read it for you. Or if you are the artistic type, i might consider writing a letter for someone who has a lot of good info/complaints but can't put it together. PM me.

[avcanada]

Great post Meatservo.

I will be sending my thoughts via the email above.

[CD]

Here are some links for ya:

Canada Labour Code, Part I

Canada Labour Code, Part II

Aviation Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

Canada Labour Code, Part III

Of course, it appears as though only Part III is under review at this point in time:

Modifications to other parts of the Canada Labour Code were made in the past few years. In 1999, changes were made to Part I (Industrial Relations) of the Code. These changes included streamlining and modernizing the collective bargaining process. Part II (Occupational Safety and Health) was modified in 2000. The new legislation created a better balance between the roles of government, employers and employees by enabling workplace parties to assume more responsibility for their own work place health and safety. Also, the Employment Equity Act was reviewed in 2002, this review bringing forth recommendations to improve the administrative effectiveness of the legislation.

The review of Part III of the Canada Labour Code will complete the process of modernizing federal labour legislation. The final report of the review and recommendations are to be submitted to the Minister of Labour and Housing by January 2006.

Minister Fontana announces appointment to lead review of federal labour standards

Audit of Labour Program Part III of the Canada Labour Code

[looproll]

for Alberta

overtime is all hours worked in excess of:

eight hours a day, and/or
44 hours a week.

check out http://www3.gov.ab.ca/hre/employmentstandards/index.asp

you do have recourse against unfair employers!

[twotter]

Except that provincial standards and laws don't apply to us in aviation.

[Canmoron]

I agree that the Labour Codes (federal and provincial) appear to provide lttle protection for employees, however, I do not think that it is a good idea to rely on government regulations.

I have worked as a general employee, a supervisor, and in a union. In all positions, I worked outside of the labour regulations, but never outside of safety regulations. Most of the time I received as much benefit as the company did.

I have found that a careful review of the job description, and if necessary a written employment contract, offers more protection and benefit. Regulations by nature are general, and can only be applied in a blanket fashion. Communication between an employer and employee is far more likely to create a specific solution to unique circumstances.

Ultimately, as long as safety is not compromised, an employee and employer should be able to agree on the best way to deal with the unique requirements of their business. If an agreement cannot be made then the two parties can go their separate ways. Reading through this forum, I think that there is a general consensus, that if one employer does not treat employees well, that employer will at least have high turnover, if not an employee shortage.

[fatdumbandlazy]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves in saying that the Labour Code doesn't apply to pilots. It is true that employers have a strong argument in the areas of not paying overtime, hours of work in a day exceeding 8 hours and time free from duty.

But pilots as people are protected under the Labour Code for unsafe working conditions, how we are hired and fired and foremost how we are paid for our troubles.

Its amazing as to how fast some employers move to fix a problem when you mention Labour Standards. It's worked for me with a former employer and I am grateful for the help I received from the fine people at Labour Standards .

[sakism]

Twotter wasn't saying that Labour Code doesn't apply to pilots. He was saying that Alberta Labour codes don't apply to pilots (in response to the post by Looproll.

Aviation is goverened by Federal Labour codes. Otherwise we would have to work to numerous different Labour Codes in one day!

"We over Alberta yet? Well pour the coals to 'er - I want to be over Alberta when overtime kicks in!!"

[fatdumbandlazy]

You bet the provincal labor standards apply. Those are the one's that I used to square away my dispute with my former employer. It was a relatively simple matter of which envoking the Labour Standards from my province expedited a matter I foresaw taking several matters to settle.

The standards that will not apply are the ones that are supersceeded by the AOSH standards such as hours of work and working conditions.

There are several areas not addressed in the CLC and AOSH that is left up to the provinces and this is where they would apply. Matters of dispute settlement, payment of wages owed and how you can enter or exit a job are covered provincially.

[2024]

every one at skyward should stick together on the whole getting paid issue, because the voice of many is much louder than the voice of one. the labour reg's at the federal level are the key to this matter.

[snaproll20]

Thanks, Meatservo, for another POSITIVE and INFORMATIONAL post.

I believe we are subject to Federal rather than Provincial Labour Codes, as pilots.
If I am wrong, it still does not matter, the point being, if a person applied for a decision under both, they would wind up getting nowhere while the two beaurocracies tussled and the offender could sit back and laugh.

There is little doubt that some employers have a total disregard for employees and treat them like s**t. I have known companies where everyone did whatever it took to make things work, but one could expect some loyalty back from the owner in return. (One employer once told me that if I had an injury, he would rather send me to Hawaii to recover than have to deal with Worker's Compensation.) The employers who do not care will dump a pilot at the first opportunity. They do the same when they fire hard working and loyal pilots who have been hampered in their performance by the owner's unwillingness to spend a few bucks to make things work properly. (The short cuts you learned and were expected to take were not in the Company Operations Manual, so being guilty, you're fired!)

There is no doubt in my mind that the Employment Act basically gives the employer the hammer on employees. While the past fifteen years have seen some progress with more people willing to sue for wrongful dismissal, it is still a tough row to hoe and there may be a stigma attached to a prospective employee who has successfully sued a previous employer.

Still, the Employment Act is the only thing we have going for us as employees, so I hope anyone with an opinion will send it in.

[inverter]

Anybody know if this goes for just Canada, or are the laws similar to that of Europe and the US. Just for the sake of reference to compare, and to see how we as pilots are looked at at here versus Europe/US.

[Widow]

I'm bumping this because of a discussion in the bush forum.

Does anyone know what happened with this review? If there were any proposed changes to the Act? It looks as though a few people may have written in to express their opinions, but this thread was started over two years ago, and one would have thought that there would be results by now.

The discussion on the other forum, revolved around this SATOPs recommendation:

When a pilot is being paid by the mile or the hour flown, or is being paid only for completed flights, it puts pressure on the pilot to fly as many hours as possible and to complete the flights. These methods of remuneration have a direct and negative effect on the pilot's decision making, especially in seasonal operations where there are only a few weeks or months to work. Some operators offset this pressure by paying their pilots a fixed salary. Others require the client to pay for the flight time if the client wants to just "take a look" at the weather and the pilot doesn't complete the flight.

SR 37 - Recommend Transport Canada investigate a means to require air operators to remunerate pilots in a way that eliminates the operating pressures associated with the method of payment.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/syste ... ssures.htm

[twotter]

You bet the provincal labor standards apply. Those are the one's that I used to square away my dispute with my former employer. It was a relatively simple matter of which envoking the Labour Standards from my province expedited a matter I foresaw taking several matters to settle.

The standards that will not apply are the ones that are supersceeded by the AOSH standards such as hours of work and working conditions.

There are several areas not addressed in the CLC and AOSH that is left up to the provinces and this is where they would apply. Matters of dispute settlement, payment of wages owed and how you can enter or exit a job are covered provincially.

Actually no, they do not apply to transportation workers. If you were assisted by provincial standards, great, but the employer has no reason to comply with anything but the Federal labour code. Even for OSH TC is mandated for looking after that in our industry.




Canada Labour Code ( R.S., 1985, c. L-2 )
Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions (more).
Full Document for Printing [813Kb]
Act current to May 29th, 2007
Attention: See coming into force provision and notes, where applicable.
Back to search results
Table Of Contents Print Version
Sections and Schedules 1 ... 2PREAMBLE ... 161166 ... 267
Next
First hit

Canada Labour Code

L-2

An Act to consolidate certain statutes respecting labour

SHORT TITLE
Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canada Labour Code.

R.S., c. L-1, s. 1.

INTERPRETATION
Definitions

2. In this Act,

"federal work, undertaking or business"
«entreprises fédérales »
"federal work, undertaking or business" means any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

(a) a work, undertaking or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transportation by ship anywhere in Canada,

(b) a railway, canal, telegraph or other work or undertaking connecting any province with any other province, or extending beyond the limits of a province,

(c) a line of ships connecting a province with any other province, or extending beyond the limits of a province,

(d) a ferry between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada,

(e) aerodromes, aircraft or a line of air transportation,

(f) a radio broadcasting station,

(g) a bank or an authorized foreign bank within the meaning of section 2 of the Bank Act,

(h) a work or undertaking that, although wholly situated within a province, is before or after its execution declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces,

(i) a work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of the legislatures of the provinces, and

(j) a work, undertaking or activity in respect of which federal laws within the meaning of section 2 of the Oceans Act apply pursuant to section 20 of that Act and any regulations made pursuant to paragraph 26(1)(k) of that Act;


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... n?noCookie

[Chickaddd]

Meatservo! So you are alive and kicking up there. Good post.