CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[Understated]

Flypast60 update Dec 24 ...

Mr. Hall does not state the rational would be a fairer system in light of the change upon us. He specifically targets that any change to bidding and pay parameters would be for one purpose only. ... He is declaring any contractual change that applies to post 60 pilots as discrimination.

Two things. First, you obviously have someone within the Coalition providing you with the confidential updates that are provided only to the Coalition members. Spies. Got to love them. Good sleuthing! Great ethics.

Second, what is the source of the document that you are quoting above? Is it an MEC e-mail? Is it a Committee transmittal? Or more probably, is it an ACPA staff briefing note from your YVR-based support staff person, given that he is likely the only one who would call Mr. Hall, "Mr. Hall," rather than referring to him by some other epithet?

Why do you have it, yet the general membership of ACPA, including line drivers such as I, were not provided with it? Have I no right to be properly informed, simply because my view conflicts with yours?

What other communication is there that is going on among the protagonists that is not being disclosed to the membership? Do the members of the union not have any right to be informed of what ACPA is doing and saying internally about this conflict? Or is it a totally closed shop, where anyone who might disagree with the MEC's ageist agenda should be excluded?

Is the ACPA leadership now any different from the CALPA leadership of 1995? In crowd. Out crowd. Winners. Losers.

I pay my union dues, and you are required to represent my interests. Right? Isn't that the way that it works? Word is that Vilven and Kelly got a letter from ACPA recently telling them that they will be charged union dues on their damage award. Union dues for the "representation" of ACPA during the period when ACPA openly stated that it does not represent them! Go figure!

What representation? Representation before the Tribunal in support of Air Canada's termination of their employment? Representation before the Tribunal in opposition to their damage award? Good work, ACPA. Nice representation. Enjoy the 1.5%. Totally reasonable. It's only right! You can use it to pay part of the $15 million awarded when the next remedy decisions are rendered.

You know, honestly, it really is time for change here.

[Rockie]

Brickhead

ACPA has not given it any thought, and shows no sign of doing so despite recent events and the inevitable outcome of all this.

Absolute fabrication of the truth. Blatantly false. If you would bother to pick up a phone and inform yourself, you would know better.

I get all the mailings Brickhead, and I don't recall seeing anything from ACPA stating they were doing anything but continuing on their long held course of fighting this to the bitter end. But if they are actually taking steps to incorporate the end of mandatory retirement that's good news indeed.

Would you mind telling us what they're doing? Because none of us know.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

Read what you wrote. You said ACPA has put no thought, and shows no signs of doing so.......

That is simply not true.

As far as never saying anything about change that may be needed? Look at the last age 60 email. Surely you don't expect specifics. I mean ACPA is being sued if you haven't noticed. If you want more info make a phone call.

What is ACPA doing? Following the mandate they were given.

Protect the right to have a negotiated retirement age at 60. If that fails protect the right to have a negotiated retirement age at another age. If that fails protect the interest of the group at large from windfall gains and loss as a result of the change. Above all else protect the rights of the collective bargaining unit as the sole entity that decides who gets what and when through the bargaining process.

[Thirteentennorth]

I pay my union dues, and you are required to represent my interests. Right? Isn't that the way that it works? Word is that Vilven and Kelly got a letter from ACPA recently telling them that they will be charged union dues on their damage award. Union dues for the "representation" of ACPA during the period when ACPA openly stated that it does not represent them! Go figure!

You know, honestly, it really is time for change here.

Mr/Mrs./Ms. Understated, ever heard of the Rand Formula?

The CHRT Remedy ruling, including the retroactive financials, made it as if Vilven & Kelly had never left their employment with Air Canada. They were just seamlessly slotted back in to the system minus, of course, the punitive damages and Stare Decisis [the CHRT stated clearly that this ruling was not precedent-setting and applied solely to V&K], and the cease-and-desist order that the fp60 boys hoped for. As such, under the Rand formula, union dues would be payable on all retroactive monies paid to them. That's how it always works. Did you ever receive a retroactive cheque from Air Canada based on a contract settlement. Actual delayed wages, same as V&K's Remedy Ruling. Under the Law, which you are so fond of quoting, union dues are payable on that amount. Air Canada is a union shop. Rand Formula.

If it really is time for change 'here', as you suggest, may I respectfully suggest that you and your colleague Vic777, because he has elevated the anti-ACPA whining to a new level, go out and get the 300 signatures required to force a representation vote. Pull a Nike! Just do it. If they're that bad, get rid of 'em. But while you're doing that, beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Brick Head]

Two things. First, you obviously have someone within the Coalition providing you with the confidential updates that are provided only to the Coalition members. Spies. Got to love them. Good sleuthing! Great ethics.

Understated,

You have to let this covert paranoia go buddy.

The letter referenced was written to you by Mr. Hall in reference to the latest age 60 newsletter from ACPA. It was on the flypast 60 site as an update on Dec. 24th. I guess your adversaries pay more attention to your site than you do.

Anyway, it is now removed which is good for a number of reasons including some that may have been considered libelous.

When I mentioned the letter I did not realize it had been removed from the site. Now that I do? I will respect Mr. Hall's wishes and drop it.

[Rockie]

Rockie,

Read what you wrote. You said ACPA has put no thought, and shows no signs of doing so.......

That is simply not true.

I'm supposed to take your word for it? ACPA has screwed this thing up completely from day one. Being intelligent people if they had actually put any unbiased thought into it we would not be where we are today, or where we are going to be a few months from now. I've seen no evidence of thought, and I'm afraid I do not take your word for it.

Protect the right to have a negotiated retirement age at 60. If that fails protect the right to have a negotiated retirement age at another age. If that fails protect the interest of the group at large from windfall gains and loss as a result of the change.

I couldn't help but notice you didn't use the word "mandatory", and this is what I mean by no evidence of thought. The union can negotiate any retirement age they want. If we want the ability to retire at age 50 after 15 years of service with a full pension then nothing is stopping us from negotiating it. Nobody is saying we can't, and it is distorting the truth suggesting otherwise. The only thing being removed from us is the ability to force an individual out of their job at an age not of their choosing. That's a good thing if you put a few minutes of actual thought into it.

Above all else protect the rights of the collective bargaining unit as the sole entity that decides who gets what and when through the bargaining process.

How much thinking went into this? ACPA is not the sole entity that decides who gets what and when through the bargaining process and never has been. At no point in history has our contract ever superceded Canadian law.

[Raymond Hall]

The letter referenced was written to you by Mr. Hall in reference to the latest age 60 newsletter from ACPA. It was on the flypast 60 site as an update on Dec. 24th.

In keeping to my self-imposed policy of posting only facts on this Forum, here is another fact:

I am the only one who has editorial access to and the ability to change the information provided on that web site. The last change to the site was made on November 11th. Nothing has been added or removed from the site since that date.

Your statement above suggesting otherwise is incorrect.

[Understated]

The letter referenced was written to you by Mr. Hall in reference to the latest age 60 newsletter from ACPA. It was on the flypast 60 site as an update on Dec. 24th. I guess your adversaries pay more attention to your site than you do. Anyway, it is now removed which is good for a number of reasons including some that may have been considered libelous. When I mentioned the letter I did not realize it had been removed from the site.

Now that this explanation has been exposed as a total fabrication, do you want to give us a different explanation? Something closer to the truth, perhaps? Like, how ACPA came into possession of the confidential document that was distributed only to the Coalition members?

And the reply to the excerpt from that document that you quoted was made by whom and distributed to whom? Why were I and other members of the Association not informed of the critique that was made of that Coalition update letter? Closed shop?

[Understated]

If it really is time for change 'here', as you suggest, may I respectfully suggest that you and your colleague Vic777, because he has elevated the anti-ACPA whining to a new level, go out and get the 300 signatures required to force a representation vote.

Why? So that we can get a new union to similarly fail to recognize the law? In case you haven't noticed, sir, what you call "whining" consists of a number of legitimate complaints about the quality of represenation that is being provided to the members. When the union was formed in 1995, its catch-phrase was "grass-roots organization" where everyone was to be treated equally, and where arbitrary decision-making by the elected represenatives was to be avoided at all cost. We don't hear that term being used any more...

Unfortunately, the only change we are likely to experience now is change that is imposed by the Federal Court, the Tribunal, the Industrial Relations Board, and Parliament. It didn't need to be that way. We could have all worked this out, long ago, were it not for the intransigence of those who refuse to concede that age discrimination, including mandatory retirement, is no longer an option for this union.

[duranium]

[quote="Brick Head"]Understated,



Mr. Hall's opinion that AC and ACPA can no longer negotiate on behalf of post 60 pilots is extreme. He suggests in a resent letter that no matter what direction the group at large takes wrt post 60, those past 60 can not be touched. They get exactly what they left with at 60. Anything else is age discrimination. He is suggesting those past 60 are untouchable and beyond the collective bargaining process and by default is stating that he has effectively terminated the collective bargaining agent and process for post 60 pilots. This opinion is wildly extreme.


This question begs to be asked. Where or when did Mr. Hall ever suggest what you wrote, this from a detached but interested observer ? For my edification, could you post his quotes for me and all others to read



If we go the route of status pay for example. Everyone but them? Really? Tell me you guys are looking at some of these off the wall statements with a jaundiced eyeball. Please tell me.

Are you presuming of is there " proof in the pudding "



As for the rest of your tirade. This is the opinion of the Tribunal. Because this ruling was limited to two individuals, this opinion will still apply to everyone else who follows until such time as the law is actually changed.

On that, you are right but should you not be watching your rear became changes are upon you



[98] Section 53(3) of the CHRA allows for an award of special compensation where it is found that the person is engaging in the discriminatory practice wilfully or recklessly. In this case the discriminatory practice engaged by the respondents was applying the policy of mandatory retirement found in the pension plan and collective agreement, which presumably was agreed upon some time ago through the process of collective bargaining by Air Canada and ACPA representing the pilots.


One word stands out here and it is presumably. There is presumption but no certainty. Guess what,an other open door for someone

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Mr. Hall's opinion that AC and ACPA can no longer negotiate on behalf of post 60 pilots is extreme. He suggests in a resent letter that no matter what direction the group at large takes wrt post 60, those past 60 can not be touched. They get exactly what they left with at 60. Anything else is age discrimination. He is suggesting those past 60 are untouchable and beyond the collective bargaining process and by default is stating that he has effectively terminated the collective bargaining agent and process for post 60 pilots. This opinion is wildly extreme.

The quote is confusing. Who made the comment above? Why can't you identify him or her? And what did Mr. Hall actually say? Why not post his original words, rather than posting someone's opinion of what he thought he said?

Would he really say that ACPA can't negotiate on behalf of some members of the bargaining unit? Or would he say that ACPA can't select out only the over age-60 pilots for separate treatment, as was attempted in the Memorandum of Agreement of last summer, and impose different wages and working conditions for them? If the latter, is that opinion extreme? Not according to how I understand the legal restrictions.

[Rockie]

What Brickhead describes above is the kind of age distinction that ACPA is fighting to keep, and Ray Hall is fighting to eliminate. Not a word of it is believable.

[Brick Head]

The letter referenced was written to you by Mr. Hall in reference to the latest age 60 newsletter from ACPA. It was on the flypast 60 site as an update on Dec. 24th.

In keeping to my self-imposed policy of posting only facts on this Forum, here is another fact:

I am the only one who has editorial access to and the ability to change the information provided on that web site. The last change to the site was made on November 11th. Nothing has been added or removed from the site since that date.

Your statement above suggesting otherwise is incorrect.

Now I'm confused. So what was the Dec 24th flypast 60 update then if not an update to your members? Not quite following. Are you saying the updates existence is a fabrication? That I have been deceived into believing you wrote it? Or are you simply saying you did write it, but was never supposed to be for public consumption?

When I made the comments I thought the Dec. 24th "update" was a public update on the flypast60 site. That anyone could simply reference the update on the site and read for themselves so there was no need for me to post the whole text. To be honest I never checked the site myself for the update until understated called me on it. Then I assumed it had been removed. It was emailed to me, (taken off another site) so I have no idea of the initial source. It is possible that I made an erroneous assumption that it was a public update because its header is "flypast60 update Dec. 24th". Just like all other updates on your site.

The letter is viral. I have flown with others that have also read it.

I won't publish the text of the document. I will leave that to you to decide.

I would like to know if you are the author though.

[Raymond Hall]

Now I'm confused. So what was the Dec 24th flypast 60 update then if not an update to your members? Not quite following. Are you saying the updates existence is a fabrication? That I have been deceived into believing you wrote it? Or are you simply saying you did write it, but was never supposed to be for public consumption? ...

I would like to know if you are the author though.

I publish regular e-mail updates to the Coalition members, usually at least once per week, sometimes twice per day, and in any event, after any signficant development and as required. In my view, the most recent Age 60 Newsletter had to be addressed, given the assertions that it contained, and I took time out of my vacation with my family to address it. The updates are provided only to the Coalition members and they are confidential, although they are not marked as such. I also write the updates that go on the Fly Past 60 web site update page, but those are much more limited in scope, much more infrequent, and usually limited to procedural issues rather than opinion and/or criticism.

I did send a confidential e-mail to the Coalition members on December 24th that was a PDF, several pages long, critical of the Age 60 Newsletter. What you have read could quite reasonably be a copy of that. The only individuals that were intended to receive it were Coalition members. I shouldn't be surprised, or disturbed, I suppose, that there are leaks in that message stream. Obviously, I will have to deal with that problem.

[BLZD1]

I read it too Brickhead!! You are not imaging it. Keep up the fight.

[vic777]

Mr. Hall's opinion that AC and ACPA can no longer negotiate on behalf of post 60 pilots is extreme. He suggests in a resent letter that no matter what direction the group at large takes wrt post 60, those past 60 can not be touched. They get exactly what they left with at 60. Anything else is age discrimination. He is suggesting those past 60 are untouchable and beyond the collective bargaining process and by default is stating that he has effectively terminated the collective bargaining agent and process for post 60 pilots. This opinion is wildly extreme.

Brick Head, I haven't seen the recent letter you are referring to. Is this your interpretation of what Ray wrote, or someone else's interpretation? Can you publish the letter here so we can judge for ourselves what is meant? And possibly put it into context.

[Understated]

The letter is viral. I have flown with others that have also read it.

I re-read the December 24th update. I cannot see anywhere in that letter where he says that the union cannot represent pilots over age 60, or that their conditions under the contract are frozen. Obviously someone (who you have not identified) thinks that that is what he said. Why don't you quote the part that would lead one to infer that that is what he meant? If you can't do that, then tell us why you think his view is "extreme". To date, you have simply parroted the words of someone else.

Throughout the update, he explains in no shortage of detail the factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations put forward in the ACPA Newsletter. Can you refute any of the assertions that he makes there? Any? And he provides a lot more factual information than the Age 60 Committee ever provided me about each of the nine legal proceedings currently underway. Was some of that news to you? It shouldn't have been news to anyone, if we had been properly informed via the Newsletter, or if we had full disclosure and open discussion on this topic within our own Association.

If Mr. Hall's confidential updates are going viral, that must give the MEC some concern, wouldn't you say? Not because they contain age-60 propaganda, but because they contain lots and lots of facts that the MEC and its Committees haven't disclosed on a timely basis, or at all. How does one get on the e-mail list?

For example, if you've received his latest update, you should know that the CIRB cancelled the May, 2011 DFR hearing, and is about to issue a decision that could order ACPA to exit the legal proceedings, given that ACPA provided no legal defence whatsoever to the breach of duty of fair representation allegations contained in the complaint.

What do you think the chances are that ACPA will be ordered to retain and pay two sets of independent counsel to represent the two sides of age-60 issue, without being allowed to take a position on the issue itself. "What?" you say?

Well, that DFR decision is likely to have far more significant implications than the CHRT decisions to date, according to the my legal buddies. Word is that the provincial labour Boards are looking for a case just like the one ACPA gave the CIRB, to use as a precedent on age discrimination. Nice work.

[MackTheKnife]

The letter is viral. I have flown with others that have also read it.

I re-read the December 24th update. I cannot see anywhere in that letter where he says that the union cannot represent pilots over age 60, or that their conditions under the contract are frozen. Obviously someone (who you have not identified) thinks that that is what he said. Why don't you quote the part that would lead one to infer that that is what he meant? If you can't do that, then tell us why you think his view is "extreme". To date, you have simply parroted the words of someone else.

Throughout the update, he explains in no shortage of detail the factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations put forward in the ACPA Newsletter. Can you refute any of the assertions that he makes there? Any? And he provides a lot more factual information than the Age 60 Committee ever provided me about each of the nine legal proceedings currently underway. Was some of that news to you? It shouldn't have been news to anyone, if we had been properly informed via the Newsletter, or if we had full disclosure and open discussion on this topic within our own Association.

If Mr. Hall's confidential updates are going viral, that must give the MEC some concern, wouldn't you say? Not because they contain age-60 propaganda, but because they contain lots and lots of facts that the MEC and its Committees haven't disclosed on a timely basis, or at all. How does one get on the e-mail list?

For example, if you've received his latest update, you should know that the CIRB cancelled the May, 2011 DFR hearing, and is about to issue a decision that could order ACPA to exit the legal proceedings, given that ACPA provided no legal defence whatsoever to the breach of duty of fair representation allegations contained in the complaint.

What do you think the chances are that ACPA will be ordered to retain and pay two sets of independent counsel to represent the two sides of age-60 issue, without being allowed to take a position on the issue itself. "What?" you say?

Well, that DFR decision is likely to have far more significant implications than the CHRT decisions to date, according to the my legal buddies. Word is that the provincial labour Boards are looking for a case just like the one ACPA gave the CIRB, to use as a precedent on age discrimination. Nice work.

I too have just re-read the Dec 24th update ( twice ) and NO where in the update is anything close to what BrickHead is accusing Mr Hall of saying.

IMO, Brickhead (1) owes Ray a public apology and (2) should seek verifification of the trash he posts before he posts it.

[Brick Head]

IMO, Brickhead (1) owes Ray a public apology and (2) should seek verifification of the trash he posts before he posts it.

I agree. I have no tolerance for those who post text that was meant to be private, or remain on a private forum. Zero. I expect my peers to respect the nature of where the discussion took place. Yet here I am inadvertently guilty of doing exactly what I detest.

Mr. Hall my apologies for posting an excerpt of a private email. It was done without intent.

Regards Brickhead.

However now that I did post an excerpt, and for it stand accused of making remarks that constitute trash, I have a question before any further apology will ensue.

.......change the entire pay structure to prevent pilots over age 60 from continuing their employment according to the bidding and pay parameters of the existing collective agreement.

Exactly what does this statement mean? Are you insinuating any envisioned CA changes are solely for the purpose of preventing pilots over 60 from continuing their employment as it was when they left? Are you saying that a change now is a thinly veiled act of age discrimination that will be challenged?

Gentlemen you must realize that as you view anything ACPA says with a critical eye, so do we.

I am interested in the answer.

[Raymond Hall]

Mr. Hall my apologies for posting an excerpt of a private email. It was done without intent. Regards Brickhead.

I understand the circumstances. Apology accepted, and no offence taken. Actually, I am more concerned about the leak than about the inadvertent publication. In any event, let's move on.

Again, I would prefer not to argue this topic publicly, as my postings in various places back to mid-2006 set out my biases and positions clearly enough.

To answer your question, the entire sentence from which your quote is taken is:

ACPA is still labouring under the impression that it can either keep its collective agreement locked in the 1960’s or if it can’t, it is still trying to have its members believe that it should change the entire pay structure to prevent pilots over age 60 from continuing their employment according to the bidding and pay parameters of the existing collective agreement.

The intent of the sentence was strictly to criticize the suggestion or implication that any age-based distinction could be made within the collective agreement that would have the effect of altering the terms and conditions of employment and pay only for those over age 60. Distinctions clearly can be made within the legitimate regime of collective bargaining on the basis of years of service, seniority or position assignment (base, equipment, status) etc., but not on the basis of age, just as they cannot be made on the basis of any of the other prohibited grounds of discrimination, such as race, religion, sex etc.

Does that help?

[vic777]

Exactly what does this statement mean? ...I am interested in the answer.

Brick Head, I don't have a copy of the "update", put it online, or tell me where I can find a copy and I will explain it to you, in simple terms.

I see Ray just posted the entire sentence in the post above this ....

Brick Head, why would you post just half a sentence?

Can we now expect the further apology or is more explanation required?

[Understated]

The intent of the sentence was strictly to criticize the suggestion or implication that any age-based distinction could be made within the collective agreement that would have the effect of altering the terms and conditions of employment and pay only for those over age 60.

The ACPA newsletters that I am receiving hint strongly that a major revamp of the contract is indeed in the offing, using an age-based criterion to diminish the wages, working conditions and benefits of those over age 60. In fact, there has has been no dampening of speculation that ACPA still hasn't learned anything from the legal process so far.

I truly hope that ACPA is not wasting its negotiating capital on any so foolish an endeavour. First, I can't believe that Air Canada would buy into it, after the MOA fiasco. Second, the entire contract negotiation and ratification process could become totally mired in several new legal proceedings on a number of different fronts. Say it isn't so. Please. Turn the guns outwards, not inwards!

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

I know you guys believe, and are being told, the collective bargaining rights of both AC and ACPA have been terminated. It is simply not correct.

Brickhead: Now that your assertions about Mr. Hall's statements have been shown to be entirely unfounded, given that he is not asserting that collective bargaining rights of both AC and ACPA have been terminated, are you still of the opinion that his opinion regarding the inability of the union to continue discriminating on the basis of age by treating pilots over age-60 differently than it treats those under age-60, is "extreme"?

Do you honestly still believe that the union can still use age-60 to distinguish and restrict their rights under the collective agreement?

[Thirteentennorth]

Understated wrote: "I pay my union dues, and you are required to represent my interests. Right? Isn't that the way that it works?

Partially. But in the overall scheme of things, it is still called "collective bargaining," so the interests of the 'collective', i.e. all members of the bargaining unit, usually take precedence over individual interests. The only areas where you will receive 'individual' representation from the union is in the event of a failure hearing, or anything pertaining to discipline, or in licensing disputes, or in individual disputes with the employer. In that case the union is required to represent you individually. But in anything that relates to the collective, because of the nature of collective bargaining and union representation, it is patently unreasonable for you, Understated, to expect that the union will accede to your individual wishes, particularly if they do not conform to the interests of the majority of members. It's not perfect, but that it how it always has been with collective bargaining, in a democracy.

Furthermore collective bargaining, and the entire philosophy behind union activity, is by its very nature reactive or responsive. The union can not, neither should it, predicate its actions on what might be, or what could be. I have noticed, Understated, that many, if not all of your posts are replete with conditional clauses: you seem to love the words 'could', 'might' [verb not noun], and you offer many hypotheses which, although plausible, do not necessarily represent actual reality. To wit: your recent post containing 3 'scenarios' one of which is real, and 2 of which are "likely." As nice as it may be, I respectfully submit that it would be wise for ACPA to prepare for a "likely" eventuality, e.g. a strike following the breakdown of negotiations, but it would be very unwise for ACPA to go off half-cocked just because of what a few members hypothesize may happen. Collective bargaining, and all that it entails, still represents "The greatest good for the greatest number."

When the Federal Court and the SCC have rendered their decisions, then ACPA can respond appropriately within the framework of what is the Law of the Land. Until then, life goes on, despite how you and your coalition members may, through conditional clauses in your posts, train-wreck analogies, doomsday scenarios and other tactics, attempt to steer and to control the nature and content of the discourse.

Regards,

IE.

[Understated]

The only areas where you will receive 'individual' representation from the union is in the event of a failure hearing, or anything pertaining to discipline, or in licensing disputes, or in individual disputes with the employer. In that case the union is required to represent you individually. But in anything that relates to the collective, because of the nature of collective bargaining and union representation, it is patently unreasonable for you, Understated, to expect that the union will accede to your individual wishes, particularly if they do not conform to the interests of the majority of members. It's not perfect, but that it how it always has been with collective bargaining, in a democracy.

For the most part, I agree with your suggestions. Not totally, however. Whenever any person has either a perceived or an actual conflict of interest, that person has an obligation, a duty, to ensure that the conflict does not taint its decision-making. In the case of a union, it must ensure that its conflict does not prejudice the rights of the minority of its members who disagree with the majority. This requirement is not only an ethical one, it is a legal one, enshrined both in common law and in the Canada Labour Code.

In the case of ACPA, it is clear that the membership is divided between pro-mandatory retirement, and contra-mandatory retirement. Instead of remaining neutral and providing independent representation to both sides of the dispute, it instead not only chose to not represent a sizeable group of its own members, but became actively involved in litigation supporting the employer's termination of its own members' employment. You would agree that that action puts it in a flagrant conflict of interest with its statutory duty to fairly represent those members, wouldn't you?

If your assertion were totally correct, Vilven and Kelly would never have been reinstated to full employment, because by subordinating themselves to the will of the majority, they would have essentially waived their rights under the human rights law. Ditto for the 150 others following them. They were reinstated, against the will of the majority, because their rights were violated under law, and ACPA was ordered to pay a huge damage award for its wrongful conduct. Those chickens have not all come home to roost just yet, but they will, very soon.

My point is this. The will of the majority is subordinate to the law of the land. The union should never have taken sides in this conflict, notwithstanding the will of the majority.

I believe that this issue will become a very hot topic of discussion, once the CIRB renders its forthcoming decision on the DFR complaint. Let's re-examine the subject, once the Board has spoken.