Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Under the heading of “Which planet are you on?” I received this message from the ether this morning:

The issue of removing mandatory retirement at age 60 was dropped on the negotiating table without warning on January 16th 2012. Since then we have been working with various committees to analyze the impact of this sudden reversal of the Company’s position on Age 60. This issue was likely tabled in order to divide the pilot group. We ask that you not succumb to these tactics as we address this issue at the bargaining table.

Yup. Total surprise to ACPA that the collective agreement has to be modified to account for the repeal of mandatory retirement, come this December.

Yup. Sudden reversal, and a novel concept to boot. Good decision to start working with the various committees to find out the implications of this, just in case the arbitrator foists it upon us without considering the consequences. The very idea! Air Canada intends to comply with the law.

Yup. Just a scare tactic. Don’t worry. I am not scared. I know that ACPA will punt any consideration of letting the old fa*ts keep me from getting their seats and their income. No, the scare tactic won’t work. I am not scared in the least.

Yup. Good idea. Ask me what I think of the company’s proposal, so that I can tell you again what I told you six years ago, and you can continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars paying our lawyers to maintain the fight against evil.

Nope. Don’t you worry. I won’t succumb to these tactics. No problem. You get back to the bargaining table and tell the company negotiators how unreasonable that ridiculous proposition really is. Imagine. Human rights. At Air Canada. Over my dead career!

[bluemic]

Under the heading of “Which planet are you on?”....etc, etc

Well...if irony is one’s preferred form of humour (and it IS mine!)..Mr. Mapleleaf's effort gets my vote for “Post of the Week”.

mic

[TheStig]

Mig29....so...... you are confirming that you are not currently an Air Canada pilot?

Does it matter? As has been stated numerous times, this affects everyone. In fact the end of mandatory retirement will likely have a greater effect on pilots not currently flying for Air Canada than those who are. Not that the FP60 supporters care about anyone else anyways.

Besides, everyone on the Fly Past 60 list, and I'd suspect a number of frequent posters on this thread aren't currently Air Canada pilots…should they not be able to contribute to this discussion?

[Rockie]

Not that the FP60 supporters care about anyone else anyways.

Right, and the people wanting to push them out the door like you have only the greater good in mind...

At some point you guys are going to have to shelve your hatred and realize the FP60 group had little if anything to do with the end of mandatory retirement, and get on with the job of adjusting.

[TheStig]

Not that the FP60 supporters care about anyone else anyways.

Right, and the people wanting to push them out the door like you have only the greater good in mind...

At some point you guys are going to have to shelve your hatred and realize the FP60 group had little if anything to do with the end of mandatory retirement, and get on with the job of adjusting.

Rockie, that was hardly the focus of my last post. I have never expressed any hatred towards anyone, please don't group me in with those that come on this forum and do so. I do support using the collective agreement to encourage those reaching 60 at Air Canada to retire, as this has traditionally been the 'normal age of retirement'.

[Norwegianwood]

[/quote]as this has traditionally been the 'normal age of retirement'.[/quote]

We can all say a collective "AMEN" to that then..............

Now moving right along............

[Rockie]

Rockie, that was hardly the focus of my last post.

Agreed, but it was without a doubt a gratuitous sideswipe that negated the rest of your message. That kind of crap will not move any discussion forward and is better left out.

[vic777]

I do support using the collective agreement to encourage those reaching 60 at Air Canada to retire,

TheStig, surely you mean, "I did support ....". That boat has sailed. Why not focus on the task at hand? ACPA needs intelligent informed guidance. Enough with the childish cheap shots. Read the statements from the ALPA President from over Six years ago.

[Morry Bund]

Update just received. The Tribunal has just reversed its decision of last August and "un-dismissed" the Thwaites complaints. Subject to its determination of the impact of the Federal Court Charter decision in the Vilven case being binding on it (decision expected within six weeks), it has agreed to hold a hearing in June regarding reinstatement and damages for the 70 pilots in that group.

[Norwegianwood]

This the part you mean MB........................

II. Conclusion
[430] I have concluded that the Respondents can rely on s.15(1)(c) of the CHRA so that the
mandatory retirement policy at age 60 does not amount to a discriminatory practice. Accordingly,
the complaints are dismissed.

Which means, "mandatory retirement policy at age 60 amount's to a discriminatory practice" AMEN!!!

[Morry Bund]

This the part you mean MB........................

II. Conclusion
[430] I have concluded that the Respondents can rely on s.15(1)(c) of the CHRA so that the
mandatory retirement policy at age 60 does not amount to a discriminatory practice. Accordingly,
the complaints are dismissed.

Which means, "mandatory retirement policy at age 60 amount's to a discriminatory practice"

From the message that we received today, that is close, but not entirely correct. As I understand it, the Tribunal's final decision on the case has not yet been made. It will be made within a few weeks. What we were told today is that because the Tribunal had mistakenly overlooked its previous decision to deal with the Charter issue after the decision regarding the normal age of retirement issue was made, the decision to dismiss the complaints has now been reversed, and the Charter issue is to be decided next.

However, because both the Tribunal and the Federal Court have already decided the Charter issue in favour of Vilven and Kelly, there is a legal precedent. Air Canada and ACPA have been given a number of weeks to persuade the Tribunal why the precedent from the Vilven case should not apply to this case. My understanding is that court decisions are binding on tribunals. But in this roller coaster ride, apparently anything can happen.

Nevertheless, a deadline has been set for the Tribunal's decision on the Charter issue, and dates have been reserved for the hearing needed to get the 70 pilots in this group damages and reinstatement, should the Tribunal decision accord with the precedent.

Remember that the Tribunal in this case has already rejected the BFOR arguments of both Air Canada and ACPA. So if the tribunal follows the Federal Court decision on the Charter issue, the calculation of damages based on the evidence put forward by Air Canada's own witness in the previous hearing as the correct amount payable (over $100,000 per pilot, on average) would likely apply to almost all of the 70 pilots in this hearing. This is obviously serious coin, and doesn't include any additional damages for the 82 pilots who are next in the queue, whose hearing starts at the end of next month. The combined potential financial impact for both Air Canada and ACPA should start to raise more than a few eyebrows.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

[Old fella]

Mind if I ask a question MB on a topic that is perhaps, none of my business as I don't work for AC, never did. Are you suggesting that the intent for pilots at AC who are at 60 yrs of age , forced into retirement filed complaints to where ever/what ever in order to seek monetary redress instead of continuing on in their present employment as AC pilots. Do i have this right or are there many other issues on which monetary payout is just one of..........

[vic777]

Are you suggesting that the intent for pilots at AC who are at 60 yrs of age , forced into retirement filed complaints to where ever/what ever in order to seek monetary redress instead of continuing on in their present employment as AC pilots.

Old fella, I have a little difficulty making grammatical sense of your question above. I think the settlement would include a financial payment to offset the loss of income by these Pilots who were illegally "retired". These Pilots would then have the right to continue their careers from that time forward.

Do i have this right or are there many other issues on which monetary payout is just one of..........

You also have rights, it's up to you to fight for them and have them enforced, whatever they may be.

[rudder]

The active AC pilots don't give a s&^% about the possible financial remedies that might flow out of any of the ongoing processes. All they know is that under status quo for each equipment bid they continue to move up and that is what this inane defensive strategy is all about. They also know that as the number of pilots in the queue increases so does the potential level of logistical disruption should they return which they ultimately hope will be a consideration under remedy which will work in their favour.

ACPA gamed this so that time would be their ally and thus far it has proven to be an effective strategy for those that believe that obstructionism is in fact a valid course of action. The timeline might have been significantly diminished had ACPA not found a compliant accomplice in AC.

And now any reasonable and responsible employer is engaging in dialogue with affected employee representatives to manage the legislative changes that will apply later this year. Wonder how that discussion is progressing at ACPA/AC?

[vic777]

Wonder how that discussion is progressing at ACPA/AC?

We will never know what deals are made (or should I say, promised) behind closed doors, but we will definitely have to live with the outcome. Have the Pilots sent a knife to a gun fight?

[Mechanic787]

I am curious if anyone in the know could answer this question, as I honestly don't know the answer myself.

If Air Canada and ACPA are jointly liable for the damages ultimately awarded to those pilots whose complaints are upheld, as they apparently agreed to be, or at least as they appear to be by reason of their joint participation in the collective agreement that was responsible for the involuntary termination of employment of now over 150 individuals, if Air Canada enters CCAA, could ACPA then be held liable for the entire $15 million or so in damages?

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

How about this, ACPA votes to dissolve itself prior to the award of (alleged) damages...is AC on the hook?

For someone who has no dog in this fight (your claim), you seem to have a lot of questions and bias against ACPA.

[Mechanic787]

For someone who has no dog in this fight (your claim), you seem to have a lot of questions and bias against ACPA.

Another serious question, answered with a lobbed grenade. How about taking a shot at answering the question asked? Were you at the airline during the last experience with CCAA? My understanding is that a large number of big names took a real haircut in 2003, including Nav Canada, most of the various airport authorities across the country, as well as a series of hotel chains and numerous suppliers.

[morefun]

I think we should demote Lt. Danny to private

[55+]

For someone who has no dog in this fight (your claim), you seem to have a lot of questions and bias against ACPA.

Another serious question, answered with a lobbed grenade. How about taking a shot at answering the question asked? Were you at the airline during the last experience with CCAA? My understanding is that a large number of big names took a real haircut in 2003, including Nav Canada, most of the various airport authorities across the country, as well as a series of hotel chains and numerous suppliers.

There were ugly rumors during one experience with CCAA, AC was rubbing Nav Can's nose into the fact they(AC) might may not pay the arrears to the tune of several millions of dollars owed on air navigation service fees. It was suggested (during my time there) the total tab owed to NC and the various Airport Authorities was in the $40-50 million range and possibility of seizing assets(aka airplanes) was real........

Turbulent times for all during that era, which lent itself to possible wild speculation on what was possible, indeed probable, but this stuff was floating about. Also, I would add, how other corporations(WJ,CDN et al ) would react if AC was relieved of it's requirement or further delays in meeting it's obligations.......

[Mechanic787]

Sam Gompers, the "father" of collective bargaining who was the founder of the American Federal of Labor (AFL) that later joined with the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) to form the still active umbrella labor organization AFL-CIO once said, "Labor's worst enemy is an unprofitable employer." That was in the early 1900's.

Of course, today, an unprofitable employer is more a term of art, considering the ability of the stakeholders to manipulate the circumstances of their own economic relationship in a complex legal and corporate environment. Creative insolvency is not a concept that should be dismissed out of hand, especially in the airline business, given the fact that the CEO of this airline is comes from the M&A legal profession world, and undoubtedly is a master at constructing and deconstructing corporate charts and boxes.

When Air Canada was in CCAA, as I recall, he was the senior executive in charge of corporate strategy. Today's Air Canada corporate structure is of his making, as are the currently proposed changes in airline operations, including the proposed discount carrier. From an outsider's point of view, it would appear that he is moving ahead with his corporate restructuring, with or without the concurrence of the organized labor components within his corporations, including the pilots. And in order to accomplish that task, it would also appear that he is willing to use whatever legal mechanisms are available for him to accomplish those objectives, including the various alternatives available in the realm of corporate law.

So, again, I pose the question. Could ACPA be left holding the whole liability bag for this joint fiasco?

[vic777]

Could ACPA be left holding the whole liability bag for this joint fiasco?

Does ACPA have any money?

[Mechanic787]

For someone who has no dog in this fight (your claim), you seem to have a lot of questions and bias against ACPA.

Questions? Yes. Bias? No. Amusement? Absolutely.

At a time when your union needs to be holding everyone together focusing on common long-term objectives in the face of very real threats, it still maintains a devotion to undermining its own collective cohesiveness by pointing its guns inwards and encouraging a majority of its own members to maintain their support for a completely futile, unwinnable battle against a minority of its own members over an issue that is almost inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, as is so obviously evident by the recently enacted legislation that will render the whole issue moot sooner, rather than later.

Maybe that makes sense to you but it doesn't make any sense to me. That is not a bias. That is simply an observation. For what it's worth.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

Here you go....the snow falls in our town. you and an adjacent neighbor forget to shovel your sidewalk. A sixty two year old pilot on his way to work for air Canada is walking down the sidewalk and breaks his hip. He sues both you and your neighbor under the tort of negligence. You are found liable with an equal share of the damages. He is awarded damages of $100,000. Your neighbor files for bankruptcy. The pilot then turns to the court and says "hey, I am entitled to $100,000 so if neighbor A can't pay it, then neighbor B (you) should"

How far do you think that would fly in court and subsequent appeals....just because one is "right" doesnt mean you'll get what you're "owed".....

[Mechanic787]

How far do you think that would fly in court and subsequent appeals....just because one is "right" doesnt mean you'll get what you're "owed".....

You might want to Google any of the on-line dictionaries regarding joint and several liability. Your answer is not consistent with any of them. With joint and several liability, each party is liable for 100% of the debt in the event that any or all of the other parties do no pay it. That law is quite clear. However, that was not what I was asking.

My question was focused on the juxtapositon of CCAA in the mix. That statute freezes all claims, payables and other actions against a corporation while CCAA is in effect. In 2003, as I recall, that freeze lasted just over a year. The question that I posed is whether the union, that is apparently jointly and severally liable, could be required to pay 100% of the judgment when it becomes due and payable, and then be left later trying to take whatever recourse it had, if any, against the insolvent corporation if it exits from the CCAA protection.

That seems to me to be an issue that the union might wish to give some thought to, given the potential adverse consequences of getting caught by surprise with a liability exposure of double what one was expecting to be the worst case scenario.