Canada Labour Code and full time status?

[ragbagflyer]

Maybe Cat, but doing that requires a lot of sticking together and would really have made individuals vulnerable to retribution. It will be interesting to see this one play out

[the little guy]

One of my colleagues phoned the union directly. The fellow he talked to was involved in the whole process of signing on with the union. He really had to keep reminding him of the fact that the collective agreement guarantees 140 scheduled hours per month and that the expectation and understanding at the time of the signing was that pilot's would be paid for this amount. Even the company management seemed to interpret it this way at the time. Over the summer the chief pilot informed some of the drivers that they might end up working 5 and 2's through the winter because the company "had to pay them for 35 hours anyway". I know of pilot's that were brought on on through the summer and fall and that was the understanding upon their hire as well. My colleague tried to drive home the point that if infact we are only guaranteed to be SCHEDULED for 140 hours per month, then what is to stop the company from purposely over-crewing to prevent ever paying OT. After all, it's easier (and cheaper) to cancel shifts than it is to find guys to cover extra ones. It was suggested to the union manager that it might be wise if the union itself consulted with the members more directly, instead of just through the union reps.

This raises the question, if the union itself won't back it, is there a legal case? Here's an example of a situation that could easily occur under the system as it's being applied. The collective agreement states that if a full time employee is laid off, they require two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice. Theoretically the full time employee being laid off would be the one with lowest seniority, therefore the one who's losing the most shifts. If the company applies the current system than they could lay off the employee with two weeks notice, and then proceed to cancel every shift effectively giving two weeks notice but no pay. It raised another question of what "two weeks pay" is. How would the lawyers and courts view such a scenario? I'm under the impression that there is very few workplaces where this could occur.

edit: Ragbag, you know as well as I do that guys are still afraid of retribution!

Thoughts?

[Cat Driver]

Of course the secret to a successful revolt against a poor employment situation is for the employees to stick together.

I know some of them and had they had the backing of their colleagues the last thing on earth they would have had to fear is retribution.

Retribution from who, the owner?

For sure they would not have needed to worry about any decent employer refusing to hire them as it is no secret in the industry that their employer is a little difficult to work for to put it mildly.

To bad Air Sea Lines did not work out and went tits up because I would have hired some of their more experienced drivers in a heart beat.

[Widow]

I feel sorry for the folks at the union. Historically, unions have not worked for small air taxi/float ops ... they (the unions) don't understand what they are up against. As the little guy rightly suggested, IMHO, there are very few workplaces in which these kinds of labour issues can occur. Have they researched the past attempts at unionizing in this industry and tried to analyze the fail point, figure out what was missed so they can make it work? Presumably, the union was asked in by the employees because they were unsuccessful in all other approaches to management with respect to existing problems - and sitting on the dock not working instead of unionizing would simply have resulted in other pilots being hired. We all know there is always SOMEONE willing to work for free, or damn close to it.

Professional association anyone?

[Cat Driver]

and sitting on the dock not working instead of unionizing would simply have resulted in other pilots being hired. We all know there is always SOMEONE willing to work for free, or damn close to it.

Generally I would agree with you widow, except in this case it would have been very, very difficult to replace all the pilots if for no other reason it would have been a nightmare finding enough who are qualified on type.

Not to mention they would need a new chief pilot and someone to do all the training of the new crews.

My guess is the owner would have given them what they wanted to keep the airplanes flying and then culled them one by one as the opportunity arose.

Sad situation for sure.

[FamilyGuy]

...

[bezerker]

Family Guy, you might be legally retarded.

Every post you make on this thread makes anyone who reads it stupider.

Please refrain from speculating until you know WTF you are talking about.

[Widow]

Family Guy, when you apply for an operating certificate, do you apply for an interprovincial certificate, or is it just domestic/international?

If the industry/company is FEDERALLY regulated then employees/contractors are covered by the CLC. You can call the Federal Labour Program to prove it to yourself.

[flyinthebug]

Familyguy.. I KNOW that even a mom and pop single plane op in "tumbleweed" Saskabush.. is federally legislated!! Why do you keep questioning it?? You have been shown the legislation in this thread.. ALL air services fall under federal rules & Regs and never provincial (as has been previously posted a few times). Do we need a HAMMER to pound that fact home? Im sorry to hear you havent had the pleasure of flying or working for a "little single province operator".. But all are federally legislated and yes I KNOW.

Fly safe all.
Cheers

[MrWings]

A former employer of mine declined to give us Alberta Family Day off because it wasn't a federally established holiday.

Within his rights, sure, but bad for morale, especially when everyone else has the day off.

[xsbank]

Curious situation: Are you paid by the hour? Is that a flight hour or the moment you walk in the door? Does a schedule mean you stay home or do you go to work and sit there and wait for a flight? If you sit there and don't fly, you don't get paid?

In the fire bombing part, you would get paid a base pay and a bonus for flight hour. You would have to be available to fly and depending upon the conditions you might stay home, whatever that was, but you might not actually turn a prop for a week or more.

I can't believe that your situation is so screwed up - I also can't see Whatsisnuts paying you for sitting about. Do you think there is enough work for the entire staff or do you think there should be layoffs? Fire bombing, you got laid off in the winter but you kept your seniority number and you bid on your position each year. Sounds like you need a similar system. If you are starving, perhaps a layoff and E.I. would be better or a different job.

I can't see that this company can possibly make it with this sort of attitude and confrontation. The old unions of the late 70's eventually collapsed because the logging industry took a huge dump and almost all (no, all) went out of business. While the companies operated, they were great to work for and the union thing was just part of the operation. I think about half of the companies were unionized, if my rusty memory serves me correctly. West Coast Air wasn't, Island Airlines was. That sort of thing. Both had great esprit de corps, both had pride in their operations.

Unions, per se, don't hurt a company, they just change it, but capricious owners or management get reeled in, butt-kissing for the best seats vanishes, pay and benefits increase, etc. *sshole owners, perhaps like the one who is running this gong show, are prevented from doing damage to people's lives.

Companies get the unions that they deserve.

I've been saying this since the '70s and its as true now as it ever was: "No Union Ever Killed a Company."

1. Decide if working for this moron is part of your future.
2. If it is, get the union and the reps and the CP moving towards fixing the problem.
3. If its not, DO NOT QUIT but begin looking for your replacement seat - you have a loooong career ahead of you and there are other places to live besides Vancouver - it IS possible to have a nice life in this wacko profession.

['79K20driver]

If there's a loop hole to be found in the CBA that will save them money, these guys will find it and expliot it to the death. I do believe that both sides had the impression that scheduled hours meant payed hours. I believe that was the intent of the agreement. It appears someone in management then realized that "scheduled" and "payed" don't have to mean the same thing. Now they're scheduling hours for guys, as per the agreement, all the while knowing that they'll just cancel them the day before. Perhaps legal, but it sure is circumventing the whole intent of the agreement!

I know of several guys that have been offered full time (and supposedlly year round) positions by this company and were told that the pay was guaranteed (like a salary plus OT). That being said, it doesn't take a genius to see that there is simply twice as many work hours available in the summer season than the winter season. It would be hard to imagine that a company could and would keep paying a junior pilot full time hours when there is virtually no work available for him or her. They probably need half as many pilots in the winter as in the summer. What I don't understand is why they're not laying guys off if there is no work. It seems to me that they sure are taking advantage of having guys around essentially on unpaid standby so the senior guys never see an ounce of overtime (not that there would be much in winter anyway). I think if the company actually stuck to paying guys as per the intent of the agreement you would be seeing layoffs. I mean, if there isn't work available and they still have to pay you, then you'll probably get laid off. At least then guys are free to go about looking for other work or collecting EI or whatever while waiting to get called back in the spring.

The pilot group really should be going to management with this. You are being taken agvantage of and it's totally unfair. You should be paid as per the intent of the agreement and as per what the CP told you when you were hired. If they say the hours are not available, and no doubt they will, then they should be laying you off. Simple. This is what other companies do.
The CP needs to stop misleading new hires. The pilot group, with the union, and the management should get this worked out so that the CP could simply be telling new hires that, "Yes, your pay is guaranteed for the months in which you are employed. We are a float operator and in the winter it slows down, so you can probably expect a lay off for a few months, unless some of the senior guys leave."

[flyinthebug]

Well said 79K20driver! As I eluded to in an earlier post.. The CP and Ops Mgr have some accountability in this, and if you`re being ignored by approaching your management one at a time..as K20 pointed out, a united front will force their hand to either lay you off with appropriate notice OR schedule and PAY you for the hours guaranteed you in your collective agreement.

See at the end of the day.. The union does NOTHING for you, and it will only find a positive outcome once management & team sit down together and work it out. Just look at Westjet.

Fly safe all.

[FamilyGuy]

Little guy here is an interesting read on a related topic:

http://www.emondharnden.com/publication ... tlay.shtml

It doesn't deal directly with "scheduled hours" but it does talk about them in the context you mentioned earlier being constructive layoff. Read the whole thing as it does talk about guaranteed hours of work.

Your Union guys will have far better access to related arbitration awards than we do on the free internet. They should have access to a searchable database.

You can also read all of Part III but your CA is the decider.

[FamilyGuy]

...a total waste of our time.

[flyinthebug]

Familyguy.. I am sensing that you have a sincere misunderstanding in regards to the regs etc.

I will provide two snipits as well as links to CTA sites that hopefully will clear this issue up for you.

This is a snipit from the CTA site..

"The Agency issues licences and charter permits to Canadian and foreign air carriers offering publicly available services in Canada and enforces licensing requirements. It helps in the negotiation and implementation of international air agreements, and administers international air tariffs.

The Agency also helps to protect the interests of the travelling public, shippers and Canadian air carriers by ensuring that fares, rates, charges, and terms and conditions of carriage are consistent with Canadian legislation and regulations. As part of its consumer protection role, the Agency deals with complaints about air travel."

Here is a link to that page that contains other substantial information in regards to this your question.. http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/air-aerien/index_e.html

Here is a 2nd snipit from a different page, same CTA website.

" The Agency is the licensing authority for publicly available air services. The Agency licenses Canadian applicants to operate air services within Canada, and licenses Canadian and foreign applicants to operate scheduled and non-scheduled international air services to and from Canada."

Here is the link to that page as well. Im sure you will be able to clearly see that any "publicly available air service" falls under federal legislation OR the CTA itself.. A Federal givernment run & funded entity. http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/air-aerien/lic ... dex_e.html

Hope this clears it up for you!

Fly safe all.

[the little guy]

Curious situation: Are you paid by the hour? Is that a flight hour or the moment you walk in the door? Does a schedule mean you stay home or do you go to work and sit there and wait for a flight? If you sit there and don't fly, you don't get paid?

I can't believe that your situation is so screwed up - I also can't see Whatsisnuts paying you for sitting about. Do you think there is enough work for the entire staff or do you think there should be layoffs? Fire bombing, you got laid off in the winter but you kept your seniority number and you bid on your position each year. Sounds like you need a similar system. If you are starving, perhaps a layoff and E.I. would be better or a different job.

Pilot's at this outfit are paid by the duty hour, so from the moment we walk in the door. If the weather is not flyable, pilot's hang out close by in case it turns for the better. If a pilot does show up to work, they are guranteed six hours for that day. This is part of the CBA. The main issue is the lack of paid hours. The whole reason that the 140 rule was brought in was for stability. The pilot's working for the competition are guaranteed paid, not just scheduled hours. By being able to drop shifts if the passenger loads are down, or if the forecast is bad, the company is more or less operating on a mileage system without mileage if you know what I mean. There absolutely should be layoffs if there is too many crew, but in that case the pilots still working should be GUARANTEED to be paid the 140 duty hours.

[xsbank]

Actually FamilyGuy, the "shit-chucking" appears to be coming from your direction. I thought that the denizens were remarkably constrained while trying to point out that they thought you were mistaken. You seem to know a lot about this subject so don't lose your grip, you still have a lot of good stuff to contribute. Wait until it really gets bad before you melt down.

[Stearman]

Do I have to do everything myself.

I gotta an idea.

Call the Provincial and or Federal Labour people and ask them. Maybe even take some time and go down there and speak with them face to face. Doing this stuff on the internet for pete sake is ridiculous. Back in the day before internet people actually would talk to people...get off your arse. I mean that in the best possible way really.

Any claims you make against the company will be confidential so there should be no worries there.

I don't take cheques. Cash only or Paypal would be fine.

[sarg]

Is the employer operating stations all across the country or only in one or two provinces? You made reference to the Canada Labour Code but that only applies to cross country companys and those listed as exemptions regardless.

Canada Labour Code

An Act to consolidate certain statutes respecting labour

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 ... rbo-ga:s_2

What is it about this forum that it always degrades into shit chucking? And you wonder why nobody takes this industry serious and rapes you every chance they get???? You do know more than just pilots read this stuff right?

Can we not express our individual thoughts/opinions? Oh wait, what was I thinking. I just made the mistake of trying to express a different thought to a group of anonymous internet pilots How retarded of me Break from the herd get eatin....

Just so you know, I (that means me, just my opinion - don't like it don't read it) do think the Transport Canada operating certificate an operator applies for will coincidentally determine the LABOUR CODE said company operates under - but I cannot find anywhere in the applicable labour law that makes the connection - save these tidbits:

While the Labour Program focuses on regulating workplaces in the federal jurisdiction, some programs do apply to other workers. Did you know that 90 percent of the Canadian workforce is covered by provincial or territorial labour laws? Only 10 percent of all Canadian businesses are federally regulated.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/emplo ... ndex.shtml

If you are employed by one of the following businesses and industries, you are more than likely working in a federally regulated sector:
• banks
• marine shipping, ferry and port services
• air transportation, including airports, aerodromes and airlines
• railway and road transportation that involves crossing provincial or international borders
• canals, pipelines, tunnels and bridges (crossing provincial borders)
• telephone, telegraph and cable systems
• radio and television broadcasting
• grain elevators, feed and seed mills
• uranium mining and processing
• businesses dealing with the protection of fisheries as a natural resource
• many First Nation activities
• most federal Crown corporations
• private businesses necessary to the operation of a federal act
If you do not work for one of the above, the employment standards that regulate your conditions of work are defined by your provincial or territorial ministry of labour.

Note the bold - more than likely and transportation or airlines. You should also note the quote from the act that was previously posted - or a line of air transportation. Seems to me if you are not transporting something - its not "transportation or an airline" and thus would not fall under the CLC. I think a farmer spraying crops for $$$ really isn't transporting anything...or is he?

You could say he works for an airline or in transportation (duh) but "float operator on the West coast" isn't exactly detailed info. Could be doing forestry surveys or counting floating whale shit for all I know.

If you've ever been in front of an arbitrator or even dealt with high paid company lawyers, you'd know these little details can unravel an argument quickly.

Frankly I could give a rats ass about most of these opinions - laced with anti Union rhetoric as they are. I'm only posting for the Little guy. It would actually be better for him if he did fall under the Provincial Labour codes as they are usually better for the employee.

Like I said before, I could be wrong on this I freely admit - but I'm not seeing or reading anything new to make me think so and I can't find anything definative. So how about instead of childish insults and "cause I say so" someone act like an adult and provide me, the lessor being here, with some tangible proof. I'd like to see it. Then the time I spent here debating this and the time you spent reading this won't be a total waste of our time.

Family Guy read the posts. Pratt X3 quotes and links to the CLC, not HRSDC. Your link says airlines might be cover by the federal labour code, the CLC link definatively states that airlines are federally regulated.

The following is opinion:
Your farmer if he is using an airplane to spray his own crops only would probably not be federal because I think he doesn't need an O.C. If he is legally working for other then he has an O.C. issued by the federal government hence is now federally regulated for the airservice part of his business, the farm is still provincal. The province of operation doesn't matter because O.C.'s are issued giving domestic operators authority to operate anywhere in Canada, whether the operator chooses to or not.