Does anyone know what the MEC is actually trying to get out of the ULP?

[Turboprops]

AC tossed our TA then came back with their own pay table.

I’m sure this is what happened, but do you have actual proof other than some JAZ MEC email?
You know AC could just argue something like
“All we did was told Jazz we’re only willing to pay an extra X% on your pilot wages, you sure you want to pay Y% increase?”

[hithere]

While applaud the JAZ MEC’s attempts to remedy the situation, I honestly feel that the corporate structure in Canada(and in any capitalist economy for that matter) is designed to limit gains by the workers. It doesn’t even matter who is (objectively) right or wrong, the “system”(emboldened by the CIRB) will favour big business

[truedude]

While applaud the JAZ MEC’s attempts to remedy the situation, I honestly feel that the corporate structure in Canada(and in any capitalist economy for that matter) is designed to limit gains by the workers. It doesn’t even matter who is (objectively) right or wrong, the “system”(emboldened by the CIRB) will favour big business

I completely agree. And after reading over some CIRB case history, it is almost like they will bend themselves into a pretzel to do as little as possible. But you still have to fight. You have to use every resource, every avenue, and every legal remedy available. The cards are not stacked in our favor, so we at least have to make sure we won't let them "win" simply because we are to tired or too demoralized to keep fighting.

[Sinner]

It's perfectly reasonable for a company to reach out to their client and see if they're willing to spend more on the product that they are selling. Make no mistake AC is the client here not the employer. They purchase a product from Chorus (30,000 monthly Jazz block hours). If Jazz comes to them and says the cost of their product is going up, AC can choose to agree to the increase cost or decline it. This does not make them a defacto employer. They're still just Chorus' client deciding not to spend anymore on the product being sold to them: regional labour. Lower wages at Jazz will affect their regional network, but they've clearly decided to accept that cost rather than the cost of increasing the contract.

It will be hard to demonstrate harm to the CIRB in a single employer application when the facts are these:

Both sides were locked into a deal until 2035. Both parties mutually agree to enter negotiations. The end result of those negotiations is that no Jazz pilot is laid off and salaries increase.

Sound like harm to anyone?

In collective bargaining nothing matters until you're voting on it. Getting approval from a (the only) client is not interference it's a normal part of bargaining that has happened with every contract JAZ and Jazz have bargaining since the CPA.

[truedude]

It's perfectly reasonable for a company to reach out to their client and see if they're willing to spend more on the product that they are selling. Make no mistake AC is the client here not the employer. They purchase a product from Chorus (30,000 monthly Jazz block hours). If Jazz comes to them and says the cost of their product is going up, AC can choose to agree to the increase cost or decline it. This does not make them a defacto employer. They're still just Chorus' client deciding not to spend anymore on the product being sold to them: regional labour. Lower wages at Jazz will affect their regional network, but they've clearly decided to accept that cost rather than the cost of increasing the contract.

It will be hard to demonstrate harm to the CIRB in a single employer application when the facts are these:

Both sides were locked into a deal until 2035. Both parties mutually agree to enter negotiations. The end result of those negotiations is that no Jazz pilot is laid off and salaries increase.

Sound like harm to anyone?

In collective bargaining nothing matters until you're voting on it. Getting approval from a (the only) client is not interference it's a normal part of bargaining that has happened with every contract JAZ and Jazz have bargaining since the CPA.

They are allowed to set general cost guidance, but not actually get involved. And they did when they tossed the TA and then did so again when came back with another pay table.

And as far as harms go, they created massive harms when they failed to follow contractual flow agreements, that was both in our contract and then codified in a separate agreement between JZA and AC. They signed a letter guaranteeing they would honor flow, a letter signed because we were concerned they would do exactly what they did do. And the moment they did that, they compounded a hiring issue, because people started to realize that Jazz was not the fastest or best way to AC, but perhaps even the worst way. When they did that the harmed all Jazz pilots in terms of upgrades, lifestyle, and a shrinking company.

They then continued that harm when they entered a CPA with PAL in clear violation of the CPA agreement with Jazz. This again signaled Jazz was a sinking ship, making it hard to hire, and eroding bargaining power.

The economics of pilots in Canada shifted, and AC didn't want to accept it. When the supply of something goes down, the value of that thing increases. You can't just ignore market realities and hope they go away. So the pay raise AC came back with was a day late and a dollar short.

So we can absolutely demonstrate harm.

[Bede]

So if the CIRB allowed Jazz pilots to bargain directly with AC (and have a separate CA and seniority list from AC-and therefore can't bid on AC positions outside of the flow agreement), would that be an acceptable resolution to Jazz pilots?

[cdnavater]

So if the CIRB allowed Jazz pilots to bargain directly with AC (and have a separate CA and seniority list from AC-and therefore can't bid on AC positions outside of the flow agreement), would that be an acceptable resolution to Jazz pilots?

Yes, but for me but I want restitution for the contract violations and the interference in our previous bargaining!
However, trying to make Jazz a place that would attract experienced pilots requires more than pay, a predictable flow in addition to better pay would accomplish that.
I believe one solution that was being looked at was all Jazz pilots BOTL effective whenever they agree to something but that comes with problems without a common employer declaration, think WJ/Encore one list. If it requires two separate pilot groups to continue an agreement, the demographics always shift and any pilot hired after the establishment of that list, become louder and louder about the injustice of it all.

[truedude]

So if the CIRB allowed Jazz pilots to bargain directly with AC (and have a separate CA and seniority list from AC-and therefore can't bid on AC positions outside of the flow agreement), would that be an acceptable resolution to Jazz pilots?

Yes, with restitution for the contract violations and what was originally negotiated.

Most of the senior Jazz pilots are still here by choice. Outside of pay, the AC contract is not that great. But if Jazz is going to be fixed in any meaningful way, they need to fix pay, and accept the economics for pilots has changed.

And BOTL comes with so many problems. Because how do you restrict AC pilots from bidding into Jazz equipment, especially in a down turn if it were to happen? I doubt ACA would accept that, or accept a one way flow.

[Bede]

In case anyone is interested in reading the Final Order dismissing the ULP.

[truedude]

In case anyone is interested in reading the Final Order dismissing the ULP.

Where once again, common employer is mentioned as the only appropriate avenue to address many of the issues.

[Bede]

In case anyone is interested in reading the Final Order dismissing the ULP.

Where once again, common employer is mentioned as the only appropriate avenue to address many of the issues.

I can't find anywhere where it discusses either single employer or s. 35. I don't think you read it and are referring to the Order from November/25.

[truedude]

In case anyone is interested in reading the Final Order dismissing the ULP.

Where once again, common employer is mentioned as the only appropriate avenue to address many of the issues.

I can't find anywhere where it discusses either single employer or s. 35. I don't think you read it and are referring to the Order from November/25.

"As indicated in LD 5873, the Board determined that Air Canada was not a proper respondent in this matter. It concluded that the core of the union’s allegations against Air Canada related to a common employer application, rather than a complaint that the employer has interfered with the representation rights of the union."

Perhaps you didn't read it...

[cdnavater]

In case anyone is interested in reading the Final Order dismissing the ULP.

Where once again, common employer is mentioned as the only appropriate avenue to address many of the issues.

I can't find anywhere where it discusses either single employer or s. 35. I don't think you read it and are referring to the Order from November/25.

Essentially in the decision, all issues raised except 3.14(Flow) would be better dealt with in a common employer challenge.

“IV. Analysis and Decision
In its complaint, the union alleges that Jazz and Air Canada, acting together, have breached the
Code by leading the union to accept certain terms in the collective agreement at significant cost,
including forsaking its right to strike for a period of several years. The union also alleges a breach
of the Code because the employer is now unable to implement a provision of the collective
agreement that was central to the union accepting an extended 10-year term.
As indicated in LD 5873, the Board determined that Air Canada was not a proper respondent in
this matter. It concluded that the core of the union’s allegations against Air Canada related to a
common employer application, rather than a complaint that the employer has interfered with the
representation rights of the union. Accordingly, what is left is the union’s argument relating to the
employer’s failure to implement article 3-14 of the collective agreement, and the impact that this
failure has had on the pilots’ wages and benefits into the future.”

It also sounds like a grievance has been filed, only way to address the other issues is common employer. We will find out what the plan is at the end of January.

[Bede]

"As indicated in LD 5873, the Board determined that Air Canada was not a proper respondent in this matter. It concluded that the core of the union’s allegations against Air Canada related to a common employer application, rather than a complaint that the employer has interfered with the representation rights of the union."

Is not at all this:

Where once again, common employer is mentioned as the only appropriate avenue to address many of the issues.

[truedude]

"As indicated in LD 5873, the Board determined that Air Canada was not a proper respondent in this matter. It concluded that the core of the union’s allegations against Air Canada related to a common employer application, rather than a complaint that the employer has interfered with the representation rights of the union."

Is not at all this:

Where once again, common employer is mentioned as the only appropriate avenue to address many of the issues.

Disagree. They are saying our main arguments can't be addressed under the section the ULP was filed. They are reiterating their previous postion.

I am really not sure why you care so much what Jazz does... Unless you are worried about Encore following suit and thats what scares you.

[Nick678]

An arbitrator will definitely have no clue how to handle this mess and refer to the board. The pilots mainly effected by section 3-14 are not on property anymore.

[Bede]

An arbitrator will definitely have no clue how to handle this mess and refer to the board. The pilots mainly effected by section 3-14 are not on property anymore.

They won't refer to the Board. It's pretty simple- award some damages based on future career earnings discounted by some percentage.
If I were doing it I'd be be submitting a lost earnings analysis from Kroll (actuaries). You won't get everything, but you'll get something. Those pilots do need to be made whole.

[Nick678]

An arbitrator will definitely have no clue how to handle this mess and refer to the board. The pilots mainly effected by section 3-14 are not on property anymore.

They won't refer to the Board. It's pretty simple- award some damages based on future career earnings discounted by some percentage.
If I were doing it I'd be be submitting a lost earnings analysis from Kroll (actuaries). You won't get everything, but you'll get something. Those pilots do need to be made whole.

Future lost earnings could be a ludicrous number and as far as I’m aware there is no precedent for a situation like this. Please correct if I’m wrong.

[Bede]

I am really not sure why you care so much what Jazz does...

I don't really care but I feel for the guys denied flow who got screwed. Your MEC is trying to leverage their legitimate grievance to try to get something for everyone. It's incredibly risky. The s. 35 won't go anywhere and there's a risk that their grievance might not because of the hail Mary strategy.

They're owed tens of thousands. Focus on making them whole.

[truedude]

I am really not sure why you care so much what Jazz does...

I don't really care but I feel for the guys denied flow who got screwed. Your MEC is trying to leverage their legitimate grievance to try to get something for everyone. It's incredibly risky. The s. 35 won't go anywhere and there's a risk that their grievance might not because of the hail Mary strategy.

They're owed tens of thousands. Focus on making them whole.

This isn't just about the flow. That is one part of it. But also about how AC interfered in our negotiation, clearly crossing a line. What is it about that you don't understand?