China_CAAC's Merged Threads

[Diadem]

John, please explain how I'm wrong. I cited the actual ALPA policies that would apply, not documents from 1956 and 1967 that have been superceded, but you've simply dismissed them. Your only assertion is that I'm in denial. Please tell me how the policy I quoted is not applicable to the argument that you've made, which can be boiled down to, and I quote, "The merger policy governs". Do you not think the merger policy governs anymore? If the merger policy no longer governs, what policy does?

[The Tenth Man]

Here are some quotes from you:











This isn't even true; ALPA doesn't have a seniority policy, and the only place seniority integration is mentioned is in the Merger Policy. Maybe if you were an ALPA member and had access to their docs you'd know that.
The policy manual from 1967 was superceded by an amended policy in 2009. The Merger Policy that governs seniority is a bylaw, whereas the administrative manual you cited is not; the bylaws supercede administrative manuals, and the fact that the latter hasn't been updated to match the former doesn't mean the former is invalid. I'm sure there are lots of Government of Canada webpages that still stay marijuana is illegal because they haven't been updated since October, but that doesn't override the Criminal Code.
You lost. Give up.

I think in your rush to find any mention of the word "merger" in my posts, that you ignore the context in which each mention of the word "merger" is used. I understand your emotion and passion. I have lost three airline jobs through no fault of my own, other than my choices to seek employment at the companies, and stay there past when I should have.

This was never about me "winning". When I tried to make WJE pilots aware of the threat that certification meant to the One List, I was unsuccessful. For those pilots and their destiny under ALPA, it was not about "rights", but about realities. They were protected by the WJPA. When the WJ pilots chose certification with ALPA, the WJE pilots lost any protection except that of a temporary statutory freeze, which led to the illusion that things were fine.

Except for the odd antagonistic post on my part, I largely didn't address the One List issue for the year or so prior to the November 2, 2018 Update issued by the WJ MEC under the now-recalled Chairman. With that official message, I realized that the equities involved required a campaign of awareness by all parties, so that a bad and legally indefensible agreement was not blindly entered into by a group of WJ pilots who were overwhelmingly ignorant of the law. In that group I would include, if for no other reason that I haven't heard justification for thinking otherwise, the members of the WJ MEC and WJ LEC's.

The vast majority of you, those of you reading this and the "you" meaning the majority of WJ pilots have been living under of self imposed fog of delusion. When you last saw clear skies, the ocean that was your WJPA world was lapping at your feet. In the intervening period of wilfull blindness, the water receded and now all of your boats are stranded in a strange, new world where the old rules don't apply. We can call that land ALPA World.

To answer some assumptions made by you regarding my motives in contacting the ALPA Archivist, I would direct you to the fact that the ALPA OC members were woefully ignorant of the truth about policy at ALPA. They responded to valid inquiry with a dismissive and paternalistic wave of the hand. The points you raise, Diadem, regarding my arguments, are valid discussion points that should have been thoroughly vetted prior to certification. If, that is, the goal was an informed decision on the merits of certification. Sadly, that was never the goal. And that pattern of opaqueness has continued, unabated, up until today. Your bargaining unit representatives, assuming you belong to the group of WJ or WJE pilots, have said precious little about the One List since the November 2, 2018 message regarding the Herndon Pact.

Personally, I was curious about the origin of the Seniority policies of ALPA. When did they first take shape? The archives supplied the answers.

Some readers of this forum, have quietly, and the odd one or two, publicly admitted that they have finally seen the light. I was right all along regarding the challenges facing the WJE pilots and the One List. They changed their opinion because of the evidence I provided. Do you honestly think that any of them would have changed their mind in every post of mine on the issue could have been distilled down to:

"I know it's impossible. I know it's against the ALPA Constitution and the ALPA BOD policies. I cannot say why, but it is. I have had a lawyer review my position and he has confirmed I am right. For confidentiality reasons, I cannot give you any particulars of the preceding claims."

Obviously, everyone would have rightly called me a lunatic.

Unfortunately, the stages of grief have just set in for you, Diadem. You are in the denial stage. I understand completely. In order to continue progressing through the ensuing phases more quickly, enabling you to make a coherent decision regarding your career options, I suggest you contact a labour lawyer ASAP and have her review all of the evidence at bar. Perhaps form an association of wrongfully treated WJE pilots. Something. Anything. Whatever it is, don't simply and blindly accept, without evidence

"“One List” Update  

In Washington, D.C., we held a joint MEC meeting with the Encore MEC. There were many items to discuss about how to work together, but one of the most important interim steps was to formalize an agreement and language between the two pilot groups on how to recognize the contribution that all pilots bring to WestJet. This agreement recognizes the seniority of WestJet and Encore pilots within the WestJet group. This document has been legally reviewed and meets the requirements set forth under the ALPA Constitution and Canadian labour law.  

This initiative follows the original intent of the “One List,” a policy that was overwhelmingly supported by pilots (based on survey results) at WestJet. Additionally, we believe WestJet group should view this agreement as good for them, as a major retention and attraction initiative at Encore.  

The two MECs will propose this formal agreement in the form of a Letter of Understanding (LOU) between both pilot groups to WestJet management. They in turn will also have to accept the LOU and be a signatory. The final step will be to hold a pilot vote at each group before it will be implemented.  

While only a first step of many toward fully uniting with the Encore pilots, this will serve as an excellent example of how unity between pilot groups can benefit the pilot profession and airlines in Canada."

As the CIRB repeatedly mentions in its decisions. Labour relations issues cannot be allowed to malinger and foster disharmony. The light must shine on the problems and they must be dealt with or else the cancer at the heart of the pilot group will grow. Founding any agreement on the perilous foundation of illegality and bad faith and arbitrariness is a path that cannot be taken unless we all choose to doom our fortunes.

There is definitely a CANCER in the WJ group!

I thought you said you were done with me. Can’t help yourself? And when you do it is nothing germane to the discussion apart from an attack on my character. I guess, if that’s all you have in your quiver, fire away.

[The Tenth Man]

John, please explain how I'm wrong. I cited the actual ALPA policies that would apply, not documents from 1956 and 1967 that have been superceded, but you've simply dismissed them. Your only assertion is that I'm in denial. Please tell me how the policy I quoted is not applicable to the argument that you've made, which can be boiled down to, and I quote, "The merger policy governs". Do you not think the merger policy governs anymore? If the merger policy no longer governs, what policy does?

Diadem, we seem to have reached an impasse. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that nowhere am I suggesting that ALPA Merger Policy is applicable to the LOU proposal announced by the WJ MEC. I have already discussed why a merger of the two pilot lists, in the unlikely event that WJ would agree to such a thing would doubly punish WJE pilots who had already flowed to WJ by the time of the “merger” implementation date. As a result of ALPA Merger Policy, the order of the pre-merger seniority lists cannot be changed in the integrated seniority list (ISL).

What this means is that if I am a pilot at WJ and I’m more senior to pilot Y, then in the ISL, I MUST be more senior to pilot Y. Similarly, if a WJE pilot is senior to pilot X on the EPSL, then she MUST be senior to pilot X in the ISL.

Consider a WJE pilot who was the #1 senior pilot at Encore with 4 years of service at WJE and he was above 500 WJE pilots on the list. If he flowed yesterday to WJ (new hire class of one pilot) he is now the most junior pilot, or the last guy on the list.

If a merger of the two pilot groups were announced today, then at least some WJE pilots he was senior to yesterday (all of them) would be senior to him on the ISL, UNLESS the WJE pilots were stapled to the bottom of the WPSL, below the last WJ pilot. But stapling the WJE pilots to the bottom of the WPSL does not recreate the WPDL (One List). Also, a lot more than one WJE pilots have flowed to WJ in the past few years.

So, if you tried to recreate the WPDL via a merger of the two lists, any pilot who had flowed already to WJ by the date of the merger would first lose all his WJE service time when he flowed to the bottom of the WPSL, and then next, as a result of the merger, he would lose even more seniority spots to WJE pilots he used to be senior to.

For this reason, even if WJ agreed to a merger of the lists, it would not be politically acceptable to more and more WJE pilots who flow each month.

For all of the above, this situation has NOTHING to do with ALPA Merger Policy.

John

[The Tenth Man]

To answer your question, the following 62 year old ALPA BOD policy governs. It can be found in Section 40 of the ALPA Administrative Manual. It can also be found in the 1967 ALPA policy manual in my possession.

3DA1A04F-CA0A-4139-83EE-678215CA2C46.png (1.23 MiB) Viewed 1776 times

2E4ED1D6-B263-4AA7-B140-DF9964DB1AF0.jpeg (1.96 MiB) Viewed 1776 times

[Mach1]

[Mach1]

Listen to this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsomXlyTyaQ while watching this gif
and you will feel much, much better.

[DrSpaceman]

Does westjet HR know about this man?

[lownslow]

Surely there's a better platform than avcanada for these manifestos.

[Lateralus]

Dude get some help.

[Lightchop]

Im sure your MEC just loves you posting internal documents on a public forum. Even if they are partially blacked out.

[The Tenth Man]

NCP: Pilots with no legal training practice law just as well as lawyers with no flight training fly airplanes. (bede excluded )

LOLOL, that made me laugh hard.

I don't think anyone is laughing so hard anymore.

[bose]

Don't kid yourself John.....everyone is still laughing.......AT YOU!!!

[RidersRule]

I’m having a good chuckle about all this lol

[hurtin'albertan]

NCP: Pilots with no legal training practice law just as well as lawyers with no flight training fly airplanes. (bede excluded )

LOLOL, that made me laugh hard.

I don't think anyone is laughing so hard anymore.

No. The fact that you remember each and every zombie thread you have spammed with bullshit makes us all laugh harder.

Post the company update from today here (blacked out) and see how long it take for you to get a phone call...

Standing at Portage and Main with a cardboard sign would get your just as much traction as posting your manifestos here. I look forward to you challenging the outcome of the one list stuff in the new year. Should be awesome

[The Tenth Man]

Step by step.

[The Tenth Man]

From Berry v. Pulley, 2012 ONSC 1790:

"[372] For the Defendants to be liable for the tort of unlawful act conspiracy, it must be established that:

(a) they acted in combination, that is, in concert, by agreement or with a common design;
(b) their conduct was unlawful;
(c) their conduct was directed towards the Plaintiffs;
(d) the Defendants should have known that, in the circumstances, injury to the Plaintiffs was likely to result; and
(e) their conduct caused injury to the Plaintiffs: Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas. 35 "

[The Tenth Man]

(a) they acted in combination, that is, in concert, by agreement or with a common design;

ALPA_Canada_Board_Tim_Perry_p2_JPEG_LI.jpg (1.25 MiB) Viewed 2782 times

ALPA_MEC_Update_Nov_02_2018_p1_JPEG.jpg (496.97 KiB) Viewed 2782 times

[The Tenth Man]

With reference to the two attachments in the previous post, here is a paragraph from Berry v. Pulley, 2012 ONSC 1790



"[378] A simple synopsis of the agreement requirement is found in the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in Golden Capital Securities Ltd. v. Holmes:[43]

Thus, to prove a case in conspiracy, it is first necessary to plainly establish, directly or by inference, that there was an agreement between the defendants and one or more others. This does not mean an agreement in the contractual sense. A defendant must be shown to have agreed in the sense of having combined or conspired with one or more others to carry out a common design or a means of achieving a common objective, which is then implemented with resulting injury to the plaintiff."

[The Tenth Man]

(b) their conduct was unlawful;

From Berry v. Pulley, 2012 ONSC 1790:

[379] The conduct may be unlawful if it constitutes a tort, a breach of contract or breach of legislation. Not surprisingly, a breach of fiduciary duty may also constitute unlawful conduct for the purposes of the tort of unlawful conduct conspiracy: GHL Fridman, The Law of Torts in Canada, and Levy-Russell Ltd. v. Techmotiv Inc. Fiduciary obligations may be owed by union officers to their union and a failure to abide by a union's constitution and bylaws by officers of a union has been held to amount to a disregard of a duty of loyalty and a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the union: U.F.C.W., Local 1252 v. Cashin. See also Burley v. OPSEU.

[The Tenth Man]

From Berry v. Pulley

"[410] Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal accepted that union members may be liable in tort. At paragraph 33 of the Court of Appeal decision, Sharpe J.A. wrote:

However, it is well recognized that the acts of individual union members may attract tort liability for conspiracy and interference with economic relations… A claim for tortious conspiracy to deprive a party of contractual rights is plainly distinct from a claim for breach of those contractual rights. Similarly, there is a distinctive nature to a claim for intentional interference with economic interests...

[411] In the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Justice Iacobucci wrote at paragraphs 63-64:

However, this is not to say that union members do not have some obligations inter se. By joining a union, the member agrees to follow the rules of the union, and, through the common bond of membership, union members have legal obligations to one another to comply with these rules. If there is a breach of a member's constitutional rights, this is a breach by the union, and the union may be liable to the individual. Similarly, the disciplinary measures in the constitution can be imposed by the union on a member who contravenes the union's rules. A failure by the union to follow these disciplinary procedures may cause it to breach its contractual obligations to the other members, giving rise to corresponding contractual remedies.

In addition to potential internal procedures, a failure by the union to insist on compliance with the constitution or impose disciplinary measures for its breach may allow members to initiate proceedings either at the CIRB, or the courts, depending on the nature of the complaint. Aside from actions against the union, a member who is harmed by the breach of the union's rules by another member may, if the requisite elements are present, have an action in tort against that member. [Emphasis added.]

[412] It seems implicit from these dicta that the Plaintiffs may meet this requirement of illegality provided that the Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs of their contractual rights under the Constitution or, put differently, assuming the other elements of the tort of conspiracy are present, the Plaintiffs were harmed by the Defendants’ breach of the CALPA Constitution."

[The Tenth Man]

(c) their conduct was directed towards the Plaintiffs;

From Berry v. Pulley:

"[384] The predominant purpose of the defendant's conduct need not be to cause injury to the plaintiff, but the conduct must be directed towards the plaintiff in some manner."


It should be self evident that elevating the seniority rights of former Encore pilots at WJ would have a necessary negative impact on the seniority rights of OTS pilots. Seniority is a zero sum game: when one person gains, another person loses. There is no way the ALPA members and officers gathered for the Herndon Pact could not have known that their conduct would be directed towards the OTS pilots. They were, allegedly, gathered to increase the seniority rights of the former and existing Encore pilots. The people negatively affected by this action would be the OTS pilots.

[The Tenth Man]

(d) the Defendants should have known that, in the circumstances, injury to the Plaintiffs was likely to result;

It is unavoidable that injury would occur to the OTS pilots. As stated previously, seniority is a zero sum game: if the former Encore pilots gain seniority rights and/or rankings by somehow recognizing the WPDL (One List), then OTS pilots would by necessity and clearly suffer financial harm and injury to their quality of life.

[The Tenth Man]

(e) their conduct caused injury to the Plaintiffs:

I believe this is the unfinished part of the puzzle. Will the MEC's proceed with the LOU? If they sign the LOU, and it replicates the WPDL (One List), as the recalled MEC Chairman and the incoming Canada Board President maintain, then there will be, I think, a triable issue as to whether the people gathered in Hernodon in Oct/Nov 2018 who formulated the proposed LOU, were particpatory to and guilty of an unlawful conspiracy to cause harm to the OTS pilots.



Sounds scary.

[DropTanks]

.

[The Tenth Man]

In mulling over this tort, my thoughts are directed towards the third prong of the test is satisfied: was the conduct of the WJ MEC officers and WJ LEC officers present for the Herndon Pact, directed at the the OTS pilots? I'm not convinced that it was. It may have merely been a result of conduct directed towards Encore pilots, with an unavoidable result being that the conduct was simulatenously directed at the OTS pilots (one goes up, the other MUST go down).

In the quest to find some guidance, here is a case involving an illegal one day sick out by some air traffic controllers at CYYZ on September 26, 1980. Some inconvenienced passengers on an Air Canada flight filed an action against the controllers.

Only by causing injury in the form of upset, inconvenience and financial loss to passengers could the air traffic controllers attain their objective. If a storm had closed Toronto International Airport at that time, there would certainly have been no strike as it would be completely ineffectual. It would serve no purpose. It was only by striking while the airport was operating that pressure could be brought upon Transport Canada. In other words, it was only by action hurtful to the passengers that the controllers could obtain their objective.

Defence counsel argued that the defendant did not even know of the existence of the plaintiffs and could hardly have intended to cause them any loss. It is clear, however, that the defendant knew of a group of people, i.e., intending passengers, against whom his efforts were directed. The fact that he did not know their individual identities is irrelevant.

Appellants' counsel brought to the attention of the court a note of the English county court case of Falconer v. A.S.L.E.F. and N.U.R. (May 7, 1986, unreported). Here rail unions went on an illegal strike on January 17, 1986, leaving a passenger, Mr. Falconer, stranded in London. He sued for unlawful interference by the unions with his contract of carriage with British Rail. The trial judge held:

"The plaintiff was one of a definite and identifiable group of people in a contractual relationship with British Rail. The fact that his actual name and description were unknown to the defendants at that time does not preclude him from bringing the action."

Later, as to whether the union action was directed against the plaintiff, he said that:

"To suggest as did the defendants that the effect on passengers was merely consequential was "both naive and divorced from reality'' since "it was clearly the intention of the defendants in calling the strike to direct its effect on the plaintiff and others and that by doing so create pressure upon the Board by the plaintiff and others and thus to induce the Board to accede to the defendant's wishes."

We adopt this reasoning.

Finally in this connection it should be observed that the first alternative set out in the test of Estey J. in LaFarge requires that where lawful means are employed, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's "predominant purpose" was to injure the plaintiff but where, as here, the means used are unlawful, he need only show that it is "directed against the plaintiff" and that the defendant should have known that injury to the plaintiff is likely to and does result.

In summary, we hold that the agreement of the defendant and his fellow controllers to go on an illegal strike was directed towards the plaintiffs and others and that the defendant should have known in the circumstances that injuries to the plaintiffs were likely to result and did result. Accordingly, the test laid down in LaFarge has been satisfied and the plaintiffs are entitled to damages from the defendant.

With reference to this sentence: "...it was clearly the intention of the defendants in calling the strike to direct its effect on the plaintiff and others and that by doing so create pressure upon the Board by the plaintiff and others and thus to induce the Board to accede to the defendant's wishes.", I don't think one could reasonably state that the MEC et al. "directed its effect on the" OTS pilots. It seems more likely the MEC was just ignoring the effect on the OTS pilots in refusing to discuss the impact on their seniority rights.

I'll keep looking for other sources.

Cheers,

John