How's morale with uncertainty of the one list?

[The Tenth Man]

Finally, and here is where the problem exists for the MECs of WJ and WJE. As stated in the previous post, the following section must be followed, in seniority list integrations, in this case without a JCBA:

Part 3C 4d (not change order on own seniority list)

And here is what that section, Part 3C 4d says (from page 14, attached):

d. No integrated list shall be constructed which would change the order of the flight deck
crew members on their own respective seniority lists.

ALPA_MergerandFragmentationPolicy_page_14_JPG.jpg (445.83 KiB) Viewed 1930 times

[The Tenth Man]

So why is that a problem? Why does not being able to change the order of the pre-merger seniority lists create such a problem?

Well, ask a former WJE pilot who flowed to WJ yesterday. His (or her) DOH is now yesterday, November 7, 2018. This is so, and must be, because of ALPA policies. We've (me, actually) beaten that horse way past unconsciousness. So, if we merged seniority lists today, we can't reorder either WJ or WJE seniority list. That means, the WJE pilot who flowed yesterday will go from BOTL of the WJ seniority list, to still being below every WJ pre-merged seniority list pilot, but also being near the bottom of the post merged seniority list, unless the WJE pilot group is just stapled to the BOTL of the WJ seniority list.

What this means is that the former WJE pilot who may have started with WJE on January 2015, and because he was enjoying Encore, stayed until two days ago, well, he will be below 500 of his formely junior (to him) WJE colleagues who stayed at WJE and didn't flow. Unless, that is, the WJE pilots are stapled to the BOTL.

So you see, there isn't a way to merge the seniority lists, UNDER ALPA RULES, without double-fisting the WJE pilots who have already flowed. They suffer the double impact of not only losing their WJE DOH, and getting instead WJ DOH, they then get a whole bunch of their formerly junior (to them) WJE pilots thrown ahead of them on the merged seniority list.

[The Tenth Man]

So, what's your poison?

(1) Try an LOU that violates 62 year old Executive Board policy by substituting something other than seniority for determining promotions etc?

(2) Try a merged seniority list that seriously screws over WJE pilots who have already flowed to WJ?

(3) Do what actually is going to happen: negotiate the best possible flow agreement, up to and including reserved seniority numbers at WJ for WJE pilots, and admit that it was never possible to do anything else. The two seniority lists will be separate and based on DOH.

(4) At some point in the future, approach the CIRB for a declaration of common employer and then merge the seniority lists (which still hoses WJE pilots who already flowed).

* Options (1) and (2) require WJ management to agree to the proposals. That is not going to happen without serious consessions from the pilot group.

Finally, just because I think it's funny:

Missing_Webite_Link.jpg (1.47 MiB) Viewed 1924 times

[sstaurus]

My god, give it up man. Find a new hobby. Or go create six more handles to argue with yourself, either way. The one list is staying. How much more of your life do you need to waste spreading hate against alpa while cut and pasting the same thing over and over?

[Diadem]

Hey WeedPro, you completely skipped over my post from yesterday. I'd like you to address how WestJet and Swoop can be separate companies with a combined seniority list, but Encore is a separate company that must therefore have a separate seniority list. I think you're going to have to completely re-evaluate your argument when you factor in that there are currently two distinct companies with different AOCs that have the same MEC negotiating for them and the same seniority list.
If the WestJet MEC, Encore MEC, and WestJet management are all on board with the one list, then the only way anything would change is if someone with standing filed a lawsuit. In the five or ten years it would take to resolve said suit, hundreds of pilots would move from WestJet to Swoop, Swoop to WestJet, and Encore to both Swoop and WestJet. At the end of the suit, I can see three probable outcomes:
1. The judge rules that the seniority list was formed in contravention to ALPA rules, and is null and void. In this case (s)he will have to decide what to do with all of the pilots who have moved around. If (s)he returns them to their previous positions, there will be hundreds of people whose lives and careers have been disrupted, and the company's staffing will be hugely lopsided, with hundreds more pilots at Encore than needed and hundreds fewer on the jets; it's very unlikely that the judge would take such drastic action and create such turmoil, so the likely outcome would be that everyone currently on the property is grandfathered into their positions, anyone hired after would be on a new agreement that clearly defines that they're on separate seniority lists, and the company has to financially compensate anyone who was unfairly passed over for an upgrade because of the combined seniority list. This will cost WeedPro's beloved WestJet millions of dollars.
2. The judge rules that the ALPA constitution is kind of vaguely worded, so there's a lot of ambiguity, but because "Company" isn't clearly defined it's reasonable to assume that WestJet, Encore, and Swoop are all part of a single company. The One List stands.
3. The judge rules that, since WestJet, Encore, and Swoop are all part of a single company, and since WestJet and Swoop have a combined bargaining unit, Encore should be part of that unit as well. All pilots in the WestJet family are not only on a single seniority list, but they now have combined negotiating strength, and will likely have to enter into a new CBA. This has completely backfired against the plaintiffs, and will probably cost WeedPro's beloved WestJet millions of dollars.
There it is John. Please provide a rebuttal, and please factor in how you're going to cost your own employer huge amounts of money just so you can stick it to some Encore pilots for having the audacity to unionize.

[CWhyYZ]

So, what's your poison?

One has to point out, if you spent all of your extra time (which you appear to have an abundance of) spreading positive messages and helping others in this world as opposed to sowing seeds of contempt among your peers....well you might have made something of your life. Something that others might have cared about.

[lostaviator]

Some people just want the world to be as miserable as they are.

I wonder how many Tinder accounts he has?

[The Tenth Man]

At the instant that Kaplan presents the CBA to ALPA and WestJet, each WJ pilot will have legally enshrined seniority "rights". The rights accorded to each pilot will be contained in the working conditions etc outlined in the CBA. In the absence of a declaration of a merger of WJ and WJE, or an announcement that ALPA intends to merge* the seniority lists of WJ and WJE pilots, an attempt to negotiate a later upgrade date for affected WJ pilots in order to accommodate perceived duty to WJE pilots, will open ALPA to a further breach of contract claim.

From the OBJECTIVES of the ALPA Constitution and Bylaws:

(1) To provide representation for all members of the airline piloting profession; to promote the interests of that profession; and to safeguard the rights, individually and collectively, of its members.

So, apart from the consitutionally mandated duty of the President of ALPA, and duty of the Chairman of the WJ MEC, to further the policies of the Association (i.e. seniority/seniority rights/seniority list construction), there is also the issue that the very first objective of the association is to protect the individual rights of the members.

What rights OTS pilots hired from 2014 onwards have will entirely depend on what Kaplan (in addition to previously negotiated elements of the CBA) decides. Assuming the contrcat is dated December 31, 2018, if the MEC at WJ fails to protect the full rights of the post 2014 OTS pilots, they will once again be in breach of the terms of the Constitution.

Remember, the parent corporation of WJ and WJE have not indicated any intention to merge the operations of WJ and WJE. ALPA is unlikely to receive any satisfaction in an attempt to negotiate a JCBA. And once enough already-flowed WJE pilots realize that they will suffer severe damages from an integrated seniority list, they will be actively campaigning to prevent any loss of their rights.

Remember, fundamental to the trade union movement is the recognition that in return for the loss of the ability to negotiate directly with his.her management, and the forced acceptance of a CBA, each member expects the union for protect his/her rights. Certainly there are valid labour relations reasons in negotiations when trade-offs/concessions will be made that impact some bargaining unit members more than others, but in the absence of a merger announcement by WJ, those valid labour relations have yet to be proven. Simply holding a vote as justification for trading away the seniority rights of a minority seems insufficent, but then I'm not a lawyer.


*Subject to previously reported damaging repercussions to already-flowed former WJE pilots, and subject to WJ agreeing to recognize this integrated seniority list.

ALPA_Constitution_and_Bylaws_page_7_JPG.jpg (484.84 KiB) Viewed 1339 times

[The Tenth Man]

CWhyYZ, and lostaviatior.

You both seem adept at attacking me or my motives, yet both seem incapable of countering the above arguments. I'm fine with that, it speaks volumes.

I have waited for this time for 18 to 24 months. The time when ALPA would be forced to admit that what they proposed prior to certification was indeed not possible. And further, it was openly discoverable to anyone who was even moderately interested in seeking the truth. I hope that my efforts here will stand as proof that at least one person knew the truth.

In terms of my mental health, or happiness, I'd challenge you to provide some evidence of being miserable. That's not me. I'm happy, and for the most part ALPA can't injure my situation too badly. If I have to take one or two fewer skydiving/BASE jumping trips a year, well, so be it.

I bought a new car yesterday (red!!!!), and I move into a brand new condo in two weeks. Life is good.

Take care.

John Swallow (the one with the new red car)

[Diadem]

Dear Mr Swallow,
Despite your insistence that someone provide a rebuttal to your arguments, you have now ignored two of my posts rebutting your arguments. If you aren't willing to address the points that I raised, I'd say it's fair to assume that you have no argument against them, and that you'd rather just stream-roll through with an avalanche of bullshit. It's the ol' Gish Gallop, and there's no actual substance to it. If you can't provide counter-arguments, then please refrain from further bombarding us with your nonsense.
On further reflection, it also occurred to me that Mr Swallow's argument is based on the section of the ALPA constitution regarding mergers, but the WPDL was not created as a result of a merger; since it was created whole-cloth, I don't believe there is any section of the ALPA bylaws dealing with such a situation. Furthermore, Mr Swallow claims to have reviewed case law that would be applicable should a lawsuit be filed, but he has failed to actually cite any. Much like his favourite president, he prefers to make unfounded claims and never provide supporting evidence. I would like Mr Swallow to provide an example of such a case, and a precedent-setting situation in which an airline created a wholly-owned subsidiary with a single seniority list for pilots at both companies; if, as he claims, there are many such examples, then it should be simple to demonstrate that ALPA's rules prevent such a scenario. I have a feeling there will be no such response provided.

[lostaviator]

The one thing I will agree with him on... I can’t wait for January to roll around so we can check this off as one more thing he was wrong about.

[The Tenth Man]

Hi lostaviator. If you're interested in helping the WJE pilots (current and former) maintain the pre-ALPA privileges that they will lose in 6 weeks or so, I would spend some time countering the arguments I've made and passing that information on to those pilots. I would move quickly, time is ticking away.

And I'm not sure why you think January solves anything. If ALPA has violated the terms of the Constitution by negotiating a non-DOH seniority list, then that simply means court fees for the membership as ALPA defends against the Breach of Contract action that follows. Remember, we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars and more for some OTS pilots. They will fight.

Now, further to the responsibilities that EVERY ALPA member owes to the organization, I present the following section from the ALPA Constitution and Bylaws:

SECTION 18 - OBLIGATION OF MEMBERS TO THE ASSOCIATION

A. A member of the Association shall accept and agree to abide by the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association as they are in force at the time he is accepted for membership, or as they may be thereafter amended, changed, modified or adopted by the Board of Directors.
.
.
.
C. Members of the Association are specifically prohibited from the acts enumerated and set forth in Article VIII, Section 1A.

You can find Article VIII, Section 1A (and JPEG attachment) in a preceding post. Here is the relevant section:

ARTICLE VIII - HEARING AND APPEAL PROCEDURES

SECTION 1 - HEARING OF MEMBERSHIP CASES

A. Any member (including any Inactive member) may be disciplined, fined, or expelled for any of the following acts:

(1) Willful violation of this Constitution and By-Laws.
.
.
.
(3) Willful disobedience or failure to comply with an established policy or any other decision of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board, the Executive Council, or the member’s Master Executive Council, Local Executive Council, or Local Council.


With respect, I submit that there is no more established policy of the Executive Board, and indeed of ALPA, than the policy on seniority/seniority rights/seniority list construction. Good luck in ignoring that one.

ALPA_Constitution_and_Bylaws_page_10_JPG.jpg (581.15 KiB) Viewed 1216 times

[The Tenth Man]

What the preceding post lends support to is the contention that all ALPA members (not just the MEC chairman) who participated in the discussions to subvert and disregard established association policy (if that is that is the purpose of the LOU) have brought themselves into a position where they may be "disciplined, fined, or expelled" by ALPA for their actions.

As there is an MEC meeting in YYC today at 3 pm to (among other things) crown RJ as the new Vice-Chairman, a good place to start would be by asking him what the contents of the LOU are. I believe he participated in those discussions.

Further, I'm not sure if politically it is a good idea for the new Canada Board President-Elect to take office if he is guilty of trying to subvert and disregard association policy. Perhaps he can answer what the proposed LOU intends to do. Who came in second place in the Canada Board election? Perhaps he is ready to assume office if called on to do so.

[lostaviator]

J,

I would be more than happy to begin a constructive discussion with you. You have done your homework and I do respect that, BUT you owe the other members of this community the same courtesy. I’d run out of fingers and toes pretty quick if I went back and tried to count the number of unanswered questions people have asked you in response to something you have posted. Not engaging in discussions you start and simply starting a new thread everyday grows tiresome to the rest of us.

Why is it you are so concerned with the “one list”? You have stated time and time again that you won’t be affected either way nor do you care about your fellow pilots. So why? If you really wanted to get my (and others) attention, you should have been honest and shown your hand from the beginning: overtime. Then you would have gotten our attention.

All we can do now is wait. Nothing we say will change the outcome of THIS contract. Proposals and arguments have already been submitted.

[cloak]

The crux of your argument seems to be based on this clause: Section 40.3 "Seniority shall begin to accrue from the date upon which a pilot employed by the Company as a pilot begins initial training required to perform such duties in airline operations..."

As it stands now, it was WestJet, not Mr. Kaplan, that voluntarily ceded "single bargaining unit" status to WestJet and Swoop, which is not exactly the same as common employer. The issue of Encore is not before Mr. Kaplan. Pilots that flow from Encore to WestJet/Swoop resign their employment from Encore and start at year one with WestJet/Swoop while maintaining some benefits such as vacation allowance. WestJet and Encore relationship is similar to Air Canada and Jazz (or old Air Ontario). Encore is a separate company which happens to be also represented by ALPA by a separate MEC.Therefore, it could be argued that the only way their seniorities can be merged is if the two companies were to merge. Then both being represented by ALPA could possibly argue for DOH with some fences, etc.

Now the issue is that WestJet has been hiring directly as well. It is being argued that merging the lists is to the detriment of those that were hired directly into WestJet who could say ALPA cannot arbitrarily merge lists with another company, subsidiary or not, when it is to the detriment of its own (WestJet/Swoop) members as it could be deemed a failure of its fiduciary duty to protect its own members.

[Hangry]

Anyone remember that old Danny Bonaduce show, “Breaking Bonaduce”? Literally a mental breakdown train wreck. He used to “tilt” really hard. I imagine that’s J.S alone, at his keyboard just tilting HARD.

Sad.

[The Tenth Man]

Almost finished.

Here is a judgment in an action brought separately (but combined into one case) by two groups of pilots involved in the AC/Canadian merger. It is very similar in nature to the issues involved at WJ/WJE. Unfortunately for both groups, they made choices that hurt them later, and did not act at a time when they might have been able to correct the damage done to their careers and future earnings.

I wonder how many bede's and lostaviator's et al. back then were telling these two groups that everything would be fine?

The first group:

[12] The applicants in this file are a group of 40 Air Canada pilots, formerly CRA pilots, who allege that the Keller award disregards their rights as enshrined in the CRA collective agreement. They call themselves the “flow-through” pilots who were transferred from CRA to Air Canada after October 17, 2000.

[13] The essence of their case is that they were initially selected for transfer to Air Canada from CRA in 1999, at the time of the merger, but before the Board’s ruling on October 17, 2000, that the Air Canada and former CAIL pilots constituted a single bargaining unit. Prior to the Board’s ruling, Air Canada negotiated with ALPA the terms of flow-through rights for CRA pilots as a letter of understanding (LOU) to the collective agreement in view of protecting their seniority rights.
This agreement was negotiated independently from the CAIL or the Air Canada pilots collective agreements. [To put this into context, Air Canada continued after the merger to negotiate separate collective agreements with all existing trade unions up until the Board ruled on the composition of the various bargaining units.]

[14] The terms of the LOU are similar, if not identical, to a practice that existed at CAIL before the merger. Pilots who had been selected for employment but held back at CRA for operational reasons were placed on the CAIL seniority list as if they were working at CAIL. In other words, they maintained their position on the seniority list relative to other CRA pilots who had not been held back as well as other “off the street” CAIL pilots hired after them (see file no. 23919-C below).

[15] The applicants state that they had all been selected for flow-through to Air Canada in 1999, but were held back for operational reasons until after October 17, 2000. They claim that they have a negotiated right to be placed on the CAIL seniority list under the terms of this LOU in order to maintain their relative seniority ranking during the merger.

[16] The applicants argue that the Keller award does not take into account this relative seniority, as they have not been placed ahead of less senior CRA pilots who were not held back or CAIL pilots who were hired thereafter. The applicants further argue that the award violates the Board’s ruling in Air Canada (183), supra, that pre-merger contractual rights were to be honoured in any decision concerning seniority integration. The applicants add that the Keller award constitutes a breach of natural justice because it does not address their issue and no reasons are given for this lack of consideration.

The second group:

[17] The second group of applicants are 33 so-called “off the street” (OTS) pilots at CAIL who were hired between 1997 and 1999, but who have no employment history at CRA. In asserting their rights, these OTS pilots challenge the informal application that was made by CAIL of an internal union agreement known as the “Quebec Accord.” These pilots argue that the application of the Quebec Accord contravenes the CAIL collective agreement by giving all flow-through CRA pilots more rights than OTS pilots who have a prior date of hire. They state that the CAIL agreement provides that pilots are ranked on the seniority list according to the date of hire and that no distinction is made between so-called CRA flow-through pilots and new hires. However, through an informal practice, CAIL gave all CRA pilots it hired a higher seniority ranking than them. Their position is that the Keller award favours former CRA pilots who were illegally ranked ahead of them on the CAIL seniority list, without putting forth any reasons for not respecting their contractual seniority rights.

[18] Some historical context is necessary to understand the claims of these applicants. Master Executive Councils (MECs) are ALPA’s representatives in the workplace of each airline it represents for purposes of collective bargaining and collective agreement administration. MECs have no status separate from ALPA, which is the certified bargaining agent, but have the authority to conclude a collective agreement, subject to ALPA’s consent to its terms. MECs are, nonetheless, given a wide berth in the bargaining and administration of the collective agreement.

[19] The Quebec Accord is an agreement that was signed between ALPA’s MECs at CAIL and at CRA in 1996. The purpose of the Quebec Accord was to encourage CAIL to fill its vacant positions by giving preference to pilots currently employed at CRA, before going to other labour market sources. In response to the Quebec Accord, a LOU, referred to as a flow-through agreement, was first negotiated as part of the CRA collective agreement, and among other terms, provided that in the event a CRA pilot applied to CAIL but was not selected or failed to qualify on initial assignment, such pilot could return to his former position on the CRA seniority list. As well, a former pilot’s seniority was protected at CRA in the event that he should be furloughed (laid-off) at CAIL within five years of hiring.

[20] A reciprocal arrangement for furloughed CAIL pilots to be considered for vacancies at CRA through a reverse flow-through process was to occur, but for reasons that are not relevant to the instant matter, was never incorporated into the CRA collective agreement or for that matter into the CAIL collective agreement. Be this as it may, CAIL, in a good will gesture, informally agreed to rank CRA pilots transferring to CAIL ahead of any OTS pilot on the seniority list, even
though their date of hire at CAIL might be after any OTS pilot.

[21] Between 1997 and 2000, 100 CRA pilots were hired into CAIL as compared to 33 OTS pilots. During this same period, CRA continued to grow, to the extent that new hires (not eligible for flow-through) outnumbered the pilots remaining at CRA who were eligible for flow-through to CAIL. As these newly hired CRA pilots were not entitled to flow-through, they did not want to agree to the flow-back of any furloughed CAIL pilots who would then displace them on the seniority list.

[22] This state of affairs led to the LOU governing the CRA pilots to be suspended until CRA agreed to a flow-back of furloughed CAIL pilots. For reasons unexplained, OTS pilots who were offered the opportunity to be employed at Air Canada, prior to the merger, elected nonetheless to remain at CAIL. They now submit that this was a bad decision on their part, as they are now being “punished” for their loyalty.

[lostaviator]

To the point above re: Air Canada / Jazz vs WJ / Encore

Where we are different from Air Canada / Jazz is that they are both completely separate companies; the same cannot be said for WestJet/Encore/Swoop.

All of the team teals/pink are owned by “WestJet”. None of us actually work for “WestJet”. In fact, Swoopsters are more directly associated to WJ then we are. (Wj Pilots are two steps down the tree of companies).

We all do work for the same “company” just via a bunch of other companies.

[The Tenth Man]

Anyone remember that old Danny Bonaduce show, “Breaking Bonaduce”? Literally a mental breakdown train wreck. He used to “tilt” really hard. I imagine that’s J.S alone, at his keyboard just tilting HARD.

Sad.

hangry, what I would do, if I didn't have an answer or opposing opinion regarding the arguments above, is I would attack the poster. What would you do?

And I'm not alone lol. But if you do have concerns about my mental health, I'd suggest you contact the appropriate authorities, as I will be in command of an aircraft with passengers today. I'm cool if you do.

[The Tenth Man]

To the point above re: Air Canada / Jazz vs WJ / Encore

Where we are different from Air Canada / Jazz is that they are both completely separate companies; the same cannot be said for WestJet/Encore/Swoop.

All of the team teals/pink are owned by “WestJet”. None of us actually work for “WestJet”. In fact, Swoopsters are more directly associated to WJ then we are. (Wj Pilots are two steps down the tree of companies).

We all do work for the same “company” just via a bunch of other companies.

I appreciate that you feel this way. It would seem to make sense. Unfortunately, when ALPA certified the WJ pilot group, they did not include the WJE pilots in the bargaining unit. Had they done so, you might have a case.

You will note that the arbitrator, Kaplan, made no mention of Encore in his judgment of September 30th, 2018.

If ALPA wants to combine the WJE pilots into the same bargaining unit as the WJ pilots, they will need to approach the CIRB, if WJ is unwilling to voluntarily do so (unlikely). I can save you the trouble of looking up the case law: twice in the last two years, ALPA has approached the CIRB requesting to certify two groups of pilots, WJ and WJE, and in each case they specified and argued for the description of the bargaining units (who it included and who it excluded). The CIRB will not, in the absence of a material change in the WJ corporate makeup, simply revise the description of the bargaining units because ALPA has changed its mind. Especially since the description of the bargaining units seems to be working: the WJ pilots will soon have a CBA and the WJE pilots will soon commence bargaining for a CBA.

Does it not seem strange to you that ALPA, who did not negotiate for the one list during the contentious negotiations, is pinning all of their hopes for the revival of the (soon to be extinct) WPDL on the goodwill of WJ? Does that seem like the most prudent course of action if they truly wanted the WPDL? Wouldn't they have tried to reduce the antagonism of the negotiation environment if they knew they would need a favour from WJ after the CBA was completed?