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

[truedude]

A class action DFR lawsuit. That's totally how the legal system works.

It would be a class action for failure to represent appropriately. And it wouldn't be the first filed in Canada.

[Man_in_the_sky]

I'm just glad this whole fiasco is finally over with and the issue can be put to rest, once and for all. Time to focus on the next round of negotiations, and improving the profession as a whole for all pilots in Canada no matter which carrier they work for.

Are you happy that 285 of your ex-colleague got ''f'ed'' by a breach of contract and will get nothing when it is clear as day that we/they deserved compensation, either monetarely or seniority. Is that what makes you happy ?

[Bede]

A class action DFR lawsuit. That's totally how the legal system works.

It would be a class action for failure to represent appropriately. And it wouldn't be the first filed in Canada.

Do you have a link to the decision?

[truedude]

A class action DFR lawsuit. That's totally how the legal system works.

It would be a class action for failure to represent appropriately. And it wouldn't be the first filed in Canada.

Do you have a link to the decision?

Oh, and there is no agreement with respect to not filing a s.35. What you are referring to is if a merger were to take place, ALPA's general merger guidance wouldn't be needed to be adhered to. But there is absolutely no agreement between ALPA and any party the precludes the filing of a s35.

[PostmasterGeneral]

I'm just glad this whole fiasco is finally over with and the issue can be put to rest, once and for all. Time to focus on the next round of negotiations, and improving the profession as a whole for all pilots in Canada no matter which carrier they work for.

Are you happy that 285 of your ex-colleague got ''f'ed'' by a breach of contract and will get nothing when it is clear as day that we/they deserved compensation, either monetarely or seniority. Is that what makes you happy ?

I dont have "feelings" about this whole fiasco one way or another. Use logic and reason, not emotion.

Whether it's fair or not, it is what it is. Sometimes the big corporations win. Often they win, actually. That's just the way it is. Time to move on.

[Nick678]

I'm just glad this whole fiasco is finally over with and the issue can be put to rest, once and for all. Time to focus on the next round of negotiations, and improving the profession as a whole for all pilots in Canada no matter which carrier they work for.

Are you happy that 285 of your ex-colleague got ''f'ed'' by a breach of contract and will get nothing when it is clear as day that we/they deserved compensation, either monetarely or seniority. Is that what makes you happy ?

I dont have "feelings" about this whole fiasco one way or another. Use logic and reason, not emotion.

Whether it's fair or not, it is what it is. Sometimes the big corporations win. Often they win, actually. That's just the way it is. Time to move on.

AC pilots get pissed when company ignores part of the new contract or delays implementation but turns a blind eye when it happens to other pilot groups "sucks to suck"

[Man_in_the_sky]

Are you happy that 285 of your ex-colleague got ''f'ed'' by a breach of contract and will get nothing when it is clear as day that we/they deserved compensation, either monetarely or seniority. Is that what makes you happy ?

I dont have "feelings" about this whole fiasco one way or another. Use logic and reason, not emotion.

Whether it's fair or not, it is what it is. Sometimes the big corporations win. Often they win, actually. That's just the way it is. Time to move on.

AC pilots get pissed when company ignores part of the new contract or delays implementation but turns a blind eye when it happens to other pilot groups "sucks to suck"

not even sure who you are attacking here.

Truth is, there was clear harm, clear fault and no penality. AC will do it again and Jazz by letting this go, proove they do not care about their members.

[Cypresshill]

“ YUL Pilots,

After reviewing the CIRB’s preliminary ruling, the Montreal council’s view is straightforward: we have effectively lost the ULP. With Air Canada released from the file, we are not optimistic that the CIRB will issue a “make whole” remedy. We also believe that the Executive was less focused on pursuing a negotiated settlement and more focused on a decision imposed by the CIRB.

We do not believe that Air Canada or ACA were intimidated by the ULP filing. Further, we are concerned that the Executive is now considering filing a Section 35 Single Employer at the CIRB.

The CIRB has indicated that our issues would be more appropriately dealt with through the grievance/arbitration process.

We believe that careful consideration should be taken before making that decision. A Section 35 filing will be a very expensive and protracted process (3 to 5 years), which will likely produce insignificant results. We believe that we should not consider filing a Section 35 until the CIRB renders its final ruling and we have received all proposals that were offered by the ACA during the process to try and resolve the issues.

You should be reminded that the Air Canada Regional Pilots—who are now the Jazz pilots—already filed a single employer against Air Canada and ACPA in 1997 and were unsuccessful in the decision issued by Arbitrator Claude Guilbault in 1998. They immediately filed an appeal and were again unsuccessful in the decision issued by Arbitrator Michelle Pineau in 1999.

The Montreal Council believes that our pilots are on the right track in directing us to recall the current MEC Executive, get a new team in place, and refocus on resolving the outstanding issues.”


CB disciples on here are all like "but wait....but....but...but". Sit the F down, man. You were told and warned multiple times this was heading to failure. This grifter MEC needs to be thrown out of the house. This bunch of self-aggrandized buffoons, which gaslights its pilots over "approved" expenses versus justified ones, as if that's the only reason pilots can't stand them anymore, still thinks it should be in the driver's seat. You can't make this stuff up.

Look out for new committee appointments soon as any potential defector of CB will promptly be offered other positions. Right KB? Eh KE?

Is there a bright side to all this? Yes. For some. The MEC has 2 million dollars worth of new office and a crappy vehicle. Apparently the bar is well stocked with the finest therapy money can buy.

As for you line pilots, don't forget to update your standing bid to reflect your desire for that heavy jet captain spot made available by the Hawaiian Cargo contract. Kinda like choosing "X" for gender on that ALPA Canada aeromedical survey.

Fire them.

[hithere]

Cypresshill,
No need to “fire”(ie recall) anyone since all the Executive position terms end early in the new year. February I think. If you have enough support you are welcome to run for one of these positions yourself.

[truedude]

“ YUL Pilots,

After reviewing the CIRB’s preliminary ruling, the Montreal council’s view is straightforward: we have effectively lost the ULP. With Air Canada released from the file, we are not optimistic that the CIRB will issue a “make whole” remedy. We also believe that the Executive was less focused on pursuing a negotiated settlement and more focused on a decision imposed by the CIRB.

We do not believe that Air Canada or ACA were intimidated by the ULP filing. Further, we are concerned that the Executive is now considering filing a Section 35 Single Employer at the CIRB.

The CIRB has indicated that our issues would be more appropriately dealt with through the grievance/arbitration process.

We believe that careful consideration should be taken before making that decision. A Section 35 filing will be a very expensive and protracted process (3 to 5 years), which will likely produce insignificant results. We believe that we should not consider filing a Section 35 until the CIRB renders its final ruling and we have received all proposals that were offered by the ACA during the process to try and resolve the issues.

You should be reminded that the Air Canada Regional Pilots—who are now the Jazz pilots—already filed a single employer against Air Canada and ACPA in 1997 and were unsuccessful in the decision issued by Arbitrator Claude Guilbault in 1998. They immediately filed an appeal and were again unsuccessful in the decision issued by Arbitrator Michelle Pineau in 1999.

The Montreal Council believes that our pilots are on the right track in directing us to recall the current MEC Executive, get a new team in place, and refocus on resolving the outstanding issues.”


CB disciples on here are all like "but wait....but....but...but". Sit the F down, man. You were told and warned multiple times this was heading to failure. This grifter MEC needs to be thrown out of the house. This bunch of self-aggrandized buffoons, which gaslights its pilots over "approved" expenses versus justified ones, as if that's the only reason pilots can't stand them anymore, still thinks it should be in the driver's seat. You can't make this stuff up.

Look out for new committee appointments soon as any potential defector of CB will promptly be offered other positions. Right KB? Eh KE?

Is there a bright side to all this? Yes. For some. The MEC has 2 million dollars worth of new office and a crappy vehicle. Apparently the bar is well stocked with the finest therapy money can buy.

As for you line pilots, don't forget to update your standing bid to reflect your desire for that heavy jet captain spot made available by the Hawaiian Cargo contract. Kinda like choosing "X" for gender on that ALPA Canada aeromedical survey.

Fire them.

This is a really bad take. First, all expenses were approved and known about, so the YUL Capt rep can stop pretending like they didn't know about them when they approved them.

Second, the ULP did get AC and ACA to the table. Fine, nothing came of it, but no harm in talking and searching for common ground.

And third, the YUL Capt rep will retire before the end of the CPA, so they have nothing to lose by the current issues at Jazz. But this crusade against the executive is a clear example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The reality remains, no matter who is in charge, that Jazz is a shrinking entity, with a management team that doesn't appear to have any desire to do anything but play caretaker. They did nothing to try and enforce the exclusivity clause of the CPA. They don't seem to have any plan to try and attract and hire pilots. And they seem content to allow Jazz to simply shrink. Without change, I don't see at the moment how we even are a company past 2035. So for me, I see this as a fight for survival. And when the CIRB goes out of their way to mention a "Common Employer" route is more appropriate to deal with these issues, multiple times in their decision, all parties should sit up and take note. There was absolutely no need for the CIRB to include those statements.

What you are suggesting is essentially a surrender by not pursuing at S.35 route, and doing so as quickly as we can.

If someone wants to be voted to the executive, let them run when the terms are up. I am all for change, but not in this fashion, or by people who have turned it into a personal vendetta.

I do think, however, it is time we have people in all of our elected positions that will likely be with this company past 2035, as they have a vested long term interest in seeing Jazz a prosperous place to work.

[Mr. North]

Just because the CIRB mentions "common employer" multiple times in no way speaks to the validity of that claim. All they said was these arguments don't belong in a ULP, if you want it to be considered there's another section of the code that deals with it. It is procedural housekeeping, not a hint in any way that Section 35 if winnable.

For someone so concerned about the long-term viability of Jazz, Section 35 would be your slowest, most expensive, and worst option. We're talking:
- 3-5 years minimum
- All dialogue between parties immediately ends and positions entrenched
- Millions in legal fees
- No operational changes while the case drags on
- Extremely high burden of proof
- No guaranteed remedy, even if successful

Sounds like a multi-year distraction that really only benefits the company (AC). I still maintain that a collaborative approach is your/our best option with any real chance of success.

[truedude]

Just because the CIRB mentions "common employer" multiple times in no way speaks to the validity of that claim. All they said was these arguments don't belong in a ULP, if you want it to be considered there's another section of the code that deals with it. It is procedural housekeeping, not a hint in any way that Section 35 if winnable.

For someone so concerned about the long-term viability of Jazz, Section 35 would be your slowest, most expensive, and worst option. We're talking:
- 3-5 years minimum
- All dialogue between parties immediately ends and positions entrenched
- Millions in legal fees
- No operational changes while the case drags on
- Extremely high burden of proof
- No guaranteed remedy, even if successful

Sounds like a multi-year distraction that really only benefits the company (AC). I still maintain that a collaborative approach is your/our best option with any real chance of success.

When in the history of these organizations, has collaboration ever resulted in a net benefit for Jazz pilots?

We are dealing with a pilot group that gave away our biggest bargaining advantage, the exclusivity of tier 2 flying, for absolutely nothing in return, creating the last decade of essentially negative bargaining for regional pilots.

We have a corporation that happily disregarded a signed agreement with Jazz pilots, and violated an exclusivity clause it had signed with Jazz.

And we have a management group at Jazz that allowed these things to happen, with no apparent push back or attempt to have Air Canada uphold its obligations, and has shown no plan or even real desire to fix the issues,or recapture flying.

Trying to collaborate given the above is like being in an abusive relationship and being told, "this time will be different." It won't be. And it is absolutely the worst option. It would be 9 years of "talks" with zero result, while Jazz shrinks to oblivion.

So no, a Section 35 is the only option left to take. And the dialogue only ends if the parties choose to end the dialogue. There is absolutely no reason talks can't continue while the Section 35 moves forward. No reason operational changes can't be made while the case drags on. Remember, a Section 35 is filed against a corporation, not any individual employee group.

And I don't know how much time you have spent in and around lawyers, or people in the legal profession. But they don't wast time, or energy in writing things that did not need to be written. And mentioning a Common Employer is the avenue to address these issues, multiple times is not something that was likely don't for no reason. They could have simply said that under the sections the ULP was filed, there is no avenue for remedy.

[Bede]

And I don't know how much time you have spent in and around lawyers, or people in the legal profession. But they don't wast time, or energy in writing things that did not need to be written.

Seriously, have you spent any time around lawyers? That's literally all they do.
"We need to schedule a meeting to schedule the conference call."
"Sorry mister arbitrator, our witness has a sore bum. We need to reschedule. Oh, you're not available for 6 months. I guess we'll reconvene then."

Meanwhile justice is delayed and your costs rise.

[hithere]

And I don't know how much time you have spent in and around lawyers, or people in the legal profession. But they don't wast time, or energy in writing things that did not need to be written.

Seriously, have you spent any time around lawyers? That's literally all they do.
"We need to schedule a meeting to schedule the conference call."
"Sorry mister arbitrator, our witness has a sore bum. We need to reschedule. Oh, you're not available for 6 months. I guess we'll reconvene then."

Meanwhile justice is delayed and your costs rise.

Regardless of the debatable lawyer piece, the rest of truedude’s statement is factual. The past two years were spent with the JAZ MEC doing all the leg work to impress upon all the other three parties the dire state of the airline’s operation and proposing solutions. . The ULP gave the CIRB the power to hold AC management at the table to try to help fix this mess that they created, and then released them after two years of mediated talks going nowhere.
There is nothing compelling AC management to engage any further at the moment

[Mr. North]

When in the history of these organizations, has collaboration ever resulted in a net benefit for Jazz pilots?

We are dealing with a pilot group that gave away our biggest bargaining advantage, the exclusivity of tier 2 flying, for absolutely nothing in return, creating the last decade of essentially negative bargaining for regional pilots.

You're living in the past. The people responsible for 2 decades of concessions are gone. ACPA is gone. We're all on one team now and ACA has doubled in size, with nearly half being hired in the last 5 years. It's an entirely new landscape, with a new cast of characters (on our side at least), and treating this like nothing has changed only limits what’s possible going forward.

Trying to collaborate given the above is ... absolutely the worst option.

I disagree, has anything good ever come out of two pilots groups waring with each other? No. It may be hard for you to see but there are plenty of short and near term opportunities to sort this out provided we're all working in tandem. For AC pilots, it's in our professional interest to have both a stable regional and a mature, predictable pilot pipeline. Collaboration isn’t a favor to regional pilots, it’s a strategic necessity for us at mainline.

So no, a Section 35 is the only option left to take. And the dialogue only ends if the parties choose to end the dialogue. There is absolutely no reason talks can't continue while the Section 35 moves forward. No reason operational changes can't be made while the case drags on. Remember, a Section 35 is filed against a corporation, not any individual employee group.

If you think ACA would entertain meaningful dialogue while a Section 35 is underway, you don’t have a realistic grasp of the dynamics in play. The fact that it’s “filed against the company” doesn’t make it any less of an existential threat to our seniority structure, and it will be treated accordingly. If you’re looking to continue the sad old narrative of Air Canada pilots selling out the regionals, this is exactly the kind of move that will spark the next generational rift.

And mentioning a Common Employer is the avenue to address these issues, multiple times is not something that was likely don't for no reason. They could have simply said that under the sections the ULP was filed, there is no avenue for remedy.

What they are doing here is outlining the broader statutory context to clarify why a particular remedy doesn’t apply. Again it has zero, ZERO bearing on both the validity of that claim or the outcome.

[truedude]

When in the history of these organizations, has collaboration ever resulted in a net benefit for Jazz pilots?

We are dealing with a pilot group that gave away our biggest bargaining advantage, the exclusivity of tier 2 flying, for absolutely nothing in return, creating the last decade of essentially negative bargaining for regional pilots.

You're living in the past. The people responsible for 2 decades of concessions are gone. ACPA is gone. We're all on one team now and ACA has doubled in size, with nearly half being hired in the last 5 years. It's an entirely new landscape, with a new cast of characters (on our side at least), and treating this like nothing has changed only limits what’s possible going forward.

Trying to collaborate given the above is ... absolutely the worst option.

I disagree, has anything good ever come out of two pilots groups waring with each other? No. It may be hard for you to see but there are plenty of short and near term opportunities to sort this out provided we're all working in tandem. For AC pilots, it's in our professional interest to have both a stable regional and a mature, predictable pilot pipeline. Collaboration isn’t a favor to regional pilots, it’s a strategic necessity for us at mainline.

So no, a Section 35 is the only option left to take. And the dialogue only ends if the parties choose to end the dialogue. There is absolutely no reason talks can't continue while the Section 35 moves forward. No reason operational changes can't be made while the case drags on. Remember, a Section 35 is filed against a corporation, not any individual employee group.

If you think ACA would entertain meaningful dialogue while a Section 35 is underway, you don’t have a realistic grasp of the dynamics in play. The fact that it’s “filed against the company” doesn’t make it any less of an existential threat to our seniority structure, and it will be treated accordingly. If you’re looking to continue the sad old narrative of Air Canada pilots selling out the regionals, this is exactly the kind of move that will spark the next generational rift.

And mentioning a Common Employer is the avenue to address these issues, multiple times is not something that was likely don't for no reason. They could have simply said that under the sections the ULP was filed, there is no avenue for remedy.

What they are doing here is outlining the broader statutory context to clarify why a particular remedy doesn’t apply. Again it has zero, ZERO bearing on both the validity of that claim or the outcome.

I am not living in the past, I am living in the last two years. For the last two years your group did nothing but obfuscate, obstruct, and failed to offer anything meaningful or relevant, eventually leading to the CIRB kicking them out. So same old same old. As far as strategy, AC pilots have never demonstrated any long term strategy for the industry as a whole. Again, you are asking us all to believe that this time is different, with zero evidence that it would or will be.

And you can't claim a s.35 has a low probability of success and a waste of time, while also claiming it to be an existential crisis. Both can't be true simultaneously.

And have you even considered the worst case scenario of DOH list merger... Jazz has 900 active pilots, give or take... about 600 of them have ATPLs, the rest don't. So merge the 600 guys with ATPLs, DOH, the rest BOTL. And off those 600, 200 retire in the next 5 years or so. So you are left with 400 pilots shuffled into a list of 5800 pilots, over a period of years. Slowly toss the Qs to PAL or others, park the RJs, and ACA once again controls all Jet flying, something they have wanted since 2003. Hard to call that an existential crisis...

In the end, if a section 35 is filed, it won't come down to how you feel about it, but rather how AC structured it's business. And even if by some miracle AC pilots were prepared to come up with a mutually agreeable solution, without a section 35, it will still require AC corporate to agree. And they don't seem interested in agreeing to anything that costs money. And you aren't going to fix Jazz without significantly improving pay and working conditions to attract pilots. And then there is the problem that both Jazz and AC are trying to attract the same pilots right now.

So we can talk until we are blue in the face... but that has been tried for 2 years, and nothing came of it.

[Tony Soprano]

And have you even considered the worst case scenario of DOH list merger... Jazz has 900 active pilots, give or take... about 600 of them have ATPLs, the rest don't. So merge the 600 guys with ATPLs, DOH, the rest BOTL. And off those 600, 200 retire in the next 5 years or so. So you are left with 400 pilots shuffled into a list of 5800 pilots, over a period of years. Slowly toss the Qs to PAL or others, park the RJs, and ACA once again controls all Jet flying, something they have wanted since 2003. Hard to call that an existential crisis...

Finally the true goals get revealed. Leverage the 285 guys' legitimate grievance to get the remaining Jazz guys on the AC list, many of whom would have enough years in to hold WB captain.

Good luck! And you wonder why AC guys are loathe to help you out?

[truedude]

And have you even considered the worst case scenario of DOH list merger... Jazz has 900 active pilots, give or take... about 600 of them have ATPLs, the rest don't. So merge the 600 guys with ATPLs, DOH, the rest BOTL. And off those 600, 200 retire in the next 5 years or so. So you are left with 400 pilots shuffled into a list of 5800 pilots, over a period of years. Slowly toss the Qs to PAL or others, park the RJs, and ACA once again controls all Jet flying, something they have wanted since 2003. Hard to call that an existential crisis...

Finally the true goals get revealed. Leverage the 285 guys' legitimate grievance to get the remaining Jazz guys on the AC list, many of whom would have enough years in to hold WB captain.

Good luck! And you wonder why AC guys are loathe to help you out?

That isnt a goal. I don't want to work there at all. Neither do most of Jazz pilots. But Jazz is dying, and we need to use the options available to us. One of them a s.35. I would much rather AC had recognized the problem years ago, and fixed it then. But they didn't, so here we are.

And if the wide body left seats are a worry, stick a 10 year fence around them.

And it was never just about the 285 pilots, but the violation to our collective agreement, interference in bargaining, and failure to uphold the Jazz CPA exclusive clause.

[3rdWorldClassPilot]

DOH for Jazz pilots...LOL

When is Claude's reign finally going to come to an end? Aren't you guys embarrassed enough yet?

[GIVCE!]

Let’s drop everything. Everyone back to the line. No more union negotiating. Let Chorus decide the future. They don’t pay…no one’s coming. They lose the CPA due to being unable to fulfill. AC cancels the CPA. Do you feel chorus would want that? Why are we fighting amongst ourselves, again. That’s what ‘they’ want. @#$! em. Let them negotiate with AC. If we go,then Chorus is fucked. This is the ultimate bluff, imo. I’m willing to gamble…this infighting shit needs to stop, today. It’s exactly what they want. We all want the same things. No one’s asking for more than that. Early retirement is on my horizon….@#$! this place.

[GIVCE!]

Nobody at Jazz wants DOH. Put us at the bottom of the list, give new hires at Jazz an AC number DOH. Hire OTS in between DOH. It affects not one current AC pilot. Hold current vacation allotment and pay for current employees. What am I missing? Chorus and Air Canada are laughing their asses off at us rn…

[truedude]

Nobody at Jazz wants DOH. Put us at the bottom of the list, give new hires at Jazz an AC number DOH. Hire OTS in between DOH. It affects not one current AC pilot. Hold current vacation allotment and pay for current employees. What am I missing? Chorus and Air Canada are laughing their asses off at us rn…

This, but with a pay raise to make Jazz more attractive!

[Mr. North]

For the last two years your group did nothing but obfuscate, obstruct, and failed to offer anything meaningful or relevant, eventually leading to the CIRB kicking them out. So same old same old.

Why would anyone sit down to negotiate with someone who puts a loaded gun on the table? A Section 35 filing, real or implied, has been the backdrop of your group’s approach for those two years. It’s been demands, ultimatums, and thinly veiled threats from day one. That may have worked under ACPA, or when dealing with the company, but with ACA it’s the wrong approach.

Even if the odds of success are low, the mechanism itself still carries significant risk to our seniority structure, and ACA would be negligent not to take that seriously. That’s why when a Section 35 is in the mix, the only reasonable response is to narrow the scope of discussions. No one is going to build trust, explore solutions, or take on additional legal exposure while the other side is actively positioning themselves for litigation. That’s not “obfuscating” or "obstructing". It's basic risk management.

Like I said, your leadership is living in the past. Whether it's 2, 5, or 10 years ago. It's an entirely different environment today. We have joined ALPA. 95% of pilots in Canada are now ALPA pilots. It's a new age! For the first time in modern history we are all united, and yet here we are blinded by past grievances (however recent), incapable of seizing on the opportunities before us. There are no easy answers for Jazz but Section 35 is by far the worst one of them all.

[hithere]

Message from your MEC Representatives

Fellow Pilots,

We understand that pilots do not want to see a public airing of the MEC’s internal debate. However, given the divisiveness of two recent communications from the Montreal LEC to their pilots (on November 17 and November 18), representatives from the other LEC’s wish to address this matter. It is critical for the MEC majority to respond strongly to that divisiveness because the narratives that the Montreal LEC perpetuate risk undermining the interests of our entire pilot group.

Your MEC is comprised of the 4 LEC Captain Representatives and 4 LEC First Officer Representatives, elected by you, in each base. The JAZ MEC always strives to reach decisions by consensus, but ultimately (and democratically) the majority rules. As a multi-council airline (YVR, YYC, YYZ, YUL), the representatives from each council decide the direction of our union – not the MEC Executive. While the Executive Officers (Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer) are expected to exercise strong leadership and speak on the MEC’s behalf, their mandate is established by a majority of the Captain and First Officer representatives. Put simply, the MEC Executive role is to execute on the will of the majority of the Captain and First Officer Representatives.

A majority of your MEC does not condone the methods of the Montreal LEC. The matters and opinions aired by the Montreal Council in their November 18 memo (JAZ220UpdateNovember182025.pdf) consist of undecided issues respecting the negotiation and enforcement of our collective agreement. They are also matters that have not yet been deliberated by the MEC. A majority of your MEC also objects to the meddling of the Montreal LEC in an ongoing recall ballot in the Calgary LEC (see their November 17 memo here (JAZ220UpdateNovember172025.pdf). If individuals on the MEC hold a minority position, their responsibility is to advocate that position to their peers, to present alternative paths, and to do this within the diplomatic channels of our union.

Diplomacy and responsible advocacy have not been the path chosen by the Montreal LEC. Instead of advocating internally they have aired their dissent publicly. They have made misleading representations about Section 35; they took a statement from the CIRB preliminary ruling and presented it in a way that distorts its original meaning; and they have cast incorrect aspersions about the MEC Executive’s control of business. Their communications (carefully cloaked as ‘transparency, honesty and integrity’) are an attempt to prejudice pilot opinion on certain issues within their council, and to pressure other MEC members by leveraging their pilots.

Union business aside, Jazz Pilots have legitimate cause to be angry. We can see Jazz in decline. Our company is in this position because Air Canada exercised their power and denied us what we negotiated. We are in an exceedingly difficult position, and we have finite power and influence to affect the outcome. When aspects of our collective agreement were untenable, the companies simply took it back and refuse to negotiate. The primary focus of the MEC right now is to enforce our collective agreement, and the lengths that we must go in doing so are being dictated by Air Canada’s continued unwillingness and Jazz’s inability to address this issue.

This brings us to Section 35. The purpose of Section 35 of the Canada Labour Code is to request the CIRB’s intervention to prevent employers from circumventing their labour relations obligations, and to prevent the undermining of established bargaining rights. ALPA last filed a Section 35 application in 1996. In the decision issued by the CIRB in 1999 (see 1999 CIRB 44), the Board was critical that ALPA was attempting to achieve something through the Board that they could not achieve in collective bargaining. Contrary to the public assertions of the Montreal council, our current situation is completely opposite to that of the late 1990s. In the present era, Jazz Pilots actually achieved things in collective bargaining that were blatantly violated by Air Canada, we are having great difficulty remedying those violations, and we are doing so under circumstances that CIRB case law has previously characterized as labour relations harm. Such harm did not exist in 1996.

Given the history attached to ALPA’s 1996 Section 35 application, a rumour has been circulating within both JAZ and ACA pilot groups that the purpose of a Section 35 application would be to capture date-of-hire seniority for JAZ pilots on the ACA seniority list. This is categorically false. There is no basis in the present set of circumstances that would warrant such measure as a remedy. We all know that one of the keys to relieving staffing issues at Jazz is certainty in career progression, especially given Air Canada’s disregard of our negotiated Pilot Movement provisions. While seniority concepts have formed some of the subject matter in recent exploratory discussions, those hypothetical concepts were designed not to impact the seniority of any current Air Canada pilot and intended to solve specific problems while creating value for all parties.

Seniority and Section 35 have become a convenient wedge issue for anyone who seeks to disrupt our ability to properly represent Jazz pilots. While Pilots at Air Canada and Jazz have a complex relationship and a long history, our fight is not with our ALPA colleagues at ACA - our fight is with the companies. We cannot change the past, but we can try to change the future.

Finally, we respect that some Montreal members provided direction to the Montreal LEC to ‘recall the current MEC Executive’ this past April. While this direction is within the rules of our constitution and democracy, the reason a recall has not happened is because:

(1) the MEC Executive continues to execute on the direction of the majority of your MEC;
(2) the dissenting members of the MEC have failed to advocate any alternate direction, leadership or mandate that will lead Jazz pilots to a better outcome; and,
(3) the dissenting members of the MEC have failed to earn the trust and confidence of their peers because their methods have been perceived as dishonest (facts stripped of context, false narratives, blatant falsehoods, indirect accusations).

Jazz requires improvements in pay, stability and career progression to secure a viable future. The MEC’s job is to do everything within our power to maximize these outcomes and to address the harm that Jazz pilots have suffered. We do not divulge negotiating strategy publicly, but we recently outlined some of this direction in our September 12 (click here) and November 13 (click here) MEC communications, and we will continue to execute on that strategy and adapt as required.

[hithere]

The big takeaway is
“ a rumour has been circulating within both JAZ and ACA pilot groups that the purpose of a Section 35 application would be to capture date-of-hire seniority for JAZ pilots on the ACA seniority list. This is categorically false. There is no basis in the present set of circumstances that would warrant such measure as a remedy”

So can we put this date of hire bs to bed once and for all? None of the JAZ MEC expects it, anyone who claims otherwise is dreaming