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

[Cypresshill]

The final ULP decision was submitted December 30.

It’s over.

Once Jazz pilots see this, they will lol (but probably not) at the propects of a common employer filing…

Can’t wait to see the spin memo.

[truedude]

The final ULP decision was submitted December 30.

It’s over.

Once Jazz pilots see this, they will lol (but probably not) at the propects of a common employer filing…

Can’t wait to see the spin memo.

So what do you suggest? Shrug our shoulders, and do nothing? "Jeez shucks, they got us this time." The CIRB likes to defer almost everything, but they can't defer a s.35. We have a contract section that was intentionally violated, along with a separate signed agreement with Air Canada, which they violated.

So if we don't do a s.35, what is it you suggest we do? Roll over and play dead?

[Stu Pidasso]

Nobody with one ounce of Union / Contract Language / CIRB knowledge thought this was ever going to go anywhere. There were Jazz Flow through Pilots convinced that there would be a complete reorder of the Seniority List, rocketing them up hundreds of numbers.

Never underestimate the power of an Echo Chamber.

[cdnavater]

Nobody with one ounce of Union / Contract Language / CIRB knowledge thought this was ever going to go anywhere. There were Jazz Flow through Pilots convinced that there would be a complete reorder of the Seniority List, rocketing them up hundreds of numbers.

Never underestimate the power of an Echo Chamber.

It confounds me why everyone focuses on the flow violation, that is secondary to the actual reason the ULP was filed, AC interference with our collective bargaining and denying us an agreed upon MOU. That is the biggest issue at hand, we had an agreement and AC denied it, resulting in a lesser agreement that was in Claude’s word(paraphrasing), “it would be irresponsible to not let us vote” however when he handed the signed agreement to Jazz, it was without prejudice, meaning we still have a claim to what should have been voted on, that is what’s going on.
The company needs to be held accountable for contract violations, they continue to get away with it and that emboldens them to take even more, look at what’s going on at AC, how many violations are you grieving?
As for the flow violation, sure, why wouldn’t they want to be made whole, calculating damages would be near impossible with so many variables, so the best outcome would have been a date that should have been. Unfortunately with AC being released from the ULP and leaving grievance as the only avenue for Jazz pilots, I don’t think much will come of that.
The common employer filing, if it happens, this is the great unknown but one thing for sure is not doing it would be just giving up on holding AC to account!
I don’t believe that a successful Sec 35 would mean anything regarding the seniority list, just who we bargain with and grieve for any violation.
I’m going to let the labour lawyers sort that out but I’m not counting my seniority numbers on the wide body fleet, for me it’s simply holding AC to account!

[Bede]

So if we don't do a s.35, what is it you suggest we do? Roll over and play dead?

File a policy grievance.

[hithere]

The Jazz MEC could win a policy grievance but the only entity capable of providing remedy is not Jazz, it’s AC. See the problem?

[altiplano]

Nobody with one ounce of Union / Contract Language / CIRB knowledge thought this was ever going to go anywhere. There were Jazz Flow through Pilots convinced that there would be a complete reorder of the Seniority List, rocketing them up hundreds of numbers.

Never underestimate the power of an Echo Chamber.

It confounds me why everyone focuses on the flow violation, that is secondary to the actual reason the ULP was filed, AC interference with our collective bargaining and denying us an agreed upon MOU. That is the biggest issue at hand, we had an agreement and AC denied it, resulting in a lesser agreement that was in Claude’s word(paraphrasing), “it would be irresponsible to not let us vote” however when he handed the signed agreement to Jazz, it was without prejudice, meaning we still have a claim to what should have been voted on, that is what’s going on.
The company needs to be held accountable for contract violations, they continue to get away with it and that emboldens them to take even more, look at what’s going on at AC, how many violations are you grieving?
As for the flow violation, sure, why wouldn’t they want to be made whole, calculating damages would be near impossible with so many variables, so the best outcome would have been a date that should have been. Unfortunately with AC being released from the ULP and leaving grievance as the only avenue for Jazz pilots, I don’t think much will come of that.
The common employer filing, if it happens, this is the great unknown but one thing for sure is not doing it would be just giving up on holding AC to account!
I don’t believe that a successful Sec 35 would mean anything regarding the seniority list, just who we bargain with and grieve for any violation.
I’m going to let the labour lawyers sort that out but I’m not counting my seniority numbers on the wide body fleet, for me it’s simply holding AC to account!

The Jazz deal subject to the ULP was a TA, right? Doesn't that mean tentative, subject to approval/ratification in both sides? Just like the membership can vote it down, the BOD/executive suite can turn it down.

Yeah it stinks. Border line bad faith for certain from management really, but there's always a subject to approval in there which is legit and deals get blown up all the time and really the union had no leverage. It's impressive you were getting anything while locked in with most of 17 years still to go.

[cdnavater]

Nobody with one ounce of Union / Contract Language / CIRB knowledge thought this was ever going to go anywhere. There were Jazz Flow through Pilots convinced that there would be a complete reorder of the Seniority List, rocketing them up hundreds of numbers.

Never underestimate the power of an Echo Chamber.

It confounds me why everyone focuses on the flow violation, that is secondary to the actual reason the ULP was filed, AC interference with our collective bargaining and denying us an agreed upon MOU. That is the biggest issue at hand, we had an agreement and AC denied it, resulting in a lesser agreement that was in Claude’s word(paraphrasing), “it would be irresponsible to not let us vote” however when he handed the signed agreement to Jazz, it was without prejudice, meaning we still have a claim to what should have been voted on, that is what’s going on.
The company needs to be held accountable for contract violations, they continue to get away with it and that emboldens them to take even more, look at what’s going on at AC, how many violations are you grieving?
As for the flow violation, sure, why wouldn’t they want to be made whole, calculating damages would be near impossible with so many variables, so the best outcome would have been a date that should have been. Unfortunately with AC being released from the ULP and leaving grievance as the only avenue for Jazz pilots, I don’t think much will come of that.
The common employer filing, if it happens, this is the great unknown but one thing for sure is not doing it would be just giving up on holding AC to account!
I don’t believe that a successful Sec 35 would mean anything regarding the seniority list, just who we bargain with and grieve for any violation.
I’m going to let the labour lawyers sort that out but I’m not counting my seniority numbers on the wide body fleet, for me it’s simply holding AC to account!

The Jazz deal subject to the ULP was a TA, right? Doesn't that mean tentative, subject to approval/ratification in both sides? Just like the membership can vote it down, the BOD/executive suite can turn it down.

Yeah it stinks. Border line bad faith for certain from management really, but there's always a subject to approval in there which is legit and deals get blown up all the time and really the union had no leverage. It's impressive you were getting anything while locked in with most of 17 years still to go.

No, technically in was an agreement in principle that was subject to ratification, I am not sure exactly how and when AC stepped in but the communication was that the agreement had been reached and would be put to a ratification vote. Shortly after that and this is the important part, AC denied it, not Jazz management, AC. It would be a different story if it was clear that AC had veto power to any agreement reached between our MEC and our company but it was not clear to the membership and if the MEC was aware they have not communicated that to us.

[truedude]

So if we don't do a s.35, what is it you suggest we do? Roll over and play dead?

File a policy grievance.

That will be done, but it doesn't address the interference by AC in our previous contract negotiation, which can only be addressed now through a s.35. And even if we win the policy grievance, what would the remedy be?

We also hold a letter from AC affirming their commitment for flow from 2019, so maybe sue them?

But we also took on Sky Regional and agreed to a quick integration based on being exclusive until the end of 2025, which they ignored. Which again shows collusion between jazz and AC as jazz did nothing to defend that CPA clause.

So it is a number of things, and the CIRB has pointed out multiple times now, that these issues can only be addressed by them under a s.35 filing.

[altiplano]

It confounds me why everyone focuses on the flow violation, that is secondary to the actual reason the ULP was filed, AC interference with our collective bargaining and denying us an agreed upon MOU. That is the biggest issue at hand, we had an agreement and AC denied it, resulting in a lesser agreement that was in Claude’s word(paraphrasing), “it would be irresponsible to not let us vote” however when he handed the signed agreement to Jazz, it was without prejudice, meaning we still have a claim to what should have been voted on, that is what’s going on.
The company needs to be held accountable for contract violations, they continue to get away with it and that emboldens them to take even more, look at what’s going on at AC, how many violations are you grieving?
As for the flow violation, sure, why wouldn’t they want to be made whole, calculating damages would be near impossible with so many variables, so the best outcome would have been a date that should have been. Unfortunately with AC being released from the ULP and leaving grievance as the only avenue for Jazz pilots, I don’t think much will come of that.
The common employer filing, if it happens, this is the great unknown but one thing for sure is not doing it would be just giving up on holding AC to account!
I don’t believe that a successful Sec 35 would mean anything regarding the seniority list, just who we bargain with and grieve for any violation.
I’m going to let the labour lawyers sort that out but I’m not counting my seniority numbers on the wide body fleet, for me it’s simply holding AC to account!

The Jazz deal subject to the ULP was a TA, right? Doesn't that mean tentative, subject to approval/ratification in both sides? Just like the membership can vote it down, the BOD/executive suite can turn it down.

Yeah it stinks. Border line bad faith for certain from management really, but there's always a subject to approval in there which is legit and deals get blown up all the time and really the union had no leverage. It's impressive you were getting anything while locked in with most of 17 years still to go.

No, technically in was an agreement in principle that was subject to ratification, I am not sure exactly how and when AC stepped in but the communication was that the agreement had been reached and would be put to a ratification vote. Shortly after that and this is the important part, AC denied it, not Jazz management, AC. It would be a different story if it was clear that AC had veto power to any agreement reached between our MEC and our company but it was not clear to the membership and if the MEC was aware they have not communicated that to us.

I doubt it was one side ratification. If Labour had the option, management did too. But even if it was, you guys then negotiated and ratified another deal. That would supercede the previous. There's nothing there for you.

[truedude]

The Jazz deal subject to the ULP was a TA, right? Doesn't that mean tentative, subject to approval/ratification in both sides? Just like the membership can vote it down, the BOD/executive suite can turn it down.

Yeah it stinks. Border line bad faith for certain from management really, but there's always a subject to approval in there which is legit and deals get blown up all the time and really the union had no leverage. It's impressive you were getting anything while locked in with most of 17 years still to go.

No, technically in was an agreement in principle that was subject to ratification, I am not sure exactly how and when AC stepped in but the communication was that the agreement had been reached and would be put to a ratification vote. Shortly after that and this is the important part, AC denied it, not Jazz management, AC. It would be a different story if it was clear that AC had veto power to any agreement reached between our MEC and our company but it was not clear to the membership and if the MEC was aware they have not communicated that to us.

I doubt it was one side ratification. If Labour had the option, management did too. But even if it was, you guys then negotiated and ratified another deal. That would supercede the previous. There's nothing there for you.

That isn't true. If we can demonstrate that AC directly interfered, that is clearly crossing a line and exactly what s.35 is designed to address.

[cdnavater]

The Jazz deal subject to the ULP was a TA, right? Doesn't that mean tentative, subject to approval/ratification in both sides? Just like the membership can vote it down, the BOD/executive suite can turn it down.

Yeah it stinks. Border line bad faith for certain from management really, but there's always a subject to approval in there which is legit and deals get blown up all the time and really the union had no leverage. It's impressive you were getting anything while locked in with most of 17 years still to go.

No, technically in was an agreement in principle that was subject to ratification, I am not sure exactly how and when AC stepped in but the communication was that the agreement had been reached and would be put to a ratification vote. Shortly after that and this is the important part, AC denied it, not Jazz management, AC. It would be a different story if it was clear that AC had veto power to any agreement reached between our MEC and our company but it was not clear to the membership and if the MEC was aware they have not communicated that to us.

I doubt it was one side ratification. If Labour had the option, management did too. But even if it was, you guys then negotiated and ratified another deal. That would supercede the previous. There's nothing there for you.

Our management, Jazz not AC, we were told an agreement was reached and was being prepared for ratification, I assume that to mean the board or whoever had signed off. The wording used was AC management slid a piece of paper across the table of what they were willing to pay and our MEC walked away.
It was handed signed to Jazz management without prejudice, in law this means without detriment to any existing right or claim, I’m sure that was what the lawyers advised.
Anyhow, it doesn’t matter what you or I think, all that matters is what the final result is when it’s done and there are no more options left but to do nothing, to just roll over seems absurd to me.

[altiplano]

Air Canada is represented on your Board of Directors.

Ultimately it's your Board of Directors that directed the action.

TAs and AIPs aren't locked in deals until they are confirmed and ratified on both sides or replaced with a different deal. Wasn't confirmed, was ultimately replaced.

Sucks, but that's what it is.

[cdnavater]

Air Canada is represented on your Board of Directors.

Ultimately it's your Board of Directors that directed the action.

TAs and AIPs aren't locked in deals until they are confirmed and ratified on both sides or replaced with a different deal. Wasn't confirmed, was ultimately replaced.

Sucks, but that's what it is.

They have one board seat, they are not the entire board, do you have the minutes from that meeting?
We were told an agreement was reached, it was being prepared for ratification, this has not happened in the past where we were told we had an agreement and then we didn’t. The MEC communication was very clear, they had the rug pulled out from under them by AC, not the board!

[altiplano]

Jazz management overstepped their mandate. That were reigned in by your board of directors.

I'll say again, TAs and AIPs are not locked in deals. They are subject to approval on both sides every time.

Just like the union membership can vote down a deal. The corporate officers can say no.

Ultimately it was your board that turned down the deal.
Then you guys ratified a deal anyway.

Good luck.

[truedude]

Jazz management overstepped their mandate. That were reigned in by your board of directors.

I'll say again, TAs and AIPs are not locked in deals. They are subject to approval on both sides every time.

Just like the union membership can vote down a deal. The corporate officers can say no.

Ultimately it was your board that turned down the deal.
Then you guys ratified a deal anyway.

Good luck.

It wasn't the board. It was AC. That is a big difference. It was AC management directly interfering. Not sure where on earth you are getting the idea it was the board of Chorus that stopped the TA from being out to a vote.

[cdnavater]

Jazz management overstepped their mandate. That were reigned in by your board of directors.

I'll say again, TAs and AIPs are not locked in deals. They are subject to approval on both sides every time.

Just like the union membership can vote down a deal. The corporate officers can say no.

Ultimately it was your board that turned down the deal.
Then you guys ratified a deal anyway.

Good luck.

You can say it as many times as you want, maybe I’ll speak loud and slow, WHEN THE UNION SAYS THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE OR A MOU, THIS MEANS THEY HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THE GO AHEAD TO PRESENT IT TO THE MEMBERS!
Can you point to a time in your time at AC where they told you they have reached a TA and then sometime between when they said that and the ratification vote, they reneged on the TA?
And I’ll say it again, when the MEC gave the signed agreement to Jazz management, they did so without prejudice, this means in legal terms they reserve the right to challenge the previous agreement that was “agreed” to.
Fact is, you have absolutely no idea, you seem to conflate AC having a board seat as “the board decided”, you show me the board meeting minutes that they voted to turn down this agreement and I’ll concede your point!

[altiplano]

You show me the AIP where it said it was only subject to pilot vote and I'll concede.

There are always subjects for approval on both sides with an agreement like this. Ultimately your company didn't approve it. It doesn't matter if that came from AC influence on the board, which is what is most likely, or their customer saying they weren't prepared to incur the additional costs that Jazz planned to pass through to them and Jazz management having to walk it back as they were clearly not willing to shoulder the costs themselves. It was ultimately your board of directors that hold the responsibility.

Good luck with it all.

[truedude]

You show me the AIP where it said it was only subject to pilot vote and I'll concede.

There are always subjects for approval on both sides with an agreement like this. Ultimately your company didn't approve it. It doesn't matter if that came from AC influence on the board, which is what is most likely, or their customer saying they weren't prepared to incur the additional costs that Jazz planned to pass through to them and Jazz management having to walk it back as they were clearly not willing to shoulder the costs themselves. It was ultimately your board of directors that hold the responsibility.

Good luck with it all.

It didn't come from the board. The board had no involvement in its rejection. The rejection came directly from AC after they sat on the TA for 2 weeks. Where is this board nonsense even coming from? You are literally just grasping.

[altiplano]

You show me the AIP where it said it was only subject to pilot vote and I'll concede.

There are always subjects for approval on both sides with an agreement like this. Ultimately your company didn't approve it. It doesn't matter if that came from AC influence on the board, which is what is most likely, or their customer saying they weren't prepared to incur the additional costs that Jazz planned to pass through to them and Jazz management having to walk it back as they were clearly not willing to shoulder the costs themselves. It was ultimately your board of directors that hold the responsibility.

Good luck with it all.

It didn't come from the board. The board had no involvement in its rejection. The rejection came directly from AC after they sat on the TA for 2 weeks. Where is this board nonsense even coming from? You are literally just grasping.

Show me the AIP without a subject to approval clause.
Show me a letter from Mike Rousseau to JZA ALPA negotiating this.
Show me that you didn't follow up by freely ratifying a new deal.

[truedude]

You show me the AIP where it said it was only subject to pilot vote and I'll concede.

There are always subjects for approval on both sides with an agreement like this. Ultimately your company didn't approve it. It doesn't matter if that came from AC influence on the board, which is what is most likely, or their customer saying they weren't prepared to incur the additional costs that Jazz planned to pass through to them and Jazz management having to walk it back as they were clearly not willing to shoulder the costs themselves. It was ultimately your board of directors that hold the responsibility.

Good luck with it all.

It didn't come from the board. The board had no involvement in its rejection. The rejection came directly from AC after they sat on the TA for 2 weeks. Where is this board nonsense even coming from? You are literally just grasping.

Show me the AIP without a subject to approval clause.
Show me a letter from Mike Rousseau to JZA ALPA negotiating this.
Show me that you didn't follow up by freely ratifying a new deal.

AC can set general cost targets, they can't directly approve or toss out agreements. That's when you cross the line into common employer. And AC handed down a pay scale, that did not come from Jazz or Jazz pilots, which is another line crossed into common employer. This is where Rouge FAs failed, as they couldn't show ACs direct involvement in negotiations outside setting general price targets. But we now have two insistences of AC crossing the line into common employer.

We have a strong case. And it will very likely be pursued. It does not mean a seniority merger, just we don't play a stupid shell game as to who actually makes the decisions, and cut out the middleman.

[hithere]

So you are asking for confidential documents(all subject to an NDA) to be disclosed on avcanada? Ok
At the end of the day, the JAZ MEC and, by extension, its pilots, are in a horrible bargaining position. Always have been, always will be. It’s the nature of a CPA(even when they were wholly owned the CIRB found a way to f$ck them)
Altiplano(and all other mainline contributors) be thankful that when you bargain, you actually bargain with your true employer-you know, the entity that can actually make decisions on your bargaining-crazy I know right?
You guys can bitch and complain about your most recent contract, but at least you were talking to the decision maker through it all. Imagine doing that with a proxy? That is what Jazz pilots deal with. So forgive them for trying to find some shred of leverage

[Bede]

This case is similar to the one we're discussing.
https://decisia.lexum.com/cirb-ccri/cir ... /index.do
In fact, the unions argued very similar arguments as what has been argued here.

[148] The argument put forward by the unions is that there are “ghosts at the table” and that it is difficult to have frank and fulsome collective bargaining when the authorities that make the financial decisions (AECL and CNEA) are not at the table.

They argue that their bargaining rights are no longer protected because of the absence of true decision-makers at the bargaining table and that this is precisely the kind of scenario that section 35 of the Code aims to remedy.

The s. 35 application was dismissed.

[truedude]

This case is similar to the one we're discussing.
https://decisia.lexum.com/cirb-ccri/cir ... /index.do
In fact, the unions argued very similar arguments as what has been argued here.

[148] The argument put forward by the unions is that there are “ghosts at the table” and that it is difficult to have frank and fulsome collective bargaining when the authorities that make the financial decisions (AECL and CNEA) are not at the table.

They argue that their bargaining rights are no longer protected because of the absence of true decision-makers at the bargaining table and that this is precisely the kind of scenario that section 35 of the Code aims to remedy.

The s. 35 application was dismissed.

Not similar. AC tossed our TA then came back with their own pay table. That shows direct involvement. That crosses the line. It is a strong case, and will move forward.

[truedude]

This case is similar to the one we're discussing.
https://decisia.lexum.com/cirb-ccri/cir ... /index.do
In fact, the unions argued very similar arguments as what has been argued here.

[148] The argument put forward by the unions is that there are “ghosts at the table” and that it is difficult to have frank and fulsome collective bargaining when the authorities that make the financial decisions (AECL and CNEA) are not at the table.

They argue that their bargaining rights are no longer protected because of the absence of true decision-makers at the bargaining table and that this is precisely the kind of scenario that section 35 of the Code aims to remedy.

The s. 35 application was dismissed.

You also failed to mention that there was a dissenting opinion by one of the board members.

And in their own determination they said:

141] In summary, a single employer declaration is primarily remedial in nature and designed to prevent two or more businesses from concealing the true nature of the relationship between an employer and its employees to avoid the employer’s obligations under the Code. It is aimed at preventing the erosion or undermining of unionized employees’ representation rights (see Télébec ltée, at paragraph 65).

In this case we bargained a TA that our employer agreee to. It was dismissed by AC, who then sent back their own pay table, clearly demonstrating interference.

And you also failed to mention that that above case actually met all 5 tenents, but failed because th3 board didn't find it eroded or undermined a bargaining group. Here we can show that it did directly undermine our bargaining position. And did so again by creating another Teir 2 operator in violation of the CPA agreement at the time.