AC Extends Flight Attendant Max Age to 70?

[Rockie]

Credible to a few, but why is the membership not howling for the MEC to provide the information that so far only Ray has given.

[vic777]

Credible to a few, but why is the membership not howling for the MEC to provide the information that so far only Ray has given.

Why howl for the MEC to give you information, when you can get the truth from Ray?

[BLZD1]

Not to many people have any faith in Bruce and some of the MEC. Just look at his last ACPA Journal article. I am hoping for a change in the guard soon. I am still against the age 60 thing but will respect what ever the court says at the end of this long battle. I think we should fight it till the fly to die crowd and the ACPA crowd are not happy with the out come. Meaning everybody shares the pain.

[vic777]

Meaning everybody shares the pain.

Or, ACPA could score some of the windfall gains AC will receive due to the new reality, and everyone could share the gain.

[Thirteentennorth]

FWIW, there seems to be an awful lot of ACPA-bashing going on here and on the other Mandatory Retirement string, and some of it is IMO, quite frankly, borderline defamatory and libelous, with several posts accusing ACPA officials of "purposely" misleading the public and imputing unethical behaviour to ACPA officials.

Time to tone down the rhetoric. Moderators?

[Rockie]

ACPA bashing implies something that is undeserved which is not the case here. ACPA draws legitimate criticism because of the way they have dealt with this issue from the beginning, and how they continue to deal with it today to the extreme detriment of the membership whose unbiased best interests they are supposed to represent and defend. There is nothing libelous or defamatory about it. We aren't even talking about individuals but rather an organization.

[flyguycanuk]

ACPA is doing exactly what it's mandate requires it to do. WAWCON shows over %80 of pilots want retirement at age 60. What other choice does ACPA have other than to proceed with the mandate that the membership has given them? To do otherwise would be against their constitution.

I appreciate that my union is fighting for my rights. Keep up the good fight ACPA!

[Understated]

I appreciate that my union is fighting for my rights. Keep up the good fight ACPA!

Would you feel the same way if you were in the minority, rather than in the majority? Do you believe that 50% plus 1 gives the union the right to decide which of their members get represented, and which get opposed? If so, you might want to hold that thought until after the Labour Board has expressed its view on the subject in the upcoming DFR hearing.

ACPA is likely to find itself ridiculously exposed for its outright refusal to represent a large proportion of its own members. Even the Flight Attendants' union openly stated to its members in a Newsletter that it received three different independent legal opinions, each of which said that the union has a legal duty to represent all of its members on the mandatory retirement issue, not just the side that opposes any change.

Speaking of speaking on behalf of the "majority" only, does anyone know why the latest Age 60 Committee Newsletter was yanked from the ACPA web site? Would the litany of misrepresentations and outright factual inaccuracies that it contained have anything to do with its removal?

[Rockie]

ACPA is doing exactly what it's mandate requires it to do. WAWCON shows over %80 of pilots want retirement at age 60. What other choice does ACPA have other than to proceed with the mandate that the membership has given them? To do otherwise would be against their constitution.

I appreciate that my union is fighting for my rights. Keep up the good fight ACPA!

What rights? The right to not be discriminated against? They are trying to ensure you continue to be discriminated against and you support it. Your right to be properly informed of issues effecting you? They failed miserably, and you and most of the membership continue to show a distinct lack of interest in getting properly informed because the truth isn't very appealing to you...today. Someday that will change. Probably around the time you start to feel discriminated against yourself when you inevitably reach that age.

[777longhaul]

acpa, has never had an 80% TOTAL membership desire to maintain the age 60 issue. Please.....read the numbers in the previous posts. This mis-information, is a perfect example of how the membership is being decieved, by acpa special interest group(s).

There has never, been, more than 50% of the members in favour of the issue, yet we are all paying for the issue, monthly, from our dues. AC is mastering this movement, to the cost of all of us.

The PG, narrow body, and especially the new hires, are being denied compensation, that should have come from this issue, being settled a long time ago.

There is no majority issue, never was. If, acpa was wanting a clear majority vote, then they would have put out an IVR poll, with just that specific question, and they know.....they (acpa) would have not gotten the answer that they wanted.

[vortac]

Gosh I hope grandma & grandpa don't break a leg pushing the drink cart.
Just retire and move on with your life.

[accumulous]

There has never been more than 50% of the members in favour of the issue, yet we are all paying for the issue, monthly, from our dues. AC is mastering this movement, to the cost of all of us.

The PG, narrow body, and especially the new hires, are being denied compensation, that should have come from this issue, being settled a long time ago.

There is no majority issue, never was. If, acpa was wanting a clear majority vote, then they would have put out an IVR poll, with just that specific question, and they know.....they (acpa) would have not gotten the answer that they wanted.

We already know that surveys and polls don’t count for anything in legal circles, because you can’t vote away individual rights. It’s illegal.

When you run a Survey up the flag pole that collectively attempts to deny individual rights under the Charter, you simply make the brilliant move of pissing off the Judge.

Were any ‘Survey’ results entered anywhere into any of the current losing litigation, and if so what was the result?

The real issue with the loaded surveys seems to be, for the group that is going after the issue, the way to guarantee that somebody pays for the mess once the dust settles. What other purpose would the survey be for? We already know its legal weight is a nice round number. Zero.

Even if less than half the pilots voted, with 458 against, you simply extrapolate, even though the vote was front end loaded and clearly, in the opening proviso, lobbied for a ‘yes’, to try to show that a majority exists. This gives one group the financial means to pay for all the losses that are going to add up because apparently, even if half of the pilot group didn't vote, they're going to pay for it?

Merger assessments went something like a hundred and fifty bucks or more? a head for 5 years? (anybody recall the size and length of that special assessment?).

If we look at 25 million in total damages for the astoundingly ridiculous project of failing to prevent 2900 out of 3000 pilots from realizing their max years of service for pension purposes, with liability at half that figure, then roughly applying the merger example, a quick click would show a similar assessment payroll deduction of the same monthly figure for a full 2 years for every single pilot in AC.

The real problem will come up when the half of the pilot group that didn’t vote gets hit with the bill. The obvious question: Is there any legal recourse for the half of the pilot group who were against pursuing such a ridiculous premise from the get go, to not be held liable for damages. Is any class action available? When the paperwork gets submitted to payroll for the ultimate deduction, is there any way for those opposed to opt out?

[777longhaul]

Understated:

Speaking of speaking on behalf of the "majority" only, does anyone know why the latest Age 60 Committee Newsletter was yanked from the ACPA web site? Would the litany of misrepresentations and outright factual inaccuracies that it contained have anything to do with its removal?


acpa, newsletter, now back on the acpa site:

Age 60 Legal Support Committee - Newsletter #04
December 23, 2010
Highlights: Judicial Review (JR) ACPA’s Negotiating Policy Legislative Age 60 Activity Safety/Medical Mandatory Retirement and the Airline Piloting Profession Conclusion
Fellow Pilots:
Judicial Review (JR)
The Judicial Review of the August 28th, 2009 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) Decision was heard November 24th, 2010. ACPA’s was pleased with the presentation of our legal counsel and you can find our submissions on the ACPA website under the Age 60 Committee. We expect the Court’s decision to be published within 6 months. The Judge presiding over this review is the same judge who heard the initial JR in 2008. Her earlier decision can also be found on the ACPA website.
If the Court upholds the mandatory retirement provisions in our contract the normal age of retirement will continue to be 60.
If the Judicial Review is dismissed, we will review the decision to determine if there are grounds for an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. If we decide not to appeal we will consider options for implementing a change in our retirement policy.
However, the Court’s decision will not close the door to changing the normal age of retirement democratically. Any member wishing to change our normal mandatory retirement age can do so by engaging in membership debates to collectively arrive at an age agreed to by the majority of the membership. This process of effecting change is in keeping with the fundamental principles of our Association.
If we are unable to maintain our right to collectively bargain a contractual retirement age based on a new, court-imposed landscape, we may want to re-evaluate our entire collective agreement including the formula wage model, the value placed on seniority within the model and our post-employment deferred compensation package. The present system has
been designed to provide the best value to us during our last years of employment prior to retirement. The objective has
been to allow pilots the opportunity to maximize their pensionable earnings in return for retiring at the normal contractual
age of 60. If the membership comes to the resolution that this system is no longer acceptable, collectively we have the
means to amend the collective agreement to ensure a more equitable distribution of the value of the economic “pie”.
Thwaites (70 additional complaints)
Section 15.(1).(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) allows mandatory retirement at an age that is the normal for
the industry. In the Vilven & Kelly case the CHRT decided that the normal age of retirement for our industry was 60. In
the subsequent Thwaites case, the CHRT will address whether age 60 continues to be the normal age of retirement for
our industry by deciding if the comparator group for determining the normal age has changed from their earlier Decision.
ACPA’s Negotiating Policy
Section 10.12, Fixed Retirement Age, of the Policy reads:
.01 The Association strongly opposes any airline, government agency or person arbitrarily setting a retirement age.
The Association will recognize a fixed retirement age only when it has become voluntarily negotiated as part of an
agreed pension scheme.
To attempt to have change imposed to our normal retirement age by a Tribunal reacting to complaints brought forward by
a group of our pilots is very disappointing. Not only have the complainants directly benefited by our collective agreement
provisions throughout their careers but their actions have the potential of severely restricting our group right to bargain this
important issue. We would not tolerate such interference in exercising Command Authority in our professional day-to-day
lives.
ACPA is a robust grassroots organization. The clarity of our processes and the value of the freely negotiated wages and
benefits over the decades have not been lost on the parties hearing this dispute.
Legislative Age 60 Activity
Currently there is a private members Bill (Bill 481) at the Federal Government level proposing to remove section 15(1)(c)
from the CHRA. The Bill had First Reading on March 3, 2010 and Second Reading on Dec 06, 2010. The Bill will now
move to Committee and then on to 3rd Reading in the House of Commons if it continues to get support. After that the Bill
moves on to the Senate and then Royal Assent to become law. Having a private member’s Bill become law is rare in the
history of Parliament; however we are monitoring the Bill’s progress through our lobby team in Ottawa.
Safety/Medical
Medical requirements force many pilots from the flight deck prior to their upper retirement age limits. At times, over twenty
per cent of all pilots over the age of 57 are on medical leave at Air Canada. Historically this number was much higher due
to stricter medical standards. Generally, rates of medical disability double every five years in a pilot’s career, and one
would expect this percentage to increase for pilot’s over age 60. For example, Jazz negotiated a mandatory retirement
age of 65 several years ago. In 2007, more than half of the pilots over 60 were on long term medical leave.
The FAA has mandated a doubling of the frequency for checking pilots over the age of 60, and has established a protocol for airlines to follow to ensure that an “equivalent” level of safety is maintained. They will also determine whether further regulatory action is required.
Mandatory Retirement and the Airline Piloting Profession
The concept of mandatory retirement is virtually universal for airline pilots globally. Mandatory retirement remains legal in most of the EU zone, including Great Britain. Legacy carriers such as Air France, KLM and Lufthansa have maintained mandatory retirement at ages less than 60. Mandatory retirement has also been upheld in decisions of the European Court of Justice that mirror those of our Supreme Court in Canada that direct the issue to the legislatures for determine.
In the US, all pilots must retire from scheduled airline flying at age 65. In addition, US carriers must comply with the ICAO restriction that requires at least one of the operating pilots be 59 or younger on all international flights. ICAO further restricts pilots in command to a maximum age of 64, and recommends that all licensing states require that first officers be limited to a maximum age of 64.
It is clear from a global analysis that mandatory retirement for airline pilots is widespread and mandated by ICAO and other jurisdictions.
While Transport Canada has not adopted this ICAO first officer recommendation it has stated that “ageing pilot issues” are being raised in its Policy and Regulation branch. Since TC has no upper limit on age for the ATPL, it can be assumed that further restrictions and increased oversight are being considered.
Conclusion
Maintaining a retirement age of 60 ensures that the largest majority of pilots at Air Canada are able to enjoy career advancement into the higher paying positions to allow for the maximum level of pension benefits which forms a major component of our career compensation.
Our Committee continues to work on the basis of the direction received from the MEC: to support the ACPA Policy of a negotiated retirement age in our collective agreement which is designed to provide a substantial retirement benefit to the vast majority of pilots in the employ of the airline.
Below is a table that lists all the files that are connected to the contractual mandatory retirement issue. Not all of these events are being handled by this committee but we are working closely with those that are to ensure continuity.
File
Legal Body
Status
1
Thwaites (68+2)
CHRT
Finished CHRA Section 15 (2) review January 2010 – waiting for a decision from the CHRT. This decision will cover what the normal age of retirement is for this group.
2
Vilven & Kelly Remedy
CHRT
Finished April 2010 – Decision received November 8th, 2010
A JR has been filed regarding this decision by Vilven and Kelly and Air Canada.
3
Vilven & Kelly CHRT Decision August 29, 2009 JR
Federal Court
Waiting for Decision
4
Section 14.1 (CHRA) Compliant – Mr. Raymond Hall
CHRC
Investigation on going
5
Section 59 (CHRA) Compliant – Mr. Raymond Hall & Mr. George Vilven
RCMP
Investigation on going
6
Section 37 (Canadian Labour Code) Unfair Labour Practice (DFR)– Mr. George Vilven et al..
CIRB
Hearings schedule for April/May of 2011
7
Compliant to Manitoba Law Society – Mr Raymond Hall
Manitoba Law Society
Completed
8
Private Member Bill (481)
Federal Government
Monitoring
9
Hall et al (48)
CHRT
Pending
Your Age 60 Legal Support Committee Representatives:
Captain Brian Murray bmurray@acpa.ca
Captain Colin Bechtel age60@acpa.ca
Captain Chris Pulley age60@acpa.ca
Mr. Rick Lampshire, LRD rlampshire@acpa.ca

[vic777]

The present system has been designed to provide the best value to us during our last years of employment prior to retirement. The objective has been to allow pilots the opportunity to maximize their pensionable earnings in return for retiring at the normal contractual age of 60.

That's not exactly accurate. The present system is a formula pay system where some Types are valued much more than others, mainly due to weight. Seniority allows senior Pilots to win assignments on the higher paying aircraft. There was no master plan, things just evolved. ACPA/CALPA never had any "Master Plan". It is possible to develop a complete overhaul and produce a "fairer" system, but ACPA will not be the one to do it.

[Thirteentennorth]

...There was no master plan, things just evolved. ACPA/CALPA never had any "Master Plan"... .

Vic, I'm not sure if that statement is strictly accurate. I can't speak to the years prior to 1973 when I was hired at AC - and formula pay was already in place then - but I remember flying on the DC-8 in the early 80's with the then President of CALPA [an AC pilot] and he told me that it was a matter of negotiating policy and strategy at the AC MEC [he had previously been the AC MEC Chair] that the focus was always on negotiating provisions to the collective agreement that would speed up progression through the ranks, because

"that's where the real pay raises come from" [unquote], not from contractual increases in salary. As far as he was concerned, insofar as the Air Canada MEC at CALPA were concerned, there was a [master] "plan" or strategy which was followed. It didn't "just evolve." By using that term, you are implying a randomness and vagueness, or lack of focus, to CALPA/ACPA policy which is not in line with the facts.

Happy New Year!

[vic777]

insofar as the Air Canada MEC at CALPA were concerned, there was a [master] "plan" or strategy which was followed. It didn't "just evolve." By using that term, you are implying a randomness and vagueness, or lack of focus, to CALPA/ACPA policy which is not in line with the facts.

The only "fact" is ... that CALPA adopted the "formula pay system", that ALPA pioneered, everything else evolved from that, change the formula and you can change everything. The seniors may then choose to fly domestic etc. Create a flat pay/status pay system and there is no bidding for money. Most Pilots realize the current system is not very well thought out and unfair, the junior Pilot gets screwed. My point is that there never was any thought involved, it just evolved. For an example of ACPA's "randomness and vagueness, or lack of focus", I submit the current fiasco. Why are they not scoring the huge windfall gains that AC will reap from FlyPast60 and improve everyones pay rate?

[bcflyer]

Why are they not scoring the huge windfall gains that AC will reap from FlyPast60 and improve everyones pay rate?

First, the FlyPast60 deal is far from being done so currently there is no windfall gain to distribute.

Second.. Even if there was a windfall gain, how do you know ACPA isn't working on a way to get some of that cash? Unless you are on the negotiating committee there is now real way to know what is being discussed behind closed doors...

[vic777]

Unless you are on the negotiating committee there is now real way to know what is being discussed behind closed doors...

Ok, I get it ... you're the straight man ....
(Anybody want to hit that one out of the park?)

[Understated]

Unless you are on the negotiating committee there is now real way to know what is being discussed behind closed doors...

....
Anybody want to hit that one out of the park?

I have two questions that are much more germaine:

1. Has ACPA written the cheque to pay Vilven and Kelly the awarded damages yet? ACPA did not appeal the Tribunal decision, so the damages are obviously due and payable. What was the final bill? What was ACPA's share? If the cheque has not yet been written, when will it be written, so as to stop the accrual of the interest payments awarded on the damages of over $125,000 each?

2. What kind of budget has ACPA made to pay the forthcoming bills for the other 150 or so pilots who are next in line to be reinstated and paid damages? Will a special assessment be necessary in order to raise the millions of dollars required for those damages (assuming that they do not exceed the Vilven & Kelly damage amounts), or will ACPA choose to squander its strike fund at the very time that it needs the strike fund, in order to pay the damages it could have totally avoided in the first place?

[Rockie]

Damages? What damages? Don't you know the Supreme Court of Canada is going to turn the clock back 40 years and undo decades of social evolution with one strike of a gavel? Haven't you read any of the solid gold information ACPA has put out on this issue? Surely you know that ACPA is pleased with the presentations their legal team has made at the various legal proceedings against them...er...I mean that they have participated in, and that they are sure their interpretations will win the day.

Ok...so maybe the ones so far haven't gone so well. But watch out, from now on ACPA is going to kick ass.

[Norwegianwood]

Damages? What damages? Don't you know the Supreme Court of Canada is going to turn the clock back 40 years and undo decades of social evolution with one strike of a gavel? Haven't you read any of the solid gold information ACPA has put out on this issue? Surely you know that ACPA is pleased with the presentations their legal team has made at the various legal proceedings against them...er...I mean that they have participated in, and that they are sure their interpretations will win the day.

Ok...so maybe the ones so far haven't gone so well. But watch out, from now on ACPA is going to kick ass.

[matra550magic]

Understated:

Speaking of speaking on behalf of the "majority" only, does anyone know why the latest Age 60 Committee Newsletter was yanked from the ACPA web site? Would the litany of misrepresentations and outright factual inaccuracies that it contained have anything to do with its removal?


acpa, newsletter, now back on the acpa site:

Age 60 Legal Support Committee - Newsletter #04
December 23, 2010
Highlights: Judicial Review (JR) ACPA’s Negotiating Policy Legislative Age 60 Activity Safety/Medical Mandatory Retirement and the Airline Piloting Profession Conclusion
Fellow Pilots:
Judicial Review (JR)
The Judicial Review of the August 28th, 2009 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) Decision was heard November 24th, 2010. ACPA’s was pleased with the presentation of our legal counsel and you can find our submissions on the ACPA website under the Age 60 Committee. We expect the Court’s decision to be published within 6 months. The Judge presiding over this review is the same judge who heard the initial JR in 2008. Her earlier decision can also be found on the ACPA website.
If the Court upholds the mandatory retirement provisions in our contract the normal age of retirement will continue to be 60.
If the Judicial Review is dismissed, we will review the decision to determine if there are grounds for an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. If we decide not to appeal we will consider options for implementing a change in our retirement policy.
However, the Court’s decision will not close the door to changing the normal age of retirement democratically. Any member wishing to change our normal mandatory retirement age can do so by engaging in membership debates to collectively arrive at an age agreed to by the majority of the membership. This process of effecting change is in keeping with the fundamental principles of our Association.
If we are unable to maintain our right to collectively bargain a contractual retirement age based on a new, court-imposed landscape, we may want to re-evaluate our entire collective agreement including the formula wage model, the value placed on seniority within the model and our post-employment deferred compensation package. The present system has
been designed to provide the best value to us during our last years of employment prior to retirement. The objective has
been to allow pilots the opportunity to maximize their pensionable earnings in return for retiring at the normal contractual
age of 60. If the membership comes to the resolution that this system is no longer acceptable, collectively we have the
means to amend the collective agreement to ensure a more equitable distribution of the value of the economic “pie”.
Thwaites (70 additional complaints)
Section 15.(1).(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) allows mandatory retirement at an age that is the normal for
the industry. In the Vilven & Kelly case the CHRT decided that the normal age of retirement for our industry was 60. In
the subsequent Thwaites case, the CHRT will address whether age 60 continues to be the normal age of retirement for
our industry by deciding if the comparator group for determining the normal age has changed from their earlier Decision.
ACPA’s Negotiating Policy
Section 10.12, Fixed Retirement Age, of the Policy reads:
.01 The Association strongly opposes any airline, government agency or person arbitrarily setting a retirement age.
The Association will recognize a fixed retirement age only when it has become voluntarily negotiated as part of an
agreed pension scheme.
To attempt to have change imposed to our normal retirement age by a Tribunal reacting to complaints brought forward by
a group of our pilots is very disappointing. Not only have the complainants directly benefited by our collective agreement
provisions throughout their careers but their actions have the potential of severely restricting our group right to bargain this
important issue. We would not tolerate such interference in exercising Command Authority in our professional day-to-day
lives.
ACPA is a robust grassroots organization. The clarity of our processes and the value of the freely negotiated wages and
benefits over the decades have not been lost on the parties hearing this dispute.
Legislative Age 60 Activity
Currently there is a private members Bill (Bill 481) at the Federal Government level proposing to remove section 15(1)(c)
from the CHRA. The Bill had First Reading on March 3, 2010 and Second Reading on Dec 06, 2010. The Bill will now
move to Committee and then on to 3rd Reading in the House of Commons if it continues to get support. After that the Bill
moves on to the Senate and then Royal Assent to become law. Having a private member’s Bill become law is rare in the
history of Parliament; however we are monitoring the Bill’s progress through our lobby team in Ottawa.
Safety/Medical
Medical requirements force many pilots from the flight deck prior to their upper retirement age limits. At times, over twenty
per cent of all pilots over the age of 57 are on medical leave at Air Canada. Historically this number was much higher due
to stricter medical standards. Generally, rates of medical disability double every five years in a pilot’s career, and one
would expect this percentage to increase for pilot’s over age 60. For example, Jazz negotiated a mandatory retirement
age of 65 several years ago. In 2007, more than half of the pilots over 60 were on long term medical leave.
The FAA has mandated a doubling of the frequency for checking pilots over the age of 60, and has established a protocol for airlines to follow to ensure that an “equivalent” level of safety is maintained. They will also determine whether further regulatory action is required.
Mandatory Retirement and the Airline Piloting Profession
The concept of mandatory retirement is virtually universal for airline pilots globally. Mandatory retirement remains legal in most of the EU zone, including Great Britain. Legacy carriers such as Air France, KLM and Lufthansa have maintained mandatory retirement at ages less than 60. Mandatory retirement has also been upheld in decisions of the European Court of Justice that mirror those of our Supreme Court in Canada that direct the issue to the legislatures for determine.
In the US, all pilots must retire from scheduled airline flying at age 65. In addition, US carriers must comply with the ICAO restriction that requires at least one of the operating pilots be 59 or younger on all international flights. ICAO further restricts pilots in command to a maximum age of 64, and recommends that all licensing states require that first officers be limited to a maximum age of 64.
It is clear from a global analysis that mandatory retirement for airline pilots is widespread and mandated by ICAO and other jurisdictions.
While Transport Canada has not adopted this ICAO first officer recommendation it has stated that “ageing pilot issues” are being raised in its Policy and Regulation branch. Since TC has no upper limit on age for the ATPL, it can be assumed that further restrictions and increased oversight are being considered.
Conclusion
Maintaining a retirement age of 60 ensures that the largest majority of pilots at Air Canada are able to enjoy career advancement into the higher paying positions to allow for the maximum level of pension benefits which forms a major component of our career compensation.
Our Committee continues to work on the basis of the direction received from the MEC: to support the ACPA Policy of a negotiated retirement age in our collective agreement which is designed to provide a substantial retirement benefit to the vast majority of pilots in the employ of the airline.
Below is a table that lists all the files that are connected to the contractual mandatory retirement issue. Not all of these events are being handled by this committee but we are working closely with those that are to ensure continuity.
File
Legal Body
Status
1
Thwaites (68+2)
CHRT
Finished CHRA Section 15 (2) review January 2010 – waiting for a decision from the CHRT. This decision will cover what the normal age of retirement is for this group.
2
Vilven & Kelly Remedy
CHRT
Finished April 2010 – Decision received November 8th, 2010
A JR has been filed regarding this decision by Vilven and Kelly and Air Canada.
3
Vilven & Kelly CHRT Decision August 29, 2009 JR
Federal Court
Waiting for Decision
4
Section 14.1 (CHRA) Compliant – Mr. Raymond Hall
CHRC
Investigation on going
5
Section 59 (CHRA) Compliant – Mr. Raymond Hall & Mr. George Vilven
RCMP
Investigation on going
6
Section 37 (Canadian Labour Code) Unfair Labour Practice (DFR)– Mr. George Vilven et al..
CIRB
Hearings schedule for April/May of 2011
7
Compliant to Manitoba Law Society – Mr Raymond Hall
Manitoba Law Society
Completed
8
Private Member Bill (481)
Federal Government
Monitoring
9
Hall et al (48)
CHRT
Pending
Your Age 60 Legal Support Committee Representatives:
Captain Brian Murray bmurray@acpa.ca
Captain Colin Bechtel age60@acpa.ca
Captain Chris Pulley age60@acpa.ca
Mr. Rick Lampshire, LRD rlampshire@acpa.ca

I can't believe that an AC pilot put a copy of the ACPA newsletter on this forum !!!! Take your pills honey . Put a copy of your T4 instead. That way, everybody will understand why you want to stay and we'll save lots of useless reading .

Your devoted Matra550Magic

[TAT]

IF only we could insert reply's back earlier where they would apply!

Raymond, as a lawyer I would hope that your not looking for factual information here on this site!

[Rockie]

IF only we could insert reply's back earlier where they would apply!

Raymond, as a lawyer I would hope that your not looking for factual information here on this site!

Hardly. Raymond Hall doesn't look for facts on this forum...he provides them.