Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[Raymond Hall]

The government's omnibus Bill that contains the provision to repeal Paragraph 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the mandatory retirement exemption, passed Second Reading today without any discussion on the amendment to the CHRA. The Bill now goes back to Parliament for Third Reading, then to the Senate for approval, and then will receive Royal Assent. The repeal amendment is located in Part 12 of the Bill.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... 4&File=170

The repeal provision is to come into force one year after the date that the Bill receives Royal Assent, which could come as early as December 1st, given that the government has a majority in both Parliament and the Senate.

The repeal of the exemption will impact all workers in the federal sector, including transportation employees, telecommunications workers and those in the financial industries such as banking.

The representative from the Federation of Transportation and Communications Organizations (FETCO) who made submissions before the Parliamentary Committee deliberating the Private Member's Bill seeking to repeal the exemption in March, was apparently on Parliament Hill earlier this week, lobbying politicians. His submissions before the earlier Parliamentary Committee, as you will likely recall, made two proposals, increased competency testing for workers in safety-sensitive jobs, and a continued exemption allowing mandatory retirement for employees of companies that have a "bona fide" pension plan, such as Air Canada. ACPA made the same proposal.

My sources tell me that this week his lobbying effort was directed solely toward the testing provisions, not the continued exemption provisions. In any event, no amendments were introduced to the Bill at second reading (in fact, no discussion of the subject was undertaken by Parliamentarians), and Second Reading is the last chance for amendments prior to final presentation to Parliament for passage.

The wheels of progress turn slowly, but they do turn.

[yycflyguy]

Didn't mandatory retirement legislation pass 2nd reading before the Federal elections?

[vic777]

So when is your best guess as to when age Sixty plus Captains will be flying for Air Canada?
When the dust settles it will be interesting to see how much Air Canada benefits from FlyPast60 and try to figure what they gained/lost by their stalling practices.

[Raymond Hall]

Didn't mandatory retirement legislation pass 2nd reading before the Federal elections?

Yes, but of course, this one is different. The last time it passed it was a Bill introduced by a member of the opposition during the last month of the Parliamentary session. This time it is included in a huge omnibus Bill introduced by a majority government that has gone on record as stating that this Bill as a priority. Given the lack of debate at second reading as well as all of the other factors involved, I don't believe that anyone has any illusion about the proposed legislation not becoming law within the next few weeks.

In other words, the sun is indeed setting on the age 60 issue for ACPA and Air Canada. All that will remain, once the law comes into force one year hence, will be the resolution of the Tribunal and Court proceedings related to all of those pilots whose termination of employment at age 60 occurred before the law takes effect.

[Rockie]

Mandatory retirement for federally regulated workers in Canada has been living on borrowed time for years, and everybody knows it except Air Canada pilots because of ACPA keeping them in the dark and an embarrassingly willful denial of reality. It's a little surprising that the federal government ended up killing it instead of the (as it turns out) disgracefully slow and utterly incompetent CHRT, but the end result is the same.

All that will remain, once the law comes into force one year hence, will be the resolution of the Tribunal and Court proceedings related to all of those pilots whose termination of employment at age 60 occurred before the law takes effect.

What this really means is how much will fighting the inevitable end up costing the Air Canada pilots, and how much chaos will result from reinstating guys back on the seniority list who with a tiny bit of forethought never should have been kicked off in the first place. This is going to be very interesting watching otherwise intelligent people gaping open-mouthed at the resultant train wreck and wailing about how unfair it is.

Of course there is still the burning question over what ACPA has done, or is doing to prepare for this especially since we have a new contract in the oven? My guess...

Absolutely nothing.

[whipline]

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

[MackTheKnife]

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

I sure am glad AC uses cog screening.

[accumulous]

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

That’s actually a pretty good idea and it would be the only one of its kind on the planet Earth. Singularity in thought processes is what sets us apart from the rest of mankind. ACPA holds the current world record for blowing their own feet off. If there’s one slug left in the chamber they could secure their place in the Guinness Book by electing to terminate their own careers and pensionable service numbers. It would be really hard to top that one.

[whipline]

Mac, couldn't you make the same statement about the fly past 60 crowd?

Accumulous, singularity? ACPA or any trade union is there for the good of the entire group. With that in mind what percentage does the fly past 60 crowd encompass?

From the outside looking in all I see is a minority who are attempting to dictate to the majority using the government to further their cause. How much did ACPA have to fight and sacrifice to get the retirement age at 60? Why would you throw that away? Were you standing up fighting for this when you were 25, 30?

[accumulous]

Mac, couldn't you make the same statement about the fly past 60 crowd?

Accumulous, singularity? ACPA or any trade union is there for the good of the entire group. With that in mind what percentage does the fly past 60 crowd encompass?

From the outside looking in all I see is a minority who are attempting to dictate to the majority using the government to further their cause. How much did ACPA have to fight and sacrifice to get the retirement age at 60? Why would you throw that away? Were you standing up fighting for this when you were 25, 30?

In terms of being squarely behind the ‘Career Curve’, the FlyPast60 Group now encompasses almost ALL the pilots at Air Canada – in fact, there are very few left who can make the max pensionable 35 years of service at 60. Know what? A lot of them can't even make the numbers at age 70.

So is that the majority? Guess what. It’s almost everybody.

Right now American Airlines, as but one little example, has more pilots over age 60 than under age 40, by a staggering margin.

This is all past history news from last May.

American Airlines has nearly SEVEN pilots over 60 for every one pilot under 40. And yes, they’re Captains.

That's from the Allied Pilot Association's weekly News Digest that it sends to its members.

As of May, 2011.

• American Airlines pilots under 40 years old: 83

• American Airlines pilots over 60 years old: 560

So FlyPast 60 is a minority? Guess again.

The Organ Grinders won’t be handing the real numbers out to the monkeys anytime soon. It’s just ring-around-the-rosy ‘til the music stops. Everybody better start looking for a chair. Can you delete all the left chairs? Novel idea, but Nope.

[ftp]

I still hope to retire at 60, even if I loose about 4 years worth of pay due to a delayed career being forced on me. There are many things outside of work that I hope to do while I'm physically able. (Like surfing avcanada hourly!)

Btw, 9/10 new hires that I know will not make 35 years of service (myself included). It really doesn't matter to me if I don't top the pension. I'm saving so that I can retire when I initially planned, and not be forced into working longer because of someones financial wants.

[Rockie]

Btw, 9/10 new hires that I know will not make 35 years of service (myself included). It really doesn't matter to me if I don't top the pension. I'm saving so that I can retire when I initially planned, and not be forced into working longer because of someones financial wants.

I sincerely hope for your sake your plans are realized, however I wouldn't commit myself if I were you until your financial goals are actually a reality. If they don't materialize I sincerely hope you don't remember the words you wrote today and choke on them. Rest assured if you find yourself at retirement age and must continue to work for financial reasons I will fully support you.

[777longhaul]

whipline

your quote:

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

end.


The laws of Canada are very specific on discrimination. IF.....a person, (FP60 Coalition) can prove that they are legally entitled to be reinstated due to age discrimination, or any other defined discrimination, the person(s) must be reinstated BACK to their original position. If....a Captain is removed at age 60, then he/she must be reinstated back to that position. It also applies to the place where they were employeed, (base) and other legal requirements. (pay/benefits/etc).

acpa, can not change the contract to make a 59 year old Captain, become a 60 year old F/O, or S/O or C/R pilot. That is just another form of discrimination, and it will not be legal to say the very least. It has been part of the dream teams idea at acpa, along with other various non legal (to the laws of Canada) ideas, hopes, dreams and wishes.

Currently.....at age 65, a Captain will have to change seats and continue to fly as a F/O, as there are NO ICAO restrictions on the F/O due to age. The Captain rule, is strictly, an ICAO agreement, that will be changing in the future.

No one, no contract, no company, no union, can replace one set of discriminations, with another. It is not legally possible.

Air Canada, and acpa, have lost the BFOR arguments, at the CHRT level. The issue of AC/acpa being able to determine the normal age of retirement, is the last challenge that stands before the courts. (everything is subject to appeal).

AC has been able to reach in through the back door, on some of these insane rulings, and delay issues long past the normal time lines, but that will change with the AG attending the hearings.

Regardless of what happens on this issue, in a very near future, there will be no mandatory retirement of Air Canada pilots allowed, by the Federal Government changes, regardless of who likes or doesnt like it.

Your other question about the percentages of FP60. There are aprx. 200 pilots out of 2900 who are registered with the CHRC and have cases pending before the CHRT, and or the Federal Court system. So a small amount of actual percentage, but it is growing every month. With the changes to the pension plans, (proposed etc) you will see more and more pilots joining the Coalition, for many different reasons.

Hope that sheds some light on your question.

[Lost in Saigon]

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

Sure that makes a whole lot of sense.

But don't stop there. Lets put in some additional wording that says no Women, Gays, Blacks, or Muslims can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft.

That should help out my career progression.

[Mechanic787]

Parliament is on a break week now, but Act III begins the following Monday:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... l=41&Ses=1

Final curtain could come within three weeks, but in any event will come before the end of this session of Parliament in early December.

The remaining questions now are only questions of implementation. Twelve months or so from now.

[Understated]

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

Whipline: Your thoughts are shared by a large number. Especially those who have been posting recently on the Air Canada Pilots private forum. From reading the posts there, I am beginning to see the sense of desperation flow into a form of despondency, with the realization that the die is truly cast.

If you have any doubt, please have a look at the following Supreme Court of Canada case on that precise point:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/198 ... lii15.html , and in particular, the following excerpt:

Although the Code contains no explicit restriction on such contracting out, it is nevertheless a public statute and it constitutes public policy in Ontario as appears from a reading of the Statute itself and as declared in the preamble. It is clear from the authorities, both in Canada and in England, that parties are not competent to contract themselves out of the provisions of such enactments and that contracts having such effect are void, as contrary to public policy.

Good thought, but not feasible. The law simply does not allow such an option.

[What_the?]

Ah... Where do I begin... I have tried to keep myself out of this entire discussion for the last few months but now believe I have to contribute in some shape-or-form. I'm all for this fly-past 60 "human rights" stuff.... Actually I also think that we should file a lawsuit for having a seniority system, because in my view it is discriminatory too.... I've only been here for a year, but I think I'm entitled to fly some heavy metal around the world... The fact that I'm young and new shoudn't play against me. Triple 7 here I come.

I'm also for the individuals filing the complaint to fly for as long as they want. They should be re-instated back into Captain Kirk's seat... I mean the left seat... followed by the right seat at 65, and then into the service director position at age 70. This would naturally lead into a flight attendant position at age 80. Let's make sure that this already "blessed" young workforce is also unable to afford a lifestyle that comes anywhere close to the one that the previous generation had.

Thank you for completely slowing down our career progression too. I'm glad that I will be indirectly paying for the multiple marriages/divorces and alimony payments that you have amassed over the years. It almost makes me feel like I was there for all of it. Fuzzy warm feeling... all over... even a little tingly feeling in that special spot.

In closing... I'm all for "human rights".... Flying in Lybia sounds pretty good right now.

Cheers.

[accumulous]

So this bill will likely pass and sections 9.2 and 15.1c will be repealed.

AC can still use the BFOR argument to say that it would be financially prohibitive to train 200 plus retired pilots back into former positions, down-train hundreds more and then furlough a hundred or so. Don't see anything saying they have to recall retirees.

In all likelihood they will simply stop retirements in one year and ACPA will drop its objections. To read into this a victory for flypast60 with full reinstatements as well as damages is I think delusional. This government has clearly shown it is squarely behind employers and is not going to let companies be harmed financially by any legislation. The CHRT as well as the CIRB are political appointees and they will beckon the call of their masters.

Ray H is correct that the pendulum has swung and folks at AC will have to adjust thinking. I am confident that will be done. However, not confident we will be seeing you all back on the line. Don't quit your sim jobs just yet!

Warm Regards

BFOR is dead in the water. Nobody bought it and now the Federal Court is involved. Read their last Decision on this matter. Try to guess which way the arrow is pointed.

It might be temporary but there could also be a bunch of good reasons why AC just closed the door on resumes. It’s time to save cash, among others.

It’s far less costly to reinstate highly experienced pilots in terms of training on a whole host of variables.

Having hundreds of pilots not drawing down on Pension assets is a huge bonus to the Corp and that doesn’t even begin to address short term training cost savings with equipment bidding stability. It’s huge.

Every single dreamed up red herring concerning this issue has been lobbed at the wall to see if any of it would stick and, News Flash, nobody believes any of it.

What now? Another cameo appearance in Parliament with another bucket of red herrings would go over like a lead balloon.

As the Parliamentary date to snuff out Discrimination draws nigh, pilots will bail out of the Herring Boat and scramble to change their bid preferences from ‘lifestyle’ to highest seat possible, as our charade deep-sixes like a bowling ball. We might even look at legitimate means of getting rid of pilots, like matching Post 60 numbers to Early Retirement initiatives. That will be the next scramble. If there’s a way for any AC pilot to get another AC pilot out of the way, they’ll find it.

As lovely as it would have been to delete several hundred guys before the music stopped, millions in members’ union dues are in the tank and there's a lot more slated for the same dumpster.

Now there are 200 Complainants and some Respondents slated for Federal Court, where some very serious questions will be asked, requiring very serious answers.

[yycflyguy]

So this bill will likely pass and sections 9.2 and 15.1c will be repealed.

AC can still use the BFOR argument to say that it would be financially prohibitive to train 200 plus retired pilots back into former positions, down-train hundreds more and then furlough a hundred or so. Don't see anything saying they have to recall retirees.

In all likelihood they will simply stop retirements in one year and ACPA will drop its objections. To read into this a victory for flypast60 with full reinstatements as well as damages is I think delusional. This government has clearly shown it is squarely behind employers and is not going to let companies be harmed financially by any legislation. The CHRT as well as the CIRB are political appointees and they will beckon the call of their masters.

Ray H is correct that the pendulum has swung and folks at AC will have to adjust thinking. I am confident that will be done. However, not confident we will be seeing you all back on the line. Don't quit your sim jobs just yet!

Warm Regards

BFOR is dead in the water. Nobody bought it and now the Federal Court is involved. Read their last Decision on this matter. Try to guess which way the arrow is pointed.

It might be temporary but there could also be a bunch of good reasons why AC just closed the door on resumes. It’s time to save cash, among others.

It’s far less costly to reinstate highly experienced pilots in terms of training on a whole host of variables.

Having hundreds of pilots not drawing down on Pension assets is a huge bonus to the Corp and that doesn’t even begin to address short term training cost savings with equipment bidding stability. It’s huge.

Every single dreamed up red herring concerning this issue has been lobbed at the wall to see if any of it would stick and, News Flash, nobody believes any of it.

What now? Another cameo appearance in Parliament with another bucket of red herrings would go over like a lead balloon.

As the Parliamentary date to snuff out Discrimination draws nigh, pilots will bail out of the Herring Boat and scramble to change their bid preferences from ‘lifestyle’ to highest seat possible, as our charade deep-sixes like a bowling ball. We might even look at legitimate means of getting rid of pilots, like matching Post 60 numbers to Early Retirement initiatives. That will be the next scramble. If there’s a way for any AC pilot to get another AC pilot out of the way, they’ll find it.

As lovely as it would have been to delete several hundred guys before the music stopped, millions in members’ union dues are in the tank and there's a lot more slated for the same dumpster.

Now there are 200 Complainants and some Respondents slated for Federal Court, where some very serious questions will be asked, requiring very serious answers.

Jesus, here we go again.

Dave D. is bang on the money. There is absolutely no way, forgetaboutit, way that that the previously retired will be allowed to return with BFOR already established. You can argue about the legal logistics all you want. It won't happen. AC expense. Conservative meddling. Whatever reason. It is nothing more than another chapter in legal archives.

Nothing will change tomorrow. Nothing will change for months.

When it is all said and done, perhaps years from now, mandatory retirement will be abolished. It will be based on a SCC date (in many years) and it will be the benchmark for future retirements.

For those of you that continually speak of the ACPA train-wreck, I can only assume that you are pro-flypast60 and have nothing left to contribute to the same colleagues that your career benefited from.

The growing number of "junior" members should worry you.

[accumulous]

There is absolutely no way, forgetaboutit, way that that the previously retired will be allowed to return with BFOR already established

You missed a pretty big chunk of something:

[429] At the end of it all, my opinion is that Air Canada has not met the burden of proving that it
will suffer undue hardship with the elimination of the age 60 retirement rule. Accordingly, it
cannot rely on the BFOR defence under s. 15(1)(a) of the CHRA.

...preceded by 45 pages of the reasons why, SCC tests included. Next up is the continuance on the Charter issue, check it out on the Federal Court website.

[yycflyguy]

There is absolutely no way, forgetaboutit, way that that the previously retired will be allowed to return with BFOR already established

You missed a pretty big chunk of something:

[429] At the end of it all, my opinion is that Air Canada has not met the burden of proving that it
will suffer undue hardship with the elimination of the age 60 retirement rule. Accordingly, it
cannot rely on the BFOR defence under s. 15(1)(a) of the CHRA.

...preceded by 45 pages of the reasons why, SCC tests included. Next up is the continuance on the Charter issue, check it out on the Federal Court website.

Thank you Justice Accumulous. How long have you been on the SCC bench?

[Rockie]

There is absolutely no way, forgetaboutit, way that that the previously retired will be allowed to return with BFOR already established.

Why does this misconception persist?

The BFOR issue went against V&K in a decision considered in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee, and that failed to include any testimony except the company's. BFOR (age 60) was obliterated in the next 78 cases in an exhaustively considered and documented ruling. It beats me how facts like that can just be ignored.

[Lost in Saigon]

I've only been here for a year.....................

.....................Thank you for completely slowing down our career progression too.

Most of us hired in the last 10-15 years, will never have 35 years of service, or be able to hold B777 Captain at age 60. ACPA doesn't do a very good job of explaining these things, and all new-hires should take a look at the following questions:

- Do you understand that the pension was designed for your best 5 years and 35 years of service ?

- How many years of service will you have at age 60? (Layoff, and Leave of Absence, don't count in years of service)

- Will you be able to have 5 years of B777 Captain time age 60?

- Do you understand that for each year less than 35, your pension takes a significant reduction?

- Have you run the ACPA pension estimator to see what your pension would be at age 60?

- Have you run the ACPA pension estimator with your age back-dated 5 years to see what your pension would be if you retired at age 65?
(don't forget to bump up your best 5 years $ amount for the more senior equipment you will be flying)

[What_the?]

"Do you understand".... Mmmm... I'm a little sLoW and I don't understand a lot of things, especially when you ask that so many times... Do you understand? Or is it do youuu understand? I'm having too much fun for this early in the morning.

What I do understand is that the amount of greed, and the malice to screw over the company, an in-turn the group of people here who "might" still have a job to go to for the next 20 years, is plainly and painfully evident. It comes down to getting a nice big payout. It's convenient to use the human rights issue.... and I believe that the new group of pilots, which I should add should be forming a majority soon, should launch a lawsuit of their own, using "human rights" and discrimination as being an issue. I, like many other people on-the-line, find it perplexing as to why the rules in place were perfectly acceptable when it meant ensuring the career progression of a number of individuals on this forum, and then... wait for it... It's a human rights issue.

If you want to fly, there are countless jobs around the world. I can't understand why the minority of individuals who want to fly until they can no longer walk, has to force this down our own throats. As a pilot group we should be able to decide what the retirement age at the company is. Have a vote on it... sing a song about it... I don't understand... woops... I mean I don't know... come up with something creative.

If you're coming back for those great meals on board and the excellent inflight service... try one of the fine establishments by the airport.... mmmm.... the food far exceeds any expectations.... and the service... ah yes the service.

Okay... must get going now and do my 5 legs for the day for just under $40,000 a year. I, and many of my colleagues, can look forward to this for a while. Thank you... and thank you... for upholding all these human rights.... and looking out for our pilot group as a whole.

Greed out....

[Lost in Saigon]

Hey, I am just trying to help you. I was in the same position as you 11 years ago. No one bothered explaining it to me back then, and it took quite awhile before I figured out I will never have the big pension that I thought came with the job.

I will not make Wide Body Captian with Air Canada because of my age. Will you?