WJ pilots reject tentative agreement

[Bede]

JYSK, this time you're pretty much correct.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that the company is going to unilaterally implement something and I find the assertion to be little more than fear-mongering in an attempt to have card signed. Could Gregg tell us that come next year we're all working an extra day and take away our ESP? Sure I guess, but until that day comes I don't feel the need to be represented by a union.

WRT to your last question, that's actually I've thought about. Let's just say the company/WJPA agreed to cutting our ESP. They claim it is a collaborative solution to our rising costs. I would argue that the WJPA does not legally have a right to bargain on my behalf and therefore any change to my working conditions is a unilateral change to the terms of my employment.

[skyhigh]

However, there is absolutely no evidence that the company is going to unilaterally implement something and I find the assertion to be little more than fear-mongering in an attempt to have card signed.

Bede one can use that same thought, change the content and voila....."I find the change to the paid moves for the YYZ upgrades to the 200 number an attempt to have votes swayed"

[skyhigh]

Hey Skyhigh,

On WestNet, see the Civil and Criminal Coverage for WestJetters. Just type in Civil coverage in the WestNet search bar. It's the first document returned.

I probably shouldn't cut and paste it on a public forum, but our insurance policy covers us for all civil claims as I explained earlier. For criminal charges occurring during the scope of our employment, the company reimburses us for legal costs which can be assessed by a third party. This set up is considerably different than having a company lawyer defend you.

As for if you are sued after you leave WJ, I will double check, but I am all but certain you would still be covered.

Thanks, yes I have already read this policy. However my concerns for coverage AFTER termination still stands. If you find out more on this please let me know. Thanks.

[WJ200]

Bede one can use that same thought, change the content and voila....."I find the change to the paid moves for the YYZ upgrades to the 200 number an attempt to have votes swayed"

What company are you working for? I don't think it's the same one as I am. This is another example of the company stepping up and doing the right thing. By your logic they would take this away after the TA failed....which they haven't.

As far as the legal coverage, ALPA sells you on their ability to cover ANY scenario. As they've stated on the forum, the WJPA and PACT have coverage for all likely scenarios except for gross or wilful negligence. Should they say that ALL potential events are covered?

You bring up the LaGuardia situation and realistically the company must have had a very valid reason for termination. Conspiracy theorists always bring in "one of" events to validate their arguments. Show this in a broader trend (ie. the criminalization of aviation accidents in Europe) and we can have a different conversation.

[skyhigh]

Bede one can use that same thought, change the content and voila....."I find the change to the paid moves for the YYZ upgrades to the 200 number an attempt to have votes swayed"

What company are you working for? I don't think it's the same one as I am. This is another example of the company stepping up and doing the right thing. By your logic they would take this away after the TA failed....which they haven't.

Its part of the TA, since it wasn't ratified, it NOT part of the Base MOA hence its NOT in effect. There is nothing to take away.

"The company stepping up and doing the right thing" Really??? the RIGHT thing was to offer this from the START (at the introduction of the Base MOA) and NOT have to wait until the threat of a FAILED TA force their hand. This paid move to 200 issue was brought up and fought from day 1 of the Base MOA negotiations....We kept telling them that we cannot leave anyone out thats forced to YYZ and this is the FAIR thing to do......management dug in their heels and said "NOPE"!!! every bloody single time.

[skyhigh]

You bring up the LaGuardia situation and realistically the company must have had a very valid reason for termination. Conspiracy theorists always bring in "one of" events to validate their arguments. Show this in a broader trend (ie. the criminalization of aviation accidents in Europe) and we can have a different conversation.

Termination before the NSTB has concluded their investigation?? Well even if thats the case, the point I'm trying to clarify is if our pilot would have paid legal representation if this happenend.

[WJ200]

Paid moves to 200 is still in effect even though the TA was voted down.

[Bede]

Thanks, yes I have already read this policy. However my concerns for coverage AFTER termination still stands. If you find out more on this please let me know. Thanks.

I spoke to my sister in law. She is a tort (personal injury) lawyer and that's pretty much all she deals with is insurance company's. She said the same as I did above unless there is a specific exclusion clause in the policy but she has never ever heard of such a clause in a policy. I sent an email to our Senior Legal Counsel as well for clarification. I'll let you know once he gets back to me.

As for the employment representation in your latest post. Let's assume the WJPA doesn't help you out and you need to pay for your own lawyer. Yes, lawyers are expensive, but the scenario you've laid out is incredibly improbable and isn't worth shelling out $100-$200/month for- that's expensive insurance for something so unlikely. If you're willing to pay $100-$200/month for the piece for mind that your lawyer will be covered if something happens, I'm sure there is some sort of insurance product out there for a lot less.

[mbav8r]

However, there is absolutely no evidence that the company is going to unilaterally implement something and I find the assertion to be little more than fear-mongering.
where an employer unilaterally makes a fundamental or substantial change to an employee's contract of employment

Bede, I don't have a horse in this race but would really like to know your thoughts on the elimination of the port system and how it relates to the above?
Was the port system in the agreement or just company policy? Would this constitute a substantial change to the employment contract?
We at Jazz have gone through a situation with regards to our pass travel and the passes I signed on for are not the passes I have today and have considered a class action suit but have not started anything for obvious reasons, union or no union I would be a marked man.
Anyone who doesn't think the loss of the port is an extremely significant issue should consider the I spend approximately 7000.00 after tax income per year on commuting, so all you new commuters just received an 11,000/yr pay cut and the AIF's aren't going down, last I checked.

[The Raven]

However, there is absolutely no evidence that the company is going to unilaterally implement something and I find the assertion to be little more than fear-mongering.
where an employer unilaterally makes a fundamental or substantial change to an employee's contract of employment

Bede, I don't have a horse in this race but would really like to know your thoughts on the elimination of the port system and how it relates to the above?
Was the port system in the agreement or just company policy? Would this constitute a substantial change to the employment contract?
We at Jazz have gone through a situation with regards to our pass travel and the passes I signed on for are not the passes I have today and have considered a class action suit but have not started anything for obvious reasons, union or no union I would be a marked man.
Anyone who doesn't think the loss of the port is an extremely significant issue should consider the I spend approximately 7000.00 after tax income per year on commuting, so all you new commuters just received an 11,000/yr pay cut and the AIF's aren't going down, last I checked.

I doubt your class action law suit would go anywhere. Pass travel is a privilege, not a right. I doubt your contract says very much about pass travel. You didn't "sign on" for any passes. They came as a privilege when you joined.

Good luck though.

[mbav8r]

I think that is the point, what's being inferred is that the WJ "contract" is nothing more than company policy and if material changes to it, amount to constructive dismissal, then I would have a case.
Regardless, wouldn't be me doing it, as I said, don't wish to be marked

[Bede]

Bede, I don't have a horse in this race but would really like to know your thoughts on the elimination of the port system and how it relates to the above?
Was the port system in the agreement or just company policy? Would this constitute a substantial change to the employment contract?
We at Jazz have gone through a situation with regards to our pass travel and the passes I signed on for are not the passes I have today and have considered a class action suit but have not started anything for obvious reasons, union or no union I would be a marked man.
Anyone who doesn't think the loss of the port is an extremely significant issue should consider the I spend approximately 7000.00 after tax income per year on commuting, so all you new commuters just received an 11,000/yr pay cut and the AIF's aren't going down, last I checked.

The elimination of the port system was not done unilaterally but was done in consultation with PACT. Even if it was done unilaterally, as long as the move is paid, constructive dismissal is not a valid claim. Here's some more info: http://www.canlii.org/canlii-dynamic/en ... c368404398

WRT to your pass travel, what cause of action would you allege? (ie breach of contract?). I don't think your claim would be successful for a number of reasons, the least being that as a union employee, you must go through the union grievance process- same goes if you were wrongfully dismissed. Good questions though.

[skyhigh]

I sent an email to our Senior Legal Counsel as well for clarification. I'll let you know once he gets back to me

Did you hear back from the Legal consel?

[WJ200]

Yes, you are covered even if your employment is terminated. You can PM me if you would like more info.

[Bede]

Did you hear back from the Legal consel?

Yes I did and I was correct, but I was asked not to post details to a public forum.

[skyhigh]

Okay just got more info on it. Thanks a lot guys

[yycflyguy]

Did you hear back from the Legal consel?

Yes I did and I was correct, but I was asked not to post details to a public forum.

...because if it was made public how could lawyers justify charging $350/hr?