Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[accumulous]

complaints that are outstanding as of the date that the law comes into force

Maybe those are the three words that define this issue?

You nailed it. There are two categories, both in the running for reinstatement.

For example, the Federal Court Decision on the Charter issue vis-à-vis V-K is current law. They were let go on a massively incorrect BFOR ruling that failed to follow the SCC guidelines, and that was corrected in considerable detail in a subsequent ruling via Thwaites et al. That will go under the scrutiny of the Feds in a few months, about the same time as the Charter issue is decided again.

Tomorrow in the Federal Court of Appeal, ACPA will be trying to get the law changed on the Charter issue that was enacted by the Federal Court so that all Air Canada careers can continue to end at 60, with the help of 3000 pilots’ beer money, donated by payroll deduction special assessment, in a final scramble to terminate the incomes of all AC pilots, notwithstanding the fact that ACPA’s special interest group control of retirement issues will grind to a permanent halt in 12 months, and that control issue will finally be wrested from their clenched fingers. At that point, each and every pilot will decide their own retirement parameters, and not somebody sitting at a desk somewhere with a seniority list and a black magic marker.

Retired pilots still have 12 months from the date of their forced retirement to file with the CHRC for reinstatement proceedings, and to join the 200+ pilots already on the docket, and that includes everybody between now and the Parliamentary date of December, 2012, and everybody 12 months prior to today.

[Raymond Hall]

Perhaps I was assuming that most here have been through the steps a number of times. Without being critical, here is how I see it.

The CHRA allows an exception to the normal prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age, to allow mandatory retirement.
It is a "conditional" exemption. The exemption applies only if a person's employment is terminated at the "normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work."

Parliament is in the process of repealing that exemption and that repeal will come into force next November. At that point, there will be no basis, other than BFOR, to argue that mandatory retirement is legal in the federal sector. So the airline must stop using mandatory retirement at that point (again, unless it can prove BFOR).

In 2009, the Tribunal found that the mandatory retirement exemption was of no force and effect because it violated the Charter, which is "the supreme law of the land." The Federal Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. ACPA has appealed the Federal Court decision and that appeal will be heard tomorrow. Because the mandatory retirement exemption in the CHRA was of no force and effect, the termination of pilots at age 60, based on their age, violated the CHRA, resulting in damages. So far, only two pilots have proceeded fully through the remedy hearing to have those damages determined. Approximately $100,000 each. There are almost 200 pilots now before the Tribunal who are in process to have their own damages determined, if the Tribunal and the Courts find that their termination was illegal for the reasons above.

All complaints filed are outstanding until there is a final order issued by the Tribunal on the complaint, or until the complaints are withdrawn. That is what I mean by outstanding. They are yet to be decided. They could and most likely will result in liability and damages.

There is one other possible measure of liability, in addition to the liability resulting from the Charter violation. That is, if the Tribunal decision on Thwaites is overturned by the Court, finding that the termination of the employment occurred at other than than the normal age of retirement. In other words, that age 60 is not the normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work.

All of those who filed complaints to date, and all of those who file complaints prior to the repeal coming into force, can still argue that because the Tribunal found the exemption to violate the Charter and to be of no force and effect, that their termination was illegal. If those arguments win the day in Court, there will be liability to both the airline and the union. The determination of those cases are not affected by the repeal, because they were filed on the basis of when the pilots were terminated. If the terminations were illegal, damages will follow.

[Rockie]

Those are the facts ladies and gentlemen.

Just because you have never heard them from ACPA doesn't make them any less real.

[29chev]

Those are the facts, albeit with a lot of “if‘s , could and most likely” here and there, but as Ray is smarter than me he must be right.

My guess as to what happens,

The law changes next Nov to no more mandatory retirement (that's a given)

Over the next year Air Canada pulls out the big guns and argues a strong case for BFOR re: a max age of 65
after all when is the last time AC lost to the employees on this kinda thing.

The government says as of Nov 2012 you have to let pilots fly until 65 starting today

All the pilots 61 to 64.9 say I want my job back

Air Canada says it will bankrupt the company to re train all the old pilots and runs to the government and says please don't make us
my thinking on this point is thats what AC is doing now re: contract talks so why change something thats working

The government says for the good of the Country and the economy the new rules only apply to anyone still on property.

IMHO

I will concede there may be a pay out to anyone on the list of 200+ Ray is always mentioning however it will be a lot smaller than what they are hoping for and really most of those 200 guys don’t want to come back to fly they just want the cash anyway

[Norwegianwood]

153Y 127N

[accumulous]

Those are the facts, albeit with a lot of “if‘s , could and most likely” here and there, but as Ray is smarter than me he must be right.

My guess as to what happens,

The law changes next Nov to no more mandatory retirement (that's a given)

Over the next year Air Canada pulls out the big guns and argues a strong case for BFOR re: a max age of 65
after all when is the last time AC lost to the employees on this kinda thing.

The government says as of Nov 2012 you have to let pilots fly until 65 starting today

All the pilots 61 to 64.9 say I want my job back

Air Canada says it will bankrupt the company to re train all the old pilots and runs to the government and says please don't make us
my thinking on this point is thats what AC is doing now re: contract talks so why change something thats working

The government says for the good of the Country and the economy the new rules only apply to anyone still on property.

IMHO

I will concede there may be a pay out to anyone on the list of 200+ Ray is always mentioning however it will be a lot smaller than what they are hoping for and really most of those 200 guys don’t want to come back to fly they just want the cash anyway

Pretty much wrong on all of that.

First off there is no BFOR argument for F/O's over 65. Secondly, AC doesn't write the laws, neither does ACPA, they abide by them, the same as the rest of us. Nor do they write their own liability - that's tied to the legal thingy. So not only do you not decide your own case, you do not decide your own results.

Thirdly take a stroll around your Pilot's License and note where it says 'Transport Canada', then insert the phrase 'No Age Restrictions' where you thought you saw 'Air Canada'.

If anybody wants to move the foxhole back a teensy little bit to the next little line in the sand for another go at it, they'll have to wander into a TC office and advise the boys in there that TC is heretofor out at 65. Make sure you have your license and a book of matches handy.

Somewhere out on the rolling briny sea right now Captain Highliner is standing there staring at his empty driftnets wondering where all the red herrings went.

[Old fella]

I will concede there may be a pay out to anyone on the list of 200+ Ray is always mentioning however it will be a lot smaller than what they are hoping for and really most of those 200 guys don’t want to come back to fly they just want the cash anyway

Too right. When I was with TC early-mid 90's the PY(person year) numbers had to come down. I know of 4 people who had their retirement notices passed in. There were buyout packages being offered, those 4 individuals hauled their retirement notices back, held out for a year, got the buyout(big $$$$$) then went on immediate pension. If there is a sniff of extra money us old goats are in there like dirty skivvies and we know every angle. I don't know Air Canada as never worked there but correct me if I am out in left field however people will jump on any bandwagon(fly after 60) to collect extra without participation..........

[29chev]

accumulous

Pretty much wrong on all of that.

wander into a TC office and advise the boys in there that TC is heretofor out at 65

Wow who was talking about transport? They can work as long as they want they don't have to follow ICAO 65 rules....

anyway

You must be right you said so,and you used such good descriptive words, so it has to be true.

I guess we will see

29chev

[accumulous]

I will concede there may be a pay out to anyone on the list of 200+ Ray is always mentioning however it will be a lot smaller than what they are hoping for and really most of those 200 guys don’t want to come back to fly they just want the cash anyway

Too right. When I was with TC early-mid 90's the PY(person year) numbers had to come down. I know of 4 people who had their retirement notices passed in. There were buyout packages being offered, those 4 individuals hauled their retirement notices back, held out for a year, got the buyout(big $$$$$) then went on immediate pension. If there is a sniff of extra money us old goats are in there like dirty skivvies and we know every angle. I don't know Air Canada as never worked there but correct me if I am out in left field however people will jump on any bandwagon(fly after 60) to collect extra without participation..........

'Non-participation' is another one of the red herrings.

Over 200 guys have applied to the CHRC and climbing. When you call the CHRC 1-800 number, you are faxed the documents. The first thing you notice when you fill them out is that you are applying for reinstatement on a premise of forced retirement. Liability usually follows but that is entirely up to the governing bodies.

Multiple examples are all over the Federal websites. The Remedy phase is first and foremost about reinstatement.

These aren't car accident whiplash cases. These are employment cases.

[Ah_yeah]

You guys remind of another group of pilots I know well. They thought they had it all figured out. They were told their case was a slam dunk and then....BAM, out of no where they were out-weasled.

[Morry Bund]

My guess as to what happens, Over the next year Air Canada pulls out the big guns and argues a strong case for BFOR re: a max age of 65 after all when is the last time AC lost to the employees on this kinda thing. The government says as of Nov 2012 you have to let pilots fly until 65 starting today All the pilots 61 to 64.9 say I want my job back

Air Canada says it will bankrupt the company to re train all the old pilots and runs to the government and says please don't make us my thinking on this point is thats what AC is doing now re: contract talks so why change something thats working The government says for the good of the Country and the economy the new rules only apply to anyone still on property.

I have to agree with RH. It is now obvious why we are having so many problems here. Are you just THICK, or do you really not have any reading comprehension?

BFOR applies only to pilots-in-command. Age 65 for others is meaningless. No "big guns" at Air Canada are going to result in another amendment to the statute that re-imposes age restrictions into the human rights statute. Human rights laws apply to everyone, not just Air Canada pilots, so get over it already. Open your eyes and shuck your sense of entitlement. You are a human being, just like the rest of us. You are not a God, with some inalienable right to your existing working constraints.

[yycflyguy]

Human rights laws apply to everyone, not just Air Canada pilots, so get over it already.

You mean the law that has yet to be implemented/introduced by the government or the quasi-discrimination CHR argument that has been ongoing, unresolved, ruled and overturned upon for the past 20 years of litigation?

You are not a God, with some inalienable right to your existing working constraints.

Only the plaintiffs get to voice their views for repatriating their rightful place.

[Rockie]

You mean the law that has yet to be implemented/introduced by the government or the quasi-discrimination CHR argument that has been ongoing, unresolved, ruled and overturned upon for the past 20 years of litigation?

As much as you want this to be true, you're smarter than that I think. The effort you put into arguing a lost cause would be better spent trying to get ACPA to prepare for this. For example, they are in the process of negotiating a multi-year contract that does not in any way factor in the coming change. How smart do you think that is?

[29chev]

Sorry I'm not to smart....

'Non-participation' is another one of the red herrings

.....am I Non-participating or am I the red herring?????


you smart guys are so hard to follow!

[vic777]

they are in the process of negotiating a multi-year contract that does not in any way factor in the coming change. How smart do you think that is?

It is downright stupid, AC will end up holding all the cards. ACPA's negotiating room will not exist. The ACPA Elite will cut a deal for themselves, however.

[yycflyguy]

You mean the law that has yet to be implemented/introduced by the government or the quasi-discrimination CHR argument that has been ongoing, unresolved, ruled and overturned upon for the past 20 years of litigation?

As much as you want this to be true, you're smarter than that I think. The effort you put into arguing a lost cause would be better spent trying to get ACPA to prepare for this. For example, they are in the process of negotiating a multi-year contract that does not in any way factor in the coming change. How smart do you think that is?

How do you know they are not? Do you have some inside information on negotiations as well? Why would either side expend the time, energy and negotiating capital for an "eventuality" based on TODAY's laws? It is a likely eventuality but you can only deal with one grass fire at a time.

The ACPA Elite will cut a deal for themselves, however.

I've seen this rhetoric a few times. The "elite" which you speak of have only been empowered for approximately 6 months. I have seen a lot of corruption in my day but I hardly think the newly appointed NC nor the majority of the newly elected MEC would fall into this category. Unless you have something to substantiate the fear mongering.

[vic777]

The "elite" which you speak of have only been empowered for approximately 6 months. I have seen a lot of corruption in my day but I hardly think the newly appointed NC nor the majority of the newly elected MEC would fall into this category. Unless you have something to substantiate the fear mongering.

OK, I'll give you that. Let's hope they are up to the job.

[Norwegianwood]

The "elite" which you speak of have only been empowered for approximately 6 months. I have seen a lot of corruption in my day but I hardly think the newly appointed NC nor the majority of the newly elected MEC would fall into this category. Unless you have something to substantiate the fear mongering.

OK, I'll give you that. Let's hope they are up to the job.

But then on the other hand..................

[Raymond Hall]

Hansard:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... de=1#T1850

November 21, 2011 18:45:


The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Rockie]

You mean the law that has yet to be implemented/introduced by the government or the quasi-discrimination CHR argument that has been ongoing, unresolved, ruled and overturned upon for the past 20 years of litigation?

As much as you want this to be true, you're smarter than that I think. The effort you put into arguing a lost cause would be better spent trying to get ACPA to prepare for this. For example, they are in the process of negotiating a multi-year contract that does not in any way factor in the coming change. How smart do you think that is?

How do you know they are not? Do you have some inside information on negotiations as well? Why would either side expend the time, energy and negotiating capital for an "eventuality" based on TODAY's laws? It is a likely eventuality but you can only deal with one grass fire at a time.

The ACPA Elite will cut a deal for themselves, however.

I've seen this rhetoric a few times. The "elite" which you speak of have only been empowered for approximately 6 months. I have seen a lot of corruption in my day but I hardly think the newly appointed NC nor the majority of the newly elected MEC would fall into this category. Unless you have something to substantiate the fear mongering.

You're right, I'm presuming that the MEC/NC is not incorporating this imminent and very dramatic change in their negotiations. It would be very surprising to me since none of their surveys have hinted at it and nothing they have said to the membership has either. So unless you think they're doing what the last MEC did by way of following their own agenda and keeping the membership totally in the dark I wonder why you would suggest it.

Why would we plan for it you ask?

Because that's what smart people do.

[Old fella]

Sorry I'm not to smart....

'Non-participation' is another one of the red herrings

.....am I Non-participating or am I the red herring?????


you smart guys are so hard to follow!

Ditto for me as well. You smart Air Canada Guys are so hard to follow

[duranium]

Trying to understand Ray,

How can you....

If those terminations occurred prior to the legislative change coming into force (November, 2012) and if the Tribunal and/or the Courts find that the terminations violated the law prior to its formal repeal

....violate a law prior to it becoming law? If it has not been changed yet how can you be breaking it and if your not breaking it until after it has become law wouldn't it make sense that you would only be liable for those costs if you continue to terminate staff after the date it becomes law?

29chev

Raymond Hall wrote ...violated the law prior to it's formal repeal

You wrote ... violate a law prior to it becoming law

A law that is now in force as Raymond Hall wrote is very different from a law that has not yet become law as you wrote. I would suggest that you read and ponder the written word as it appears in the text. Your take on what Raymond Hall wrote is flagrantly erronous.

[duranium]

Hansard:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... de=1#T1850

November 21, 2011 18:45:


The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

And the coffin was finally closed tight with a loud groan

[Rockie]

Hansard:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... de=1#T1850

November 21, 2011 18:45:


The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

And the coffin was finally closed tight with a loud groan

Except for Air Canada pilots who are safely protected in their reality-free zone, because when they force someone to retire it isn't age discrimination and therefore is not effected by this change in law.

[Norwegianwood]

Except for Air Canada pilots who are safely protected in their reality-free zone, because when they force someone to retire it isn't age discrimination and therefore is not effected by this change in law.

Didn't they win that immunity zombie thingy on the reality airline show which they can play as many times as they like complete with blinkers and ear defenders..........

Too late for that wake up call now