Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by yycflyguy »

LIS:
The first thing you need to do is insure that out pre-CCAA contract is re-instated with fill cost of living inflation added. Age 60 is peanuts compared to that.
Amen to that. Guns outwards please.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Understated
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Understated »

yycflyguy wrote:Respectfully, have you ever served the union and your fellow colleagues in any capacity or merely criticized them? I read your posts and your obvious disdain for them prevents any constructive progress. When people criticize ACPA, they are criticizing themselves. I happen to have a lot of respect for our current President who has actively bettered our members by his activities on the hill.
Served? Done anything other than criticize? Maybe yes. Maybe no.

My disdain is not personal. I intend no ill to any specific individual. It is the group and the groupthink that I disdain. Yes, I am pedantic. Yes, I am highly critical. But please tell me, in view of all the facts, what on earth is the ACPA President doing going before the Parliamentary Committee that has already decided to have this Bill headed back to Parliament by 2 PM tomorrow afternoon? I have a lot of respect for the person. I just hope that the "position" that he puts forward to the Committee doesn't embarrass us, given the underlying motivation on which it is based, that goes totally against the spirit and intent of the Human Rights Act that is about to be amended.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Morry Bund »

Mechanic787 wrote:The Committee will pass the two proposed amendments (military exemption, and a delay with respect to the date of coming into force), and there will be at least one compromise made to accommodate the representations made by the employers through their lobbyists.
Any hint as to what that compromise will be?
---------- ADS -----------
 
duranium
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by duranium »

bcflyer wrote:
777longhaul wrote: There are 2900 out of 3100 pilots, who will benefit from this, at their option, not forced out by an out of date contract.
If my option is to leave at 60 (like all those before me) will you top up my best 5 yrs to what it should be if everyone continued to leave at 60?

For some reason the Fly Past 60 group don't seem to understand that not everyone wants to fly till we die. I started late at Air Canada (I will have 22 yrs in the pension) and knew I wouldn't be making huge dollars from the AC pension. I have planned for that accordingly as have a great number of my collegues who are in my situation. That was the trade off for retiring at 60. Now however I will be forced to stay past 60 to achive the same pension money. Why would anyone want to work extra years to get the same pension?? (this is what will happen to the junior pilots..) As has been mentioned over and over there is no way to allow fly till you die and still let people retire at 60 with the pension they otherwise would have had.....
A quick substraction indicates that you were hired by AC at 38. Why would you be forced to stay past 60 to achieve the same pension money ?

What were you doing, for your retirement, prior to joining AC. If you did nothing, you cannot blame others for your lack of foresight but if you did plan accordingly, or it was planned for you such as buying back military pensionable time, you must have a certain interest invested somewhere. Would your statement about working past 60 indicate a certain form of greed on your part ? In theory anyway, you should be well off for retirement at 60, assuming you planned ahead.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mechanic787
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:38 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Mechanic787 »

Morry Bund wrote:Any hint as to what that compromise will be?
The original plan to allow for six months from the date of enactment to the date of coming into force will be extended to one year to enable a complete review and amendment of the supporting regulations to take into consideration a number of factors.

Those elements at issue include the fact that this Bill, being a private member's Bill, doesn't get the same scrutiny as government sponsored bills due to the abbreviated Parliamentary procedure. As well, the issue of insurance premiums being more critical for senior employees was a factor, requiring the ability to adjust them on an actuarial basis to properly reflect their cost. One final consideration that may or may not go into the regulations is an allowance for increased age-based competency testing.

In any event, six months was seen as too tight a time frame to handle all of this. The employers demanded and will be given a full year to make input to the these changes in the regulations before the blanket repeal of the exemption takes effect.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Mechanic787 on Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
vic777
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:00 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by vic777 »

duranium wrote: In theory anyway, you should be well off for retirement at 60, assuming you planned ahead.
And if you didn't plan well, or life throws you a curve ball, or the liberals get in and hyper inflation hits, you have the added bonus that you can keep working. More and better options.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BLZD1
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:36 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by BLZD1 »

Pilots' mandatory retirement up in air

Human Rights tribunal to re-examine Air Canada case

BY DON BUTLER, OTTAWA CITIZEN FEBRUARY 15, 2011 3:04 AM


The issue of whether Air Canada can force older pilots to retire is back in play after a Federal Court judge found the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ignored key evidence in a 2009 decision about the airline's mandatory retirement policy.

In a decision posted to the Federal Court website Monday, Judge Anne Mactavish ordered the quasi-judicial tribunal to reconsider whether youth is a genuine occupational requirement for Air Canada pilots.

In 2009, the tribunal ruled in favour of Robert Kelly and George Vilven, two Air Canada pilots who challenged their mandatory retirements at age 60. It found that mandatory retirement provisions in the airline's collective agreement with the Air Canada Pilots' Association violated the Charter of Rights. In a second decision last fall, it reinstated Kelly and Vilven and ordered Air Canada to compensate them for lost income.

The tribunal has since heard a complaint from 68 other former Air Canada pilots, with a decision still pending. In addition, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has referred complaints by another large group of former pilots to the tribunal and is investigating even more.

The Federal Court got involved after Air Canada and the pilots' association filed applications for judicial review of the tribunal's 2009 ruling. In her 128-page decision, Mactavish upheld the tribunal's finding on the Charter issue. But she also concluded that it erred in finding Air Canada had failed to demonstrate that age is a bona fide occupational requirement for its pilots, which would make the violation of their Charter rights justifiable.

At the tribunal hearing, Air Canada argued that scrapping mandatory retirement would make it almost impossible to schedule its pilots within International Civil Aviation Organization rules. ICAO allows pilots-in-command under age 65 to fly internationally, as long as one pilot in the crew is under 60.

According to Air Canada, 86 per cent of its flights are either to an international destination or pass through foreign airspace, and thus are subject to ICAO's rules.
---------- ADS -----------
 
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by bcflyer »

duranium wrote:
bcflyer wrote:
777longhaul wrote: There are 2900 out of 3100 pilots, who will benefit from this, at their option, not forced out by an out of date contract.
If my option is to leave at 60 (like all those before me) will you top up my best 5 yrs to what it should be if everyone continued to leave at 60?

For some reason the Fly Past 60 group don't seem to understand that not everyone wants to fly till we die. I started late at Air Canada (I will have 22 yrs in the pension) and knew I wouldn't be making huge dollars from the AC pension. I have planned for that accordingly as have a great number of my collegues who are in my situation. That was the trade off for retiring at 60. Now however I will be forced to stay past 60 to achive the same pension money. Why would anyone want to work extra years to get the same pension?? (this is what will happen to the junior pilots..) As has been mentioned over and over there is no way to allow fly till you die and still let people retire at 60 with the pension they otherwise would have had.....
A quick substraction indicates that you were hired by AC at 38. Why would you be forced to stay past 60 to achieve the same pension money ?

What were you doing, for your retirement, prior to joining AC. If you did nothing, you cannot blame others for your lack of foresight but if you did plan accordingly, or it was planned for you such as buying back military pensionable time, you must have a certain interest invested somewhere. Would your statement about working past 60 indicate a certain form of greed on your part ? In theory anyway, you should be well off for retirement at 60, assuming you planned ahead.
Do you work at Air Canada? I ask because your question about why I will have to work longer to achieve the same money shows a lack of knowledge about how our pension works. It is based on your best 5 yrs. If people continue to retire at 60 then everything works out just fine. As soon as people start staying well past 60, it stagnates the rest of the list. In other words junior pilots cannot move up into the higher paying postions. Therefore if you don't stay past 60, you end up with lower pay for your last 5 yrs which equals a lower pension. There is no greed here. I don't want MORE money, I just want what those who are fighting against me had. Tell me again why anyone would want to work longer to achieve the same pension money?

As for the rest of my planning, I worked at several other companies before I came to AC and have invested in several different things with the plan of supplementing whatever pension comes my way. It pisses me off that guys who, for the most part, will make more on their AC pension than I ever will with all my other investments combined, want to stay even longer.

Just as a side note. Mr Vilven has stated that his income from his various pensions after 17 yrs at AC was 6000 a month.. 72,000.00/yr.. Hard to feel sorry for someone who's pension money is about $25,000/yr HIGHER than the average salary in Canada.....
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Brick Head »

BTD wrote:
Brickhead: I think the problem Rockie and others are having is that you mention another method, but then don`t back it up with any ideas of how to accomplish this. This leads them to believe that perhaps there is no other way to accomplish the goals without using an age based discrimation. Perhaps there is, but if you are the one pushing the thought generally it should be you that makes the case by using specific examples of how. Otherwise this toilet convesation where everyone goes round and round is the result.

If I am way off base, please correct me.

BTD
Hi BTD,

Point taken. Your not off base. But I have done this before and it is like hitting a hornets nest with a stick. :lol: They know exactly what I am going to say.

Age based rules are not necessarily age discrimination. They can not be arbitrary, but if they are justifiable for reasons other than age they are legal. It is all around us.

For example.

Brickhead you have to do a medical every 6 months because you are over 40.
Why? Because your over 40. illegal
Why? Because aging blah, health blah, safety blah. It is no longer arbitrary but rather justified by means other than age. legal

Brickhead your over 50 so your life insurance premium is going up.
Why? Because you are 55. illegal
Why? Because you are statistically closer to death. No longer arbitrary but rather justified by means other than age. legal.

Son of Brickhead you can't legally drink until you are 21.
Why? Because your 20. illegal
Why? Maturaty blah, health blah, newer driver blah generally stupid at that age blah blah blah. No longer arbitrary but rather justified by means other than age. legal

Brickhead we are instituting age-based competency testing.
Why? Because your 60. illegal
Why? We have been watching you on avcanada and think you are suffering from dementia. Very very justifiable. legal :D

Brickhead you must become an FO on type at 60. (an example of an alternative everyone seems to want)
Why? Because that is what the contract says. illegal
Why? Because it is a mechanism, in the absences of mandatory retirement, designed to provide the greatest pre and post retirement income for the collective as a whole. It has historical relevance and is considered important to society to this day. No longer arbitrary but is being justified by means other than age.

The complainants have assumed that mandatory retirement has always just been arbitrary. That there was never a justification or an objective behind it. It was just an age and nothing else. To be fair to these guys two things have transpired that makes getting the relevance of deferred compensation systems, and the objective of mandatory retirement across to them very difficult. No one heard of it until now, making them suspect that it was a made up defense, in an effort to fabricate a justification. At the beginning that was an honest lack of knowledge. How many of us understood this prior to this debate? Very few. I didn't. However today it should be understood. Making the problem worse is the belief that even if does exist, it is irrelevant. Now I can understand that as a position in court, however most here seem to believe irrelevance is factually correct, despite all the reference to it from the Tribunal and Federal court. All this leading to no one really trying to understand the position at all, and having great difficulty connecting any dots when evidence is brought before them.

Here are some paragraphs from the Tribunal. Posting everything is impractical. I have posted only that which makes the point. The whole thing should be read.

V&K Aug 09

[30] Deferred compensation is the practice of paying workers less than their productivity in earlier years and more than their productivity in later years. In addition, most deferred compensation systems, like that of Air Canada, provide deferred benefits such as pensions and post-retirement benefits that rise with the worker’s tenure.

[31] Both employers and employees like the deferred compensation system. It permits wages to rise with age, promotes employee loyalty in the expectation of rich pension benefits and encourages employers to invest in worker training. In exchange for the deferred benefits, employees may agree to terminate their employment at a specific age.

[34] Professor Carmichael, a labour economist from Queen’s University, agreed that in jurisdictions where mandatory retirement has been abolished deferred compensation, seniority and other positive features of the current labour regime have continued. And there are alternatives to mandatory retirement that have the effect of preserving the benefits of the current system.

[35] One such alternative is to provide a lump sum payment to employees upon retirement at a certain age to induce them to retire. He pointed out that this approach was introduced in Quebec universities when mandatory retirement was abolished in that province.

[36] Another alternative is to permit workplace parties to renegotiate the terms and conditions of employment at an agreed upon age. He stated that this has been successfully done in some Ontario universities where professors who reach a certain age agree to stay on as professors emeritus.


I will pause here because there has been a lot of debate as to what the Tribunal was saying in paragraph 36, or if it was even a mistake. Those professors stopped having different rules past age 60 when mandatory retirement was abolished, which some believe makes the whole statement meaningless. In the context of what the Tribunal was referring to at this point of the ruling. Alternatives. I disagree. They are simply saying age based rules that are not arbitrary, that have a justifiable reason behind them. In this case greater pre and post retirement income for everyone. Then age based rules are a viable alternative.

Oak's test. Is mandatory retirement pressing and substantial?

[45] In the light of the above-noted considerations, can it be said that the goal of permitting
mandatory retirement to be negotiated in the workplace continues to be of pressing and
substantial importance? The alternatives to mandatory retirement, which are in use in other
jurisdictions, effectively preserve the benefits of the current system without infringing a
constitutionally protected right. How then can the goal of permitting freedom of contract in this
area be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutional right?

[49] Given that the benefits associated with mandatory retirement can be achieved without
mandatory retirement, it is difficult to see how permitting it to be negotiated in the workplace is
important enough to warrant the violation of equality rights that was identified by the Federal Court in the present case.

[50] Based on the above analysis, we have concluded that it can no longer be said that the goal of leaving mandatory retirement to be negotiated in the workplace is sufficiently pressing and substantial to warrant the infringement of equality rights.


The basic message from the Tribunal? Preserve your benefit system some other way than mandatory retirement. The benefits associated with mandatory retirement are pretty simple. To force the benefit to be passed on at a specific point in time, allowing for an end loading of an age with deferred compensation, for the purpose of pension benefit. Any viable alternative to mandatory retirement requires the ability to continue end loading an age. That simple.


What did the federal court say about all of this in its evaluation of the Oak's test? This is one paragraph of many, posted to highlight a point. Again. Read the whole section.

[201] I have previously found that the objective of 15(1)c was to permit the negotiation of mandatory retirement arrangements between employers and employees, particularly through the collective bargaining process, so as to allow for the preservation of socially desirable employment regimes which include matters such as pensions, job security, wages and benefits. Such an objective continues to be a pressing and substantial one in society.


In the many paragraphs she referenced the idea of alternatives, referenced the V&K ruling on the same subject, reinforced it, and took the issue one step further. She pointed to the "objective" of mandatory retirement, clarified it and separated it from the act of mandatory retirement. Then called the objective pressing and substantial to this day.

IOW an alternative to mandatory retirement, designed to preserve the "objective" of mandatory retirement, if challenged? In her opinion would be legal. The legal test to decide if it is pressing and substantial, would find that it continues to be a pressing and substantial one in society.

Her opinion of course.

Do I like where this is going with the courts? No. I see this as likely becoming a two step process for the complainants. The end result being the end of the deferred compensation system. Other than the initial beneficiaries of the change, everyone will end up working longer for the same pre and post retirement income.

Step 1. People stay past 60 but alternatives are in place to protect the system.


Step 2. The complainants then attack every alternative they possibly can, through every avenue they can, until they have them whittled down to nothing. Death of a system through a thousand cuts.

Assuming of course we don't get a new law designed to protect deferred compensation benefit systems at the Federal level. This by far is the best option to prevent everyone from being forced to work longer for the same pre and post retirement benefit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Brick Head on Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Understated
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Understated »

My fears were jujst realized. "Bill C-481 is too broad. The Committee must be mindful of the 'collective' rights of a group of individuals who have come to expect to earn pensions that puts them in the top 1% of the wage earners of the country."

Embarrassing, or what?
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by rudder »

Pathetic. There is only one defence: BFOR.

Attempting to maintain status quo - in isolation - is a Fool's strategy.

Conculmittant?
---------- ADS -----------
 
duranium
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by duranium »

Or how about Mr Bill Petrie, Executive Director saying that the age 60 retirement age was voted on by the members, from when this incorporation of said age was put into the contract, by reference. These people will stop at nothing. This Bill Petrie should be knowedgeable on all facets of the AC pilots contract, being the Executive Director. What I read here and what he stated differ 180 degrees.

Or how about your President Paul Strachan waxing on and on about how his generous pension and wage deferral should be BFOR for a valid exemption to the proposed bill. One can now understand a little bit more why so many of you AC pilots are so full of yourselves. I am impressed with your blustering swaggering conduct. I guess the coming reality check will be an eye opener for you bravado types
---------- ADS -----------
 
rudder
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by rudder »

ACPA might stick a sliver of a chance for consideration of ammendment to the bill if they had allies. Who are their allies? They were even prompted by one of the committee members about the CLC or any other groups of significance that might be aligned with ACPA position about deferred compensation being a legitimate BFOR (that is not what the BFOR provision is there for).

It all went downhill after the submission started with "We represent the majority of airline pilots in Canada..."

Here is some free advice for ACPA:

- find powerful allies
- provide defensible facts
- come prepared to be challenged (remember that your opponents are lobbying the same committee members)
- do your homework

If I had to grade the performance it was a 'D'.
---------- ADS -----------
 
dutchman
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:58 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by dutchman »

Just curious, where can I see/follow the meeting on line? Thanks in advance,

Dutchman
---------- ADS -----------
 
duranium
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by duranium »

bcflyer wrote

Do you work at Air Canada? I ask because your question about why I will have to work longer to achieve the same money shows a lack of knowledge about how our pension works. It is based on your best 5 yrs.

Using your numbers and a 40% marginal taxe rate with a pension of 80000.00 versus 90000.00 you would be worst off, at the end, by about 216.00 a month net.

If people continue to retire at 60 then everything works out just fine. As soon as people start staying well past 60, it stagnates the rest of the list. In other words junior pilots cannot move up into the higher paying postions. Therefore if you don't stay past 60, you end up with lower pay for your last 5 yrs which equals a lower pension. There is no greed here. I don't want MORE money, I just want what those who are fighting against me had.

Your logic is baffling. You just want what others have, that is spelled in my book as envy and sprinkle in a bit of jealousy for good mesure and it is MORE money you are after, any way you care to colour it.

Tell me again why anyone would want to work longer to achieve the same pension money?

How about, for starters, because they really enjoy what they do and where they work and who they work for

As for the rest of my planning, I worked at several other companies before I came to AC and have invested in several different things with the plan of supplementing whatever pension comes my way. It pisses me off that guys who, for the most part, will make more on their AC pension than I ever will with all my other investments combined, want to stay even longer.

'' It pisses me off....'' translation into Shakespearian English : I am so jealous of you because you were born before me and had the wisdom to apply to AC at a younger age than I. ''...will make more on their AC pension than I ever will.... '' I want what he has and I will use every means to get it. An other way to spell the j word

Just as a side note. Mr Vilven has stated that his income from his various pensions after 17 yrs at AC was 6000 a month.. 72,000.00/yr.. Hard to feel sorry for someone who's pension money is about $25,000/yr HIGHER than the average salary in Canada.....

So then why should we fell any more sorry for you that will be making more than him upon retirement ? That will be even harder to fell sorry for.
[/quote][/quote][/quote]
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by duranium on Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by 777longhaul »

yycflyguy

Please think about this fact. You were hired at 38, good.

However, without previous pilots fighting the age discrimination issue, (AC would not hire you at that age, you were to old) then, you would have never been able to be employeed at ac. You have already, benefited, from the age discrimination issues, and you can benefit from it, by having the option to work longer, at your choice. It is about the freedom, to choose, not to be forced into retirement.

Get acpa to change the max years to 3 years from 5. That is very important for ALL ac pilots.What effort is being spent on that issue?

Get acpa to change the indexing issue. How much effort is being spent on that? Those 2 items, are more important, than all of this effort to stop the pilots from having the freedom to choose.
---------- ADS -----------
 
What About Me?
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by What About Me? »

Paraphrasing Strachan at the hearing today:

He basically said entry level pilots are paid too little, but senior pilots are paid too much to balance things out.

Is that what the negotes team is taking into their meetings with the Company?

Was that the best argument he can put forward?

You guys are doomed to fail.
---------- ADS -----------
 
What About Me?
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by What About Me? »

World English Dictionary
concomitant (kənˈkɒmɪtənt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
1. existing or occurring together; associative

— n
2. a concomitant act, person, etc

[C17: from Late Latin concomitārī to accompany, from com- with + comes companion, fellow]

con'comitantly

— adv

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Word Origin & History

concomitant
1607, from Fr. concomitant, from L. concomitantem, prp. of concomitari "accompany, attend," from com- "with, together" + comitari "join as a companion," from comes (gen. comitis ) "companion."
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
---------- ADS -----------
 
Johnny Mapleleaf
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Johnny Mapleleaf »

dutchman wrote:Just curious, where can I see/follow the meeting on line?
You have two choices. You can go to the ACPA web site, wait until another 400 pilots retire or five years, whichever comes first, and then get it from there.

Or you can go to http://www.flypast60.com and get it right now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Norwegianwood
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Norwegianwood »

777longhaul wrote:yycflyguy

Please think about this fact. You were hired at 38, good.

However, without previous pilots fighting the age discrimination issue, (AC would not hire you at that age, you were to old) then, you would have never been able to be employeed at ac. You have already, benefited, from the age discrimination issues, and you can benefit from it, by having the option to work longer, at your choice. It is about the freedom, to choose, not to be forced into retirement.

Get acpa to change the max years to 3 years from 5. That is very important for ALL ac pilots.What effort is being spent on that issue?

Get acpa to change the indexing issue. How much effort is being spent on that? Those 2 items, are more important, than all of this effort to stop the pilots from having the freedom to choose.

How can one expect to get ACPA to do anything with the narrowminded attitude portrayed by it's president today at the hearings. Wow !!!!!!!
---------- ADS -----------
 
vic777
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:00 am

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by vic777 »

Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:Or you can go to http://www.flypast60.com and get it right now.
Thanks to Ray for keeping us informed ....
You can hear ACPA President Paul Strachan's presentation to the Standing Committee Hearing, February 15, 2011 (MP3): at the beginning of part 2.
Not a very forceful argument, nor presentation. (He didn't sound as though he had convinced himself.)
It is interesting that he publicly portrays our Pension as ...
"Very generous Pension ... and Beyond"!
(Does this guy get anywhere near our negotiators or the negotiations?)
Also at the 5:10 mark in part two he refers to AC Pilots (of whose UNION he is President), now get this, he calls Senior AC Pilots as, "Overpaid in the final years"!
It's right there folks ... the UNION President referring to Senior Pilots as "Overpaid".

As they say, "You can't make this stuff up"!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by vic777 on Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Johnny Mapleleaf
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Johnny Mapleleaf »

Understated wrote:Embarrassing, or what?
Go to Part 2. Move the slider forward to the 20:30 minute mark to hear this:

Member: How was this pension scheme actually brought into your original plan; the very first time, how was it done?

Mr. Petrie: The pension plan has been around since the '50s, and like all federal employers, a pension plan was introduced at the airline...

Member: How was it introduced, Mr. Petrie? That is the gist of my question. How? Was it put to the vote to the Air Canada employees? How was it introduced?

Mr. Petrie: It was... I wasn't there, so obviously, cause I am not that old, it was part of a, as I understand, it was part of negotiations. Every change that's made to the pension plan, every...and we have made several changes to those pension plans over the years since its inception, have been ratified in the bargaining process. So they have been, they've been voted upon by the members when they vote on the collective agreement. Pension is just one aspect of the collective agreement that we seek changes to, and when they are changed, they go through the ratification process.

Member: The reason that question to either Mr. Strachan or Mr. Petrie is that I have had a chance to read the notes that Mr. Vilven had given to us, and on Page 4, I quote, he says...

"The age-60 mandatory retirement provision was implemented at Air Canada by fiat of the Air Canada management in 1957." So it was definitely before all of our time. "There was no negotiation involved." he says, "As late as 1980, the mandatory retirement provision was not yet located within the collective agreement or within the Air Canada Pension Plan. It existed simply within the policy documents of Air Canada."

And then he says, "In the mid-1980's, the mandatory retirement provision was inserted by reference into the collective agreement itself. When that occurred, at no time did the pilots' union place the question of mandatory retirement before the general membership of the union for discussion and for ratification. It was simply inserted without ratification, and without even advising the membership that that had been done."

Would you care to comment?

Mr. Strachan: I'm sorry. I think, I think that's patently incorrect because every collective agreement that has ever been established between Air Canada and its pilots has been ratified by the pilots.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Understated
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Understated »

Johnny Mapleleaf wrote:Would you care to comment?

Mr. Strachan: I'm sorry. I think, I think that's patently incorrect because every collective agreement that has ever been established between Air Canada and its pilots has been ratified by the pilots.
I don't know whether as late as the early 1980's that the mandatory retirement provision was simply a policy document or part of the pension plan itself, because I was not privy to the pension plan itself, but I did have the opportunity to carefully read the intimate details of every single contract ratification package that was presented to us at that time and later. Vilven's version is correct. The insertion of a mandatory retirement age into the collective agreement was done without notification. Paul Strachan knew or ought to have known that George Vilven's statement was correct, and to state otherwise is a reprehensible.

He also stated earlier in his submission that "we all signed on the dotted line" regarding being required to terminate our employment at age 60. Juvenile, and another patent misrepresentation. As well, he continued his prior misrpresentation that over 80% of ACPA pilots voted in favour of "mandatory" retirement at age 60. Stating on a survey that you support the ability to retire at age 60 is not the same as saying you support being forced to retire at age 60.
---------- ADS -----------
 
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by accumulous »

Can somebody please post the direct Parliamentary link to the broadcast?

Are Parliamentary broadcasts saved and in the public domain for how long?

In addition is there going to be an official transcript of it or just the broadcast?

If there were that many misrepresentations, there would definitely have to be a formal reply to the Committee to straighten it all out, line by line?

Seriously – who validates this stuff for presentation?? Any Parliamentary Committee should be shown the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

Post by Morry Bund »

Text of ACPA Submission to the Parliamentary Committee
February 15, 2011, by Captain Paul Strachan, President

Thank you, Madame Chair. It's our pleasure to be here today, Members of the Committee—nice to see you. Ah, we're here obviously to speak to an important contemplated piece of public policy, that is Bill C-481, and we support the intent of the Bill so far as it seeks to defend individuals from arbitrary or discriminatory practices, specifically termination of employment by virtue of age. Obviously a noble cause.

Specific to our case, we agree that 15(1)(c) is too broad a provision of the Human Rights Act because in our instance, the Air Canada pilots, being some 3,000 professionals, form more than half the airline pilots in the country. So we could then unilaterally or de facto set a "normal age of retirement" for people "in similar positions." If then that serves as justification under the Act for a different employer to terminate the employ of a different individual who does not have the benefit of the robust collective agreement and pension provisions that our members do, then that clearly is not appropriate.

So while we agree that 15(1)(c) is too broad, we must implore upon the Committee to consider careful exceptions with this Bill, for fear that this Bill is also too broad.

It's the role of Parliament to protect human rights, but we don't talk specifically here about individual rights. We are talking about human rights in the broad sense, and that includes "collective" rights of the members of an organization such as our own. And so Parliament's task then is to balance, to find a balance between those rights that properly protects the interests of all.

Our members have negotiated, as I said, a robust collective agreement, of which its pension plan forms part. Our pension plan is a very generous one. It goes to the limits of the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act, and then beyond, we have a supplementary employee retirement plan, and in fact incorporate an retirement compensation agreement into the overall scheme as well, such that our members expect—a vast, vast majority of them expect—to retire from their employment at Air Canada with a pension that places them still in the top 1% of the income earners in the country. Six figures in most—in the vast majority of cases.

Insofar as Parliament may seek to protect the rights of the individual, you must be cognizant of the fact that you will necessarily impact the collective rights of our 3,000 professionals who have told us by a margin of almost 85% that they favour the current ability to retire at their negotiated age of retirement, which is 60.

Concomitant with our pension provisions, which I say are very generous, we have a true deferred wage scheme. And by that I mean we have a ladder of progression on our wage scale that starts very low, artificially low, in the early years of employment, and ramps up over the course of one's career, and in fact, to overpayment in the final years, which allows our members to maximize their retirement earnings. Cause their final average earnings, their FAE is calculated on the basis of those five final years.

If you stall the progression up the ladder, it stagnates for some period of time, and the transfer of wealth that occurs is significant, because not only is a member now stagnating at some lower level on the ladder—unless you're, unless you're in the top 15%, approximately, unless you've achieved your highest progression expected up that ladder at the point of stagnation, then you lose in some degree. And in the case of our most junior members, the transfer of wealth is measured in seven figures, because not only are they suffering from the lack of progression in their income at the—during the period of stagnation, but they lose the time value of that money and can never recover. So insofar as you are allowing those few individuals who might like to change the rules and stay longer, you are now impacting the rights of all those other members because now you—you're forcing them to stay longer, if they want to equalize their career, their career potential and expected earnings, but you are also taking away the time value of that money forever.

So it's a zero sum game. So you need to be very careful that this Bill does not create unintended consequences. So it's for that reason that we propose an amendment to this Bill, that rather than strike 15(1)(c) from the Human Rights Act, that it would be more thoughtful and appropriate to amend it to allow for specific exceptions such as in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

And, so, our proposal would be then, that the 15(1)(c) be amended to read that it is not a discriminatory practice if the termination of employment or refusal to employ is because of the terms and conditions of a bona fide retirement or pension plan. And that that is justifiable and balances the rights of the individual with the collective rights of a very large group of people.

Thank you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”