CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[Raymond Hall]

In fact just about everything ACPA has done thus far is regurgitation of the V&K ruling. Meaning nothing ACPA has done this far should surprise anyone.

May I suggest that just about everything that ACPA has done this far surprises almost everyone who looks at the obvious. Unless you are suggesting that we should not be the least bit surprised by moving backwards? How would you score ACPA on building solidarity, for example? No surprise. Or how about on getting out in front of an issue, getting cold hard advice to the members that they are wasting their time, efforts and resources fighting the law of the land, instead of telling them that "we" can delay the inevitable for years while this whole issue is tied up in expensive litigation, but without telling them about the prospect of awesome damages? No surprise indeed.

You seem to rely immensely on your own interpretation of a very few words from one Tribunal decision to imply that the Tribunal will thus allow ACPA to engage in actions that overtly contravene Section 10 of the CHRA. Section 10 prohibits any employee organization or employer from entering "into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment...that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Would you say that denying these two individuals, on the basis of age, substantive rights (read, "employment opportunities") under the collective agreement that are available to all other members of the bargaining unit so as to make them essentially second-class employees by reason of age, will be sanctioned by the Tribunal? Even if the Tribunal were to approve of ACPA's actions, which is incredibly speculative, the actions certainly won't find approval with the Court. No Tribunal has any authority to disregard the clear legislative provisions of its enabling statute. Keep on dreaming.

[Brick Head]

Raymond,

There is your opinion and there is my opinion. They are both worthless.

The only opinion that matters is the Tribunals.

This is their opinion.

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.

What can I say? The Tribunal does not agree with you. What is happening in other jurisdictions does not amount to age discrimination in the Tribunals opinion. If it is not a discriminatory practice then it is outside the CHRT jurisdiction.

To be honest I expected you to appeal this ruling, as your stance on the issues clearly does not fit with how the ruling came down on some of these points.

[Raymond Hall]

The only opinion that matters is the Tribunals. [sic]

The Court's opinion doesn't matter?

You did not answer my question. Do you or do you not believe that the Tribunal will disallow the MOA provisions that on their face directly violate the provisions of Section 10 of the Act?

Do you or do you not believe that the Tribunal will refuse to allow Air Canada and ACPA to create a new, lower class of pilots, based on being over age 60, with severely hampered rights and privileges under the collective agreement in comparison to the rights and privileges available to all the other pilots in the bargaining unit who are not over age 60?

Do you believe that the the term, "prohibited ground of discrimination," otherwise referred to as "age discrimination" as defined in the Act has any meaning to the Tribunal at all? Or does it apply to everyone except ACPA?

If it does not have any legal significance, in your view, why did Parliament waste its time legislating these fundamental, quasi-constitutional rights at all? So that pilots could simply design deferred compensation schemes that supercede the provisions of the Act?

[SilvrSurfr]

The only opinion that matters is the Tribunals. [sic]

Do you or do you not believe that the Tribunal will refuse to allow Air Canada and ACPA to create a new, lower class of pilots, based on being over age 60, with severely hampered rights and privileges under the collective agreement in comparison to the rights and privileges available to all the other pilots in the bargaining unit who are not over age 60?

Ray,

Do you mean like the PG, or mabe the 5% on the 320, or maybe you mean that little gem in Article 25 that showed RJ Cpt as actually an FO and a RJ FO as an SO. There are more than enough examples of groups with reduced bidding rights and benefits to go around. You were here then, and I didn't see you taking the company to the CHRT, or the courts to protect their rights. I doubt you are really surprised that we (those about to be screwed by you and your friends) aren't all supporting you. So if (or as you say, when) you are back in the cockpit with us, please spare us the part where you tell us how we should be happy, and you did this to protect our rights. Congratulations to you and your group, it looks like you may be successful in your quest to have the rest of us fatten up your standard of living some more at our expense. Please enjoy our career progression for us. Time for a cold one!

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond,

There is your opinion and there is my opinion. They are both worthless.

That is your opinion. It is not mine.

Here is an interesting historical anecdote for you to add to the formulation of your (self-reported, worthless) opinion:

---------
Supreme Court of the United States
Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co.
No. 45. Argued Nov. 14, 15, 1944. Decided Dec. 18, 1944. 323 U.S. 192

Mr. Chief Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court.
...
On March 28, 1940, the Brotherhood, purporting to act as representative of the entire craft of firemen, without informing the Negro firemen or giving them opportunity to be heard, served a notice on respondent Railroad and on twenty other railroads operating principally in the south-eastern part of the United States. The notice announced the Brotherhood's desire to amend the existing collective bargaining agreement in such manner as ultimately to exclude all Negro firemen from the service. By established practice on the several railroads so notified only white firemen can be promoted to serve as engineers, and the notice proposed that only 'promotable', i.e., white, men should be employed as firemen or assigned to new runs or jobs or permanent vacancies in established runs or jobs.
...
We conclude that the duty which the statute imposes on a union representative of a craft to represent the interests of all its members stands on no different footing and that the statute contemplates resort to the usual judicial remedies of injunction and award of damages when appropriate for breach of that duty.
-------

Do I hear an echo?

[Raymond Hall]

Do you mean like the PG, or mabe the 5% on the 320, or maybe you mean that little gem in Article 25 that showed RJ Cpt as actually an FO and a RJ FO as an SO. There are more than enough examples of groups with reduced bidding rights and benefits to go around.

None of those examples are examples the fall within the category of enumerated prohibited ground of discrimination, as defined in the Act. The MOA does. The proposal is illegal. Age discrimination is illegal.

Unless and until you address your mind to finding legal, workable solutions to your very real problem, you can cast all the bricks you like at me or at any or all of the members of our group. That won't change anything, and ultimately you will only wind up hurting yourself.

[Brick Head]

Raymond,

That which is not discrimination is not within the jurisdiction of the CHRT.

The Tribunal has already stated, what is happening at the Provincial level does not infringe on a constitutional protected right.

What more do I need to say?

[accumulous]

What more do I need to say?[quote][/quote]

You need to say that you just spent the last 7 years trying to get rid of all the senior pilots. That didn't work so now you need to say that you're trying to put them on the reservation, in a position worse than the PG group. And you also need to say that you are willing to try to cancel the rights of 2800 pilots to extended years of pensionable service to do it, like the Roman scorched earth policy. If you're willing to say all those things now, then why don't you just walk into Parliament and make the speech there and see what happens.

[Brick Head]

What more do I need to say?

You need to say that you just spent the last 7 years trying to get rid of all the senior pilots. That didn't work so now you need to say that you're trying to put them on the reservation, in a position worse than the PG group. And you also need to say that you are willing to try to cancel the rights of 2800 pilots to extended years of pensionable service to do it, like the Roman scorched earth policy. If you're willing to say all those things now, then why don't you just walk into Parliament and make the speech there and see what happens.

Why are you directing this at me? I thought I was pretty clear? The Tribunal is the one saying that which is happening at the provincial level is not discrimination. I nor ACPA had anything to do with it. ACPA is just following direction. If it upsets you so much why was it not challenged when the Tribunal said it? Your not going to blame me for that too are you?

[Dockjock]

I don't think this solution proposes all pilots over 60 fly the EMJ; it proposes that Vilven and Kelly, both of whom are over 65, and neither of whom are current on any aircraft in the Air Canada fleet, re-enter the workforce into a position that shows vacancies. What claim do either of them have to the B777? Neither has ever flown it, for one. Furthermore, Vilven's bidding history clearly showed he never upbid to the highest rated position available. Not once in his career did he bid something to the bottom. He always held a lower rated position to enjoy a better schedule. So now, he's claiming he "would have" bid the triple to the bottom?

Now, I'm not so dense as to think that the EMJ is as desireable a fleet as the B777, but if you're a) being reinstated and b) being paid at the highest possible rate then I think that's got to be considered a win. So congratulations on that, I guess.

[Raymond Hall]

That which is not discrimination is not within the jurisdiction of the CHRT. The Tribunal has already stated, what is happening at the Provincial level does not infringe on a constitutional protected right. What more do I need to say?

Making these pilots "second-class" employees after they pass the arbitrary age of 60 by denying them the rights under the collective agreement that all other pilots under age 60 have, and humiliating them by ignoring their seniority and assigning them into an entry-level job, etc. is not age discrimination within the jurisdiction of the CHRT? What are you smoking, man? Read some case law on discrimination, for heaven's sake. Or ask your 12-year old for his opinion.

I sincerely hope that you are not one of those responsible for leading this action.

[UC-64A]

Evening boys !!

Can we all band together and say that history has shown an absolute ability of a group to persuade, persevere and influence others in the protection of the senior position !! The young have paid dearly for the protection of the top hat over the years, and that IS the only reason that this wonderful pension is still a part of those wonderful retirement years !

Sounds like an exercise in self preservation !! ( greed ) And I quote,"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. "

You can be rest assured that not even the feds can account for all of the repercussions in every industry across this fine country of ours !!!

Smile and wave boys, smile and wave !!

[SilvrSurfr]

Do you mean like the PG, or mabe the 5% on the 320, or maybe you mean that little gem in Article 25 that showed RJ Cpt as actually an FO and a RJ FO as an SO. There are more than enough examples of groups with reduced bidding rights and benefits to go around.

None of those examples are examples the fall within the category of enumerated prohibited ground of discrimination, as defined in the Act. The MOA does. The proposal is illegal. Age discrimination is illegal.

Unless and until you address your mind to finding legal, workable solutions to your very real problem, you can cast all the bricks you like at me or at any or all of the members of our group. That won't change anything, and ultimately you will only wind up hurting yourself.

Ray,

With regards to your comments about what is or is not discrimination, to be clear that is your opinion only. Unless I missed something, and you were appointed chair of the tribunal.

With regards to addressing my mind to something The same could be said of you and yours believing you can legislate the rest of us to smile and accept what you are trying to feed us. I and others have every right to defend our possition, as do you. Please don't presume you can tell me or others when to stop fighting or what to think.

You may be successful in forcing you way back into the cockpit, but please don't for a minute believe you will be welcomed with open arms. That being said it is clear you and your group don't care about others anyway.

[Raymond Hall]

With regards to your comments about what is or is not discrimination, to be clear that is your opinion only.

Correct. But even Tribunals use common sense. At some point, someone has to say, "The Emperor has no clothes." Expecting the next Tribunal panel (the current Tribunal Chair's term has expired, so he will not be hearing any more of our cases) to read into its decision the interpretation of the previous panel's decision given by BH above, is expecting a lot, especially when the words of the statute are not only governing, but so clearly opposed to the interpretation taken by those who would relegate the over-age 60 pilots to a second-class group.

There is a lot at stake here, and I know that I will never be popular, or even liked by most pilots. That doesn't change the law. Emotions are high enough that I have been repeatedly cautioned to watch my back side. Dismal, but real.

At some point, however, the pilots are going to have to get over the change, hopefully by dealing effectively with the issue, rather than with the personalities. In many cases law can be extremely unforgiving. It's how we deal with the legal realities that determines the impact on ourselves. That is how we will define ourselves.

[accumulous]

Exactly.

And as the group that has been trying to terminate pilots over 60 for the past 7 years and failed, starts to come to grips with reality, perhaps a good place to start would be to open a dialogue with the entire aviation community in North America that flies past 60, everybody except Air Canada, something on the order of 104 airlines and carriers in Canada and about 189 majors in the USA for starters.

Then call the rest of the other USA organizations after you're done with the majors - tell them you're the only group in all of North America that is trying to terminate senior pilots - tell them that you would like to lock the senior pilots up in a second level reservation and does anybody else out there have some advice on how to do it - call them up and ask them all the questions - ask them whether or not their senior pilots have been plugged into a second tier group or not. Try to get a little educated about the big wide world out there. Maybe, just maybe, you'll grow up and realize that all this time and resources of yours has gone into dancing around with your guns stuck in your holsters blowing holes in both feet. Unfortunately, if history counts, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence that says ACPA is going to comprehend the big picture any time soon.

[SilvrSurfr]

With regards to your comments about what is or is not discrimination, to be clear that is your opinion only.

Correct. But even Tribunals use common sense. At some point, someone has to say, "The Emperor has no clothes."

There is a lot at stake here, and I know that I will never be popular, ever even liked by the majority of pilots who are most impacted by this change. Worse, even. Emotions are high enough that I have been repeatedly cautioned to watch my back side. Dismal, but real.

At some point, however, the pilots are going to have to get over the change, hopefully by dealing effectively with the issue, rather than with the personalities. In many cases law can be extremely unforgiving. It's how we deal with the legal realities that determines the impact on ourselves. That is how we will define ourselves.

Ray,

The Emperor is not the only one who has changed clothes here. His former Top General has changed teams, put on the opposing army's colors, and turned his guns on the troops. Ray, you were the MEC Chair. You were the pointy end of the spear, one of the top officials charged with defending the CA. Now you are leading the charge against it and those you were once defending.

You mention how we will be defined. I would suggest we will also be defined, but living up to the agreements we make. I know it is starting to sound like a broken record, but here it is again in case you missed it. You and those with you knew that 60 was the end as did I. If you didn't like it then you should not have accepted employment. You and yours have benefited richly as a result of others retiring at 60. My grandfather left in 76 and you benefited by either eventually being hired or by moving forward if you were already here. He hated leaving, but he got on with his life. He's 95 now, and has great memories of his career. Most of those memories are of times spent with friends in the cockpit and on layovers. I would expect that you will find the good feelings of camaraderie and brotherhood will not be here when you return. Just the money and the hours, but I keep hearing it's not about that. You say you are fighting for rights, then why not make this change for all those hired from here forward? Or alternately maybe I should get my 95 yer old grandfather to put his name in the hat to return. He still drives a car, and golfs his age. He just might even pass the medical. Maybe I'd get a chance to fly with him then.

[Takeoff OK]

Exactly.

And as the group that has been trying to exterminate pilots over 60 for the past 7 years and failed, starts to come to grips with reality, perhaps a good place to start would be to open a dialogue with the entire aviation community in North America that flies past 60, everybody except Air Canada, something on the order of 104 airlines and carriers in Canada and about 189 majors in the USA for starters.

Then call the rest of the other USA organizations after you're done with the majors - tell them you're the only group in all of North America that is trying to exterminate senior pilots - tell them that you would like to lock the senior pilots up in a second level reservation and does anybody else out there have some advice on how to do it - call them up and ask them all the questions - ask them whether or not their senior pilots have been plugged into a second tier group or not. Try to get a little educated about the big wide world out there. Maybe, just maybe, you'll grow up and realize that all this time and resources of yours has gone into dancing around with your guns stuck in your holsters blowing holes in both feet. Unfortunately, if history counts, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence that says ACPA is going to comprehend the big picture any time soon.

Just to provide some clarity here: The US DOT enacted age 65 in December, 2007. It appears that both of the complainants in this case are over 65, and would therefore be ineligible for employment at any 121 operation in the US. So it doesn't really help anyone's case to use the American system as an example. And where, exactly, are these 189 majors in the States? I can count (well, let's see: Delta, United, Continental, American, USAir, and Southwest -- the biggest regional in the world.) five. Among non-flag carriers there's Frontier (cough! cough!), Jet Blue, Virgin America, Air Tran, Spirit, and then a couple smaller ops like Sun Country. If you were to look at the other 50% of the flying (the "regionals") such as Republic Airlines, Chattauqua, Shuttle America, Comair, Pinnacle, Mesaba, Skywest, Mesa, Freedom, Air Wisconsin, Commutair, ASA, Compass, Lynx, and Colgan (off the top of my head) they are all also Part 121, and therefore cannot employ any pilot over 65.

The fact is that the DOT et al simply raised the bar of "age discrimination" from 60 to 65; and that was 100% solely as a response to a massive (if short-lived) shortage of qualified mainline captains during a massive boom of hiring. If the economic collapse had hit even one year earlier this change never would have been implemented.

Just adding perspective; not taking sides.

[sepia]

When you start using utter crap to prove your point, people might start to call other parts of your argument into question. 189 majors in the states? I'd argue there isn't half that number of "majors" in the entire world. Saying there's over a hundred companies in Canada? Cummon now, is there even 100 companies in Canada that employ pilots over the age of 50?

[accumulous]

You are correct about the USA restriction. No such restriction here - starting with Transport Canada, although that wasn't the point. The point was the termination program.

At the end of the day, the overriding good news is that ACPA is not the employer.

The group that has been trying to terminate senior pilots for 7 years and is willing to take out every single one of the 2800 pilots who can't make the pension cap, as just a bit of collateral damage, at the end of the day, is just another bunch of employees trying to get rid of other employees.

[accumulous]

When you start using utter crap to prove your point, people might start to call other parts of your argument into question. 189 majors in the states? I'd argue there isn't half that number of "majors" in the entire world. Saying there's over a hundred companies in Canada? Cummon now, is there even 100 companies in Canada that employ pilots over the age of 50?[quote][/quote]

You're right. Majors was the wrong word choice. It was meant to be the ones that are frequently listed, including other operators. You've got a computer. You should look it up and call a few. Others already have.

[Takeoff OK]

I would not be surprised in the least if, as December 2012 approaches, there is a push in Congress to move towards an age 70 rule. Corporate interests reign supreme in the US, and civil rights are always at best a second-place finish. Monoliths like Delta (12500 pilots) and American (somewhere around 9000) are both facing retirement floods when age 65 catches up. Peak numbers for both airlines will be on the scale of 800+ retirements a year when it all goes full swing, and sustained for a good 5 to 7 years at that level. That basically equates to flushing 70% of their lists in only a decade. The training costs alone would bankrupt AC.

But I can guarantee you this: human rights have not and will not enter this conversation in the US. Honestly, nobody sympathizes with the old guys, and many of them have it much worse than anyone in Canada when you look at what has happened to their pensions since 2001. The general feel I get from talking about this issue to pilots in the US is that the complainants had a great A-scale life, and should just move the heck out of the way.

I personally am divided on this issue. I like the idea of fit to work = able to work, but then there's the fact that you are working under a member-ratified contract constructed around retirement at 60 (true?). I would say that the fair way to handle this is to put a contract amendment to a vote to see if anyone wants to allow working past 60. For those that are already off-property, it seems that their part in the game is over. They served their tenure under the contract of the day. Any changes really should not apply to them because they are no longer active members. I really don't see how those that are gone have had their human rights violated since they agreed to the conditions of the life they prospered from.

Just as an example, it is my understanding that you cannot apply for ATC if you are over 35. Is this true? If so, it would seem much more of an age discrimination situation than that at AC, where the expectation is simply that you will retire at the age that you agreed to.

Just my 0.02. Worth even less, I'm sure

[Raymond Hall]

The Emperor is not the only one who has changed clothes here. His former Top General has changed teams, put on the opposing army's colors, and turned his guns on the troops. Ray, you were the MEC Chair. You were the pointy end of the spear, one of the top officials charged with defending the CA. Now you are leading the charge against it and those you were once defending.

You mention how we will be defined. I would suggest we will also be defined, but living up to the agreements we make.

Have you taken seriously anything posted here? The collective agreement mandatory retirement provision is indefensible, given the law. Even ACPA, in its most recent newsletter, acknowledges that. So don’t criticize me for duplicity, given my previous role. I haven’t turned my guns against my own troops—I have told them that they are walking into disaster should they continue. And they, like you, instead of listening dispassionately to my message, have turned their guns against me.

You know, it’s good to know that I’ve been missed. All those months you have pent-up your emotion and had no-one to sling it against since I was taken off the ACPA Forum in October! You have found a new home, now that your own misbehaviour has resulted in your Executive Council ending your own slander at home, you come over here to play the same game in a bigger sandbox. And it’s easier here, because here you can hurl your insults with anonymity.

In addition to the slander, you are free to publish misinformation. Just like your Association did today in the Toronto Star: “The union spokesperson said pilots are aware of the mandatory retirement clause when they sign their employment contract.” Imagine that, a professional organization making a statement that is patently false, in the country’s largest newspaper. Show me the document, please. Show me the “employment contract” that I signed, or that anyone else signed for that matter. Show me where it said that. And show me where it stated that that condition was inalienable—that Parliament couldn’t eradicate it in an instant.

Also, please show me where the all of the contractual provisions and working conditions were etched in stone. For example, where I worked for a Crown Corporation that couldn’t go bankrupt. Where there were no feeder carriers taking my job away from me. Where my pension was indexed continuously. And where there was no human rights legislation to protect me, so that I didn’t have to work with (you know, those people).

Then attack me some more, for trying to help you understand the most basic facts about your employment relationship. For example, that there are certain things that your collective agreement and your precious Association cannot do for you. Like keep you immune from the laws of the land. You can couch the slander in the most vengeful language possible, and include works like avarice, insensitive, traitor, while you forget the compromises that I and my cohorts made for you only a few years ago.

Then one day, you can wake up, and not only deal with the consequences of what you have done to yourself by failing to focus on the real problem, but also to realize that it really would have been better if you had actually listened to the message, before things got even worse. He was giving us the straight goods, and he wasn’t doing it for himself.

[sepia]

It frightens me to realize that you think of yourself as some kind of modern day Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

A quick review would show that they both fought for the weak. You're trampling all over the weak using the guise of human rights to veil your greed. Their pensions are worth over 3 times what a new hire makes, and very easily doubles what someone OUT of the flat salary on the EMJ makes.

I think you may be shocked to find that even if you do win this battle you'll have lost the war. Fully 1/4 of the pilot group has been hired in the last 5 years. Unlike the other groups attrition, this group will only grow. This group has no false allegiance to red or blue. T This group will be united by the suffering that you've imposed on them. This group can vote as one, undivided. How long do you think it will take for them to mobilize? Human rights can't stop a total redesign and redistribution of pay and benefits.

Do you think for a split second that we're going to kiss pay and lifestyle away for the next decade so the greedy can take a victory lap?

[Mechanic787]

It frightens me to realize that you think of yourself as some kind of modern day Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

He may be sanctimonious or biased or bitter and twisted etc. etc. etc., but does that necessarily mean that one should not at least attempt to look beyond the man to the message delivered?

In some of my organization's managerial meetings prior to actually convening, we were required to submit potential solutions to the problems of the day anonymously, whereupon they were then circulated and required to be evaluated in advance of the meeting without anyone knowing who proposed each one. It wasn't a perfect solution, because eventually the positions of each manager on each proposal would become known anyway, but at least it forced the managers to come to the meetings with a thorough critical review of each of the proposed alternatives.

As I understand this issue, many of those recent hirees that you refer to might have a different perspective than the one that might expected from them being very junior--they joined the organization knowing that they would not be working for the full 35 years to acquire the top pension, given that they were much older at the point of hiring. Has anyone gone to the trouble of assessing how they, as a group, view this issue?

[Brick Head]

In addition to the slander, you are free to publish misinformation. Just like your Association did today in the Toronto Star: “The union spokesperson said pilots are aware of the mandatory retirement clause when they sign their employment contract.” Imagine that, a professional organization making a statement that is patently false, in the country’s largest newspaper. Show me the document, please. Show me the “employment contract” that I signed, or that anyone else signed for that matter. Show me where it said that.

Raymond,

You didn't personnel sign the contract, we get it. However your comments calling the ACPA statement "misinformation" and "patently false" appear to twist truth, mislead and tarnish the reputation of an individual or association

You know full well that when an individual accepts employment in a unionized work place they accept the collective agreement with it. As if they signed it. It is their personal contract with the company. It is renewed and signed by the head of the union, on behalf of each individual, periodically. All unionized members get a say with one vote. From the day one accepts the collective agreement they agree to it. Every time it is renewed, they agree to it again.

How many times through your career did you personally agree to mandatory retirement through the process of collective bargaining? 10 times maybe? At every renewal you where a party to an agreement that imposed mandatory retirement on others. A bit ironic actually.

But back to your claims that ACPA lied to the press. It is a dumbed down sound bite that is completely accurate. Be careful.