#FakeSeniorityList

[ALPApolicy]

In one of the many decisions in the AC/CAI merger, commentary was made on the purchase of Wardair by CAI and the concept of endtailing in seniority list integration was commented upon. See the full decision here.

[40] The next case considered is the arbitration respecting the 1989 purchase by Canadian of Wardair. In an award dated February 8, 1990, Arbitrator Munroe adopted a method based on “date of hire”, but he made lengthy observations on the principles applicable to the integration of seniority lists in cases of airline mergers.

[41] Arbitrator Mitchnick considers Arbitrator Munroe’s observations on the principles applicable in seniority determination matters. Arbitrator Munroe notes:

It was not too long ago that the common expectation within the industrial relations community was that the seniority list of the “acquired bargaining unit” would simply be “end tailed” - i.e., tacked onto the tail end of the seniority list of the “acquiring bargaining unit”. But experience soon revealed that automatic end tailing was neither responsive to the complexities of the corporate world, nor equitable.

The natural alternative to the end tailing of one of the seniority lists was the “dovetailing” of the two seniority lists based on date of hire. On its face, that was seen to be more equitable in most circumstances. In effect, it insulated the distinctly important question of worker seniority from the form of commercial transaction which had led to the operational necessity of an integrated seniority list.

...

But even a dovetailing of the two seniority lists according to date of hire has sometimes been viewed as too blunt an instrument of integration. Especially in the North American airline industry, there is no shortage of awards in which arbitrators have attempted to reconcile the equities either by directing a seniority ratio, or by attaching conditions or fences to a date-based list.

...

First of all, if there is one thing to be gleaned from the general body of awards it is that the solution considered appropriate in one case may not be appropriate in another. A seniority integration arbitration is more in the nature of an “interest” dispute than a “rights” dispute. It requires, among other things, a balancing of interests and an assessment of equities. Interests and equities must be judged case by case.

I do not say that some other approach will never be appropriate. But as a complementary point of principle, a party who proposes that an integrated seniority list be constructed on some basis other than date of hire must bear the onus of showing that the situation demands it. And as a logical extension, a party who proposes that conditions or fences be attached to a date of hire list, such that the normal application 1of such list will be affected for some period of time, must clearly demonstrate either the transitional necessity of the suggested fencing, or, at the least, that easing the transition to the integrated seniority list for one group will not produce unfairness to the other group.

...

... I intimated above that in a seniority integration arbitration, the form of the commercial transaction which led to the necessity of integration should not automatically be dispositive of worker seniority rights. But at the same time, it cannot be the function of a seniority integration arbitrator to construct the integrated list with the objective of insulating a group of employees from what likely would have befallen them had the subject acquisition or merger not occurred. The reason why that is so lies in the inherent conflicts or tensions which attend virtually any seniority integration proceeding. In all likelihood, an integrated seniority list which is constructed with the above-described objective at the forefront will be at the expense of the employees of the more successful enterprise.

(pages 22-24)

[Greasy Greaser]

Calling it now.

DOH merge with SWG and WJ (includes Swoop), no bumps or rebid. Just slot in seniority and bid new positions by it. Encore off the list sadly but will get a good portion of capital to retain people like Jazz.

[ALPApolicy]

Calling it now.

DOH merge with SWG and WJ (includes Swoop), no bumps or rebid. Just slot in seniority and bid new positions by it. Encore off the list sadly but will get a good portion of capital to retain people like Jazz.

The PTA (Pilot Transfer Agreement): does it remain in effect post merger? As it stands now, all Encore pilots have grandfathered rights to the WJ seniority list by their Encore DOH. Are those rights enforceable by Encore pilots? Do you accept them parachuting onto the merged seniority list commensurate with their Encore DOH?

Also, do you accept the WJ mainline pilots who flowed from Encore using their Encore DOH, as they do now? For example, they might only have been at WJ mainline for 3 years, but their DOH shows as 7 years on the list and they occupy spots right next to OTS pilots who have actually been at WJ mainline for 7 years.

[boeingboy]

I think we are all putting the cart before the horse. We all need to just sit back and see what happens in the next 6 - 10 months.

[Greasy Greaser]

Calling it now.

DOH merge with SWG and WJ (includes Swoop), no bumps or rebid. Just slot in seniority and bid new positions by it. Encore off the list sadly but will get a good portion of capital to retain people like Jazz.

The PTA (Pilot Transfer Agreement): does it remain in effect post merger? As it stands now, all Encore pilots have grandfathered rights to the WJ seniority list by their Encore DOH. Are those rights enforceable by Encore pilots? Do you accept them parachuting onto the merged seniority list commensurate with their Encore DOH?

Also, do you accept the WJ mainline pilots who flowed from Encore using their Encore DOH, as they do now? For example, they might only have been at WJ mainline for 3 years, but their DOH shows as 7 years on the list and they occupy spots right next to OTS pilots who have actually been at WJ mainline for 7 years.

This whole debacle is a tough one, I think we all know that. There are so many different ways to skin a cat and whatever happens, there will always be an unhappy group.

The PTA does grandfather but I am under the impression it only grandfathers when it coincides with our WJ collective agreement we have in place now. (When we get a new CA the PTA grandfather is almost useless if we want it out, correct me if I am wrong)

When WJ didn't have a full reserve block schedule, I was probably one of the few more than okay with Encore coming into WJ with their DOH, but like everything, things change. The way it is now, if you're a 2016-17ish DOH WestJet pilot or junior, you're screwed imo; I don't know how you'll get out of reserve blocks for the foreseeable future and now with SWG pilots potentially coming in, there will be no end in sight for those who are junior/new hires.

As for the second question about those who flowed...Yes I accept it, a major part of any seniority based airline as you know is just being on property, if said pilot flows from Encore with 5 years DOH on December 31st and we cut the list January 1st (all hypothetical), absolutely that person should keep their DOH even though they've been here a day technically.
Having those not on property/under our CBA (mainline AND Swoop) jumping ahead is the problem imo. I have nothing against Encore, I don't sit on reserve so it doesn't affect me too much but it sucks seeing other guys use WJ as a stepping stone because 4 years flat pay does sound a lot better than 8 years reserve in my mind.

If we keep the current list, which I'm fine with as long as we realize that reserve block timeline should not be based solely on DOH, but on when you're on property, ie. 8 year Encore captain flows and just starts the reserve block timer while 4 year WJ FO can finally get off it.
Yes it's not a real fix imo and only kicks the rock down the road but it like someone before said, we're innovators on making problems out of nothing.

In the end, we will see if we follow the ALPA ways (lol) of merging DOH and not having 4 separate OC's with one list. Either merge everything or start trimming. But what do I know. Smarter people than I can deal with this.

[altiplano]

This whole debacle is a tough one, I think we all know that. There are so many different ways to skin a cat and whatever happens, there will always be an unhappy group.

100%

That is the way.

In the end, we will see if we follow the ALPA ways (lol) of merging DOH and not having 4 separate OC's with one list. Either merge everything or start trimming. But what do I know. Smarter people than I can deal with this.

I'm not sure where that comes from, ie. DOH = "ALPA way"

In fact the ALPA merger ideal dictates MECs have flexibility in determining factors to bring an equitable and fair agreement.

"The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category.

The new merger policy mandates that merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate."

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www ... jMpjXAh9Km

Status, category are comparable. Career expectation is met with fences I suggested on the 787. Longevity variance? Minimal. Then there's Encore... I think they're left out. I'd be shocked if an arbitrator puts wannabe 737 pilots ahead of current 737 pilots. I know if I'm the Sunwing guy I'm pushing to get that "status" recognized superlative.

Bottom line is SLIs are complex. Good luck to all, but I threw my .02 i. on where it would go, no doubt an arbitrator will decide.

[elite]

…
"The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category.

Status, category are comparable. Career expectation is met with fences I suggested on the 787. Longevity variance? Minimal. Then there's Encore... I think they're left out. I'd be shocked if an arbitrator puts wannabe 737 pilots ahead of current 737 pilots. I know if I'm the Sunwing guy I'm pushing to get that "status" recognized superlative...

In this context, what exactly are the definitions of “status” and “category” and why do think it’s imperative to get status recognized?

[altiplano]

Status = Captain, FO
Category = WB, NB, aircraft type, etc.

[elite]

Ok the “standard” definitions then. Thanks for sharing that link for the new merger policy.

In essence this has always been done, perhaps not as well laid out. And in this case, separating the 787, the two companies are very similar and not as much disparity as there was between AC and CAI where one was a flourishing airline with relatively newer group and one that had survived 4 or 5 bankruptcies and had not hired anyone for years. Longevity was very different and career expectation was very different.

Even the C3/Royal merger was more complicated in those aspects. In this case and with this guidance, it should make the transition smoother. And I agree that Encore will likely be out possibly with an alternate compensation.

Category and career expectations are a little different because of 787. And experience of the two groups are a little different. So I can see fences in those areas in the form of next X number of upgrades come from WestJet (due to higher years on airplane) and 787 fenced off for 2 to 3 years. And otherwise DOH with a combination of 5 to 1 ratio. Standard no bump, no flush and as fences expire people can bid into open positions based on seniority.

[sarg]

This whole debacle is a tough one, I think we all know that. There are so many different ways to skin a cat and whatever happens, there will always be an unhappy group.

100%

That is the way.

In the end, we will see if we follow the ALPA ways (lol) of merging DOH and not having 4 separate OC's with one list. Either merge everything or start trimming. But what do I know. Smarter people than I can deal with this.

I'm not sure where that comes from, ie. DOH = "ALPA way"

In fact the ALPA merger ideal dictates MECs have flexibility in determining factors to bring an equitable and fair agreement.

"The new policy states that the factors that must be considered in constructing a fair and equitable integrated seniority list, in no particular order and with no particular weight, now include but are not limited to career expectations, longevity, and status and category.

The new merger policy mandates that merger representatives, mediators, and arbitrators must consider these factors when constructing a seniority list; however, they are also free to consider other factors as they deem appropriate."

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www ... jMpjXAh9Km

Status, category are comparable. Career expectation is met with fences I suggested on the 787. Longevity variance? Minimal. Then there's Encore... I think they're left out. I'd be shocked if an arbitrator puts wannabe 737 pilots ahead of current 737 pilots. I know if I'm the Sunwing guy I'm pushing to get that "status" recognized superlative.

Bottom line is SLIs are complex. Good luck to all, but I threw my .02 i. on where it would go, no doubt an arbitrator will decide.

Complicated for sure.

I would expect straight DOH, with fences but the fences will be to protect the Sunwing pilots in their Positions.

Until the announcement no Sunwing pilots was expecting to fly a WB.

As of the June PSB the most junior WestJet mainline Captain DOH 9-Jan-2012, Swoop Captain 6-Jan-2020. The most junior Sunwing Captain 01-Oct-2018. It could easily be argued that DOH would not effect the career expectations of a Sunwing pilot, while not too adversely effecting any WestJet pilot. The fences would be placed around the Sunwing pilots the protect them in their Position until they bid out or can hold the Position based on DOH.

Encore pilots will most likely loose their super seniority when they flow, the messier question is what will happen to those that are already in the WestJet bargaining unit.

Position=Base and Seat

[ALPApolicy]

I would expect straight DOH, with fences but the fences will be to protect the Sunwing pilots in their Positions.

Hi sarg, What seniority list are you using to merge with the SunWing pilots seniority list?

[sarg]

I would expect straight DOH, with fences but the fences will be to protect the Sunwing pilots in their Positions.

Hi sarg, What seniority list are you using to merge with the SunWing pilots seniority list?

January WestJet plus June PSB and January 22 Sunwing

[ALPApolicy]

I would expect straight DOH, with fences but the fences will be to protect the Sunwing pilots in their Positions.

Hi sarg, What seniority list are you using to merge with the SunWing pilots seniority list?

January WestJet plus June PSB and January 22 Sunwing

I wasn't clear enough. Are you talking about a document called "Seniority List" on our iPads, in the ALPA folder?

[sarg]

Yes, and the just released June PSB results

[ALPApolicy]

Ok, understood. The problem with that document is (at least) two fold.

1) It contains all of the members of two bargaining units on it: the bargaining unit with WSW/WJA members and the bargaining unit with WEN members. I am looking for the seniority list for the WSW/WJA bargaining unit that will be sent to the SWG Merger Committee for use in the subsequent merger negotiations, should they come to pass.

2) The WSW/WJA CBA currently in force states that there is a document called the Postion Seniority List (PSL) that contains the members of the WSW/WJA bargaining unit. I do not see anywhere in the PTA where it extinguishes the PSL. Maybe you do. Also, the PTA does not specify a method for creating a seniority list for just the WSW/WJA bargaining unit. It is possible that I am misreading the PTA. Can you find something in the PTA that references the PSL?

Here are the CBA provisions that enable creation and maintenance of the PSL:

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
between and the AIRLINE PILOTS in the service of WESTJET, AN ALBERTA PARTNERSHIP and SWOOP, INC.
as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL
Effective 01 JAN 2019 to 31 DEC 2022

DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. DEFINITIONS

Length of Service

The period of employment commencing from the date of hire at the Company as a pilot and adjusted as necessary, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

Pilot

A pilot employed by the Company who is a member of the bargaining unit.

Pilot Seniority List (PSL/WPSL)

The PSL is the list of pilots who are employed by WestJet, and Swoop.
...

3 – SENIORITY

3-1. PILOT SENIORITY LIST

3-1.01. The Company shall maintain an updated Pilot Seniority List (PSL). The PSL shall be published quarterly (Jan 1, Apr 1, Jul 1, Oct 1) with a copy to the Association. The PSL shall be posted electronically on the Company intranet and shall remain there until replaced by an updated PSL. The PSL will also be made available on the EFB.

3-1.02. Only Pilots whose names appear on the PSL are authorized to operate aircraft used by the Company in its flight operations, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement.

3-1.03. The PSL shall show the Seniority of each Pilot by name, Rank, Permanent Base, Equipment, Status, and date of hire (DOH) of all Pilots employed by the Company.

3-1.04. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Seniority shall begin to accrue from a Pilot’s DOH as a Pilot with the Company and shall continue to accrue during such period of service.

[ALPApolicy]

Here are the relevant sections of the PTA governing its version of seniority. I am not sure if these sections replace the PSL, or are in addition to the PSL. I note the section 2 below, SENIORITY, is a different number in the CBA, where section 3 is called SENIORITY in the PTA. This may or may not be germane to the discussion. I am not a lawyer.

This is the definition of the Position Seniority List (PSL) in the CBA:

The PSL is the list of pilots who are employed by WestJet, and Swoop.

This is the definition of the "Seniority List" in the PTA:

A combined seniority list, known as the “Seniority List,” shall be created through the process provided for in Section 10, below. Once created, the Seniority List shall be used for transfers between Swoop and WestJet, and between Encore and Swoop or WestJet.

In the event of a common employer declaration between SWG and WSW and WJA, which I believe will not include WEN, which seniority list are we giving to the SWG pilot group? The PSL or the "Seniority List"?

Does the PSL still exist?

LETTER OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AIRLINE PILOTS IN THE SERVICE OF WESTJET, AN ALBERTA PARTNERSHIP, AND SWOOP,
INC, AND THE AIRLINE PILOTS IN THE SERVICE OF WESTJET ENCORE AS REPRESENTED BY THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL (THE “ASSOCIATION” OR “ALPA”) AND WESTJET, AN ALBERTA PARTNERSHIP (WESTJET), SWOOP, INC (SWOOP), AND WESTJET ENCORE (ENCORE)

(HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE “PARTIES”)

TRANSFERS BETWEEN WESTJET AND SWOOP AND ENCORE

WHEREAS, in 2013, before the certification of ALPA as the exclusive bargaining agent, WestJet leadership in collaboration with the WestJet Pilot’s Association (“WJPA”) developed the Pilot Career Progression Policy outlining the process for WestJet Encore pilots to transition to WestJet.

WHEREAS, WestJet leadership and WJPA, recognized the importance of interest-focused employee relations, and adopted a “Single Pilot Department List” for WestJet and WestJet Encore pilots WHEREAS, the Parties hold a shared interest in continuing the transfer of pilots between WestJet, Swoop, and Encore.

WHEREAS, except as provided for in this Letter of Agreement (“LOA”), nothing herein is intended to modify, supersede or otherwise amend the contractual provisions negotiated in the WestJet Collective Agreement, the Encore Collective Agreement, or the Swoop letter of understanding.
NOW THERFORE, the Parties agree to the following:

1. That the above recitals are true and shall form part of this LOA.

2. SENIORITY

2.01 A combined seniority list, known as the “Seniority List,” shall be created through the process provided for in Section 10, below. Once created, the Seniority List shall be used for transfers between Swoop and WestJet, and between Encore and Swoop or WestJet.

2.02 Once this LOA becomes effective, any Pilot who is hired at WestJet, Swoop, or Encore shall be assigned a seniority number based on date of hire at the respective airline.

[ALPApolicy]

Section 3.04 of the PTA...

3.04. Upon commencement of active employment at WestJet or Swoop, an Encore Pilot transferred in accordance with Section 3.03 of this LOA shall have his or her length of service from date of hire at Encore transferred to WestJet or Swoop and used for seniority for bidding purposes, vacation allotment and bidding points.

...seems to replace Section 3-4. APPLICATION OF SENIORITY of the CBA

3-4.01. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement,... a Pilot’s Seniority shall govern the rights between Pilots such as the awarding of Positions, base transfer, a change in aircraft Type, involuntary transfer, layoff, bumping, and recall, etc.

[ALPApolicy]

In one of the Berry v. Pulley cases following the unsuccessful common employer attempt between Air Canada and the connector airlines, an appeal led to the following commentary in the case here.

The March Picher Award and events triggered by it

[21] On March 28, 1995, Mr. Picher released his first award (the “March Picher Award”). He contemplated two lists: one for seniority and a second for bidding on home base, flying equipment and status as captain or first officer (the latter two of which influenced a pilot’s income). He directed that an integrated seniority list be based on date of hire but left the dates of hire to be determined by the MECs.

[27] Several meetings were held between late April and early August 1995 to construct seniority and bidding lists, as required by the March Picher Award. The Air Canada MEC did not agree to the proposed lists.

Picher "contemplated two lists: one for seniority and a second for bidding..."

Is that what we have in the WSW/WJA bargaining unit? Two lists?

[ALPApolicy]

More commentary regarding Picher's two seniority lists scenario from the Berry v. Pulley case here.

March 28, 1995 Picher Award

[225] On March 28, 1995, Mr. Picher released his Award (the "Award") and gave detailed reasons for his decision. He noted that Air Canada was the one controlling employer and in the interests of CALPA and all its members, a single seniority list was essential. It had to be fair though. His decision contemplated two lists: one for seniority and another for bidding on base, equipment and status. He concluded that at the junior end of the Air Canada operation, a meaningful segment of work was comparable to that of the Connectors, as were wages. LOU 17 was evidence of that overlap. He directed that the integrated seniority list be based on date of hire; however P.J. O'Hara, an Air Canada pilot, would act as a "top blocker" for bidding on base, equipment, and status. This meant that Connector pilots senior to P.J. O'Hara would be treated as immediately junior to him for bidding purposes. For integration purposes, the dates of hire for the pilots in all groups were to be the dates settled between the MECs during the merger process or as may be determined by the arbitrator.

[226] In his reasons, Mr. Picher indicated that roughly 85% of all Air Canada pilots would be unaffected by the merger of seniority lists for the purposes of bidding on base, equipment and status. Only the most junior 249 pilots (or 15%), 243 of whom were presently furloughed, would be affected for bidding on base, equipment and status, and even those pilots would have a significant number of Connector pilots junior to them on the bidding list. Moreover, these pilots would be protected by the no-flush/no-bump provision on their return from furlough. This meant that the most junior Air Canada pilots could not be displaced from their current equipment, base or status by Connector pilots who were above them on the bidding list. Only 60 Connector pilots were senior to P. J. O'Hara but as a result of the top blocker provision in the Award, they could not bid against Air Canada pilots above O'Hara for base, status or equipment. All Connector pilots would bid below P.J. O'Hara. This was the so-called "fence."

[227] The Award did not contain a merged list with seniority dates, but invited the parties to try and fashion two lists. One list was to be used only for seniority and the other for "equipment bidding". The arbitrator reserved jurisdiction to resolve any dispute that might arise.

Air Canada acts, quite properly, in its own best interests and its continued success is much to be desired. However, the abiding reality which every pilot must understand when thinking about this merger is that there is but one Company, there is but one employer. A failure of Air Canada pilots to understand and appreciate that reality will result in everyone paying a great price. The lessons of the furlough and of the regional jet rates should not be forgotten. A single seniority list, supported by all pilots, is the best, perhaps the only, long-term protection against the pattern of divide and conquer that has marked the past.[20]

[228] Mr. Picher's decision was silent with respect to bidding on schedules and vacation. A reader of the Award might have thought that seniority would govern the monthly bidding for schedules. As stated by the Plaintiffs, the Award did "leave open the possibility that a Connector pilot could bid into a vacancy and thereafter exercise his earlier seniority date to outbid Air Canada pilots for schedule and vacation."[21] This was subsequently clarified in Mr. Picher's November 7, 1995 supplementary award in which he stated that it was his intention that the Air Canada pilots above P.J. O'Hara would be unaffected for all bidding purposes including scheduling.

[229] Mr. Picher cautioned the Air Canada pilots to be mindful of the circumstances that gave rise to the declaration of merger in the first place and the prospect that such conditions could arise again in the future. He urged the Air Canada pilots to see the fairness with which the Award was constructed rather than focusing on the fact that a small percentage of Air Canada pilots would be affected. He wrote:

There is no reason to believe that the implementation of the merged seniority list which will result from this award, based on a final compromise proposal, will encounter any difficulty if it has the understanding and support of the Air Canada pilots.[22]

[230] He wrote that Air Canada pilots would misconceive the process if they were to view the Award as a loss to them.

[ALPApolicy]

From the Berry v. Pulley case in the preceding post, the following paragraph stands out. Is this an attempt at a Pilot Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Air Canada and the Connector airlines? Note the underlined part (my emphasis).

LOU 40
[284] In May or June, LOU 40 was prepared in draft by SMMAC. Captain Dean was the genesis of LOU 40. It was a complicated proposal that contemplated "an affiliation of pilots' seniority lists from which to grant preference of employment" when new pilots were required at Air Canada. Separate bargaining units, seniority lists and operations would be maintained. According to First Officer Filion, LOU 40 was to be an alternative to a merged seniority list as a consequence of which, the Picher Award would be put aside