Latest News in AOPG vs ACPG

[DEFCON]

Recently the AOPG group released a newsletter and an associated Decision of the Court that's quite interesting. When I finally figure out how to upload the Decision itself, I will.

"NEWSFLASH!!

We are very pleased to report that Master Haberman, who heard the motions for production initiated on our behalf by counsel, has now released her decision relating to the costs of those motions heard over the course of three days and described in the last Newsletter. She ordered the defendants to pay us $45,624.00!!

You read that right!

She also has some "not too nice" things to say about the conduct of Steve Waller who is the ACPA lawyer representing the defendants:

" While I was not with the parties every step of the way, after four days of hearing, I have a fairly good idea of the work this entailed at the plaintiffs' end and note that large chunks of it would not have been necessary but for the manner in which the defendants approached these motions.

In my first set of reasons, dealing with damages, I pointed out that bifurcation of the trial might have afforded the defendants the solution they sought. I was informed however, that when the plaintiffs raised this as a proposal, it was actively resisted by the defendants, who successfully opposed a motion for this relief.

Instead the defendants raised a series of objections that were either legally untenable or totally devoid of evidentiary support. They were wholly unsuccessful as a result. I made similar findings about their approach in my second and third set of reasons. In the third go round, they even went so far as to make submissions that had already been dealt with and rejected earlier.

. Though Mr. Waller was alerted early on to the evidentiary problems he would be facing down the road, he chose to ignore my comments and never filed any further materials to shore up his side. Again and again, he raised arguments that had no hope of success, using valuable court time for submissions that had nowhere to go. A large amount of time was effectively wasted, dealing with these legally untenable points that he continued to raise. Some were not even alluded to in his factum. There was a sense of desperation throughout - a sense that the defendants were determined to win regardless of the law or the facts they had to work with. (emphasis added)

Per Master Haberman in Reasons for Judgment; Sept. 16/2009.

So--as we have repeatedly urged upon all of you.....although it is taking a long time (too much time), we are fighting a just battle and justice may yet be done.

Keep the faith!!

Your reps."

[Hadji Ramjet]

Seems rather similar to another pilot issue Waller was involved with not so long ago.

[exGXer]

Boy that Defcon is a sh.t disturber, isn't he...

[Kip Powick]

The Decision

[DEFCON]

Thank you!

[rudder]

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/te_lawyer.cfm?LID=42

[skyline]

Pardon my ignorance but what is this all about?

[ChicoChico]

Pardon my ignorance but what is this all about?

Got 10 years or so??

[Canus Chinookus]

Isn't it better just to not know? If I told you you wouldn't want to know, would you believe me?

[rudder]

Pardon my ignorance but what is this all about?

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.......

[boestar]

Skimming over the decision I would say it is 2 kids who can't get along battling it out but neither one can get their SH!T together.

Other than that I hae no clue what this is about.

[Kip Powick]

Skimming over the decision I would say it is 2 kids who can't get along battling it out but neither one can get their SH!T together.

Pretty close

Remember when...many, many years ago AOPs were told how good life would be if they joined the biggest airline in Canada???........apparently things did not go according to plan......and so it goes....on and on....and on

[skyline]

OK, Is this the Air Ontario law suit vs AC pilots

[UpperDeck]

Pretty close

Remember when...many, many years ago AOPs were told how good life would be if they joined the biggest airline in Canada???........apparently things did not go according to plan......and so it goes....on and on....and on

Actually, I don't think it unfolded quite that way. It wasn't so much a quest by AO pilots (and the like) but more a tactic invoked by the big guys to extract concessions from the employer.

But the how and why of it all is less relevant now than the determination of a consequence, if any.

It is a fact that a large group of Air Canada pilots are "defendants" (by way of their membership in a "class") in a lawsuit initiated by the Air Ontario pilots.

It is a fact that all of those defendants are represented by one law firm and principally by one member of that firm even though all defendants are not of the same interest.

It is a fact (or was) that the costs being incurred to fund that defence are being paid by every Air Canada pilot even though many are not defendants.

It is a fact that some of those costs, which are certainly not insubstantial, are being incurred because of "questionable" legal tactics as evidenced by the Master's comments.

It is a fact that each Air Ontario pilot sustained a financial loss by reason of the successful efforts by the AC pilots to frustrate the Picher arbitration award and that the total of those losses is VERY substantial.

If (perhaps a big "if" but nevertheless, an "if) a court decides that those efforts to defeat Picher were actionable and give rise to liability, then the award of damages will be substantial (think multi-millions) and every pilot who is within a defendant sub-class that is faulted will be liable for those damages.

Many would like to sweep this under the rug but the ostrich strategy doesn't offer "long-term relief".

As an aside---what strikes me is the apparent recent trend of our Courts to enforce arbitration awards. Some took the efforts to frustrate the Picher award as a "primer" or blueprint and invoked similar tactics to frustrate the Keller award.

[skyline]

Sooooo.... the Air Ontario case is still not settled? Good explanation but still vague. Keep it simple so I can understand.

Thanks

[UpperDeck]

Nope---not settled though I think there was a recent attempt to initiate discussions that were rejected by ACPA or by ACPA's lawyer. I don't know that to be true but what I heard was that ALPA made a proposal for discussions that was accepted by the AO side but rejected by the ACPA side.

You say "vague". Accepted but in what respect? Where is explanation required?

[skyline]

I think you just did. Thank you my friend. It will become clear this evening over a couple of Guinness I'm sure.

[Kip Powick]

then the award of damages will be substantial (think multi-millions) and every pilot who is within a defendant sub-class that is faulted will be liable for those damages

To the tune of 300 million......I thinkthat is the number...

[ModerateChop]

To the tune of 300 million

Anyone have a link to the actual initial suit (from that legal gobbledygook website) ?

[Kip Powick]

As ChicoChico alluded to, there isn't enough bandwidth to put all the ramblings/procedings up and the "process" has been ongoing for about 12-14 years.

In a nutshell, litigants are suing specified members of ACPA because of the Picher Award, (merger), and the way in which, or the way in which it was not, implemented.

The record shows the names of all the litigants and the defendants. The sad part of the entire boondoggle is that the majority of the members of ACPA who were not even in AC at the time are paying the legal costs for the court proceedings.

I would assume that eventually a "final" judgement will come down and if it is in favour of the litigants......... well just think of the consequences for some.

And you thought the OAC and the CDN pilot merger had moments of serious acrimony

[UpperDeck]

Succinct and accurate, Kip.

Part of the unspoken problem is the fact that there are five "classes" of defendants. Let's call them a, b, c etc for convenience. Let's say that a and b consist of all the union officers and the sub-committees the members of which are cloaked with alleged "executive privilege". Those groups are saying that they are "protected" because they were "just doing their job" as union officers. They have claimed the benefit of CALPA (ALPA) insurance.

They have the same lawyer as the members of group "c". Members of that group are pilots who actively engaged in efforts to defeat Picher by ,for example, writing letters to HH and others.

That group is distinct from the members of group "d". Those guys did less. for example, they may "just" have signed the "solidarity pledge".

You can see that it is in the financial interests of guys in "a" or "b" (the most involved) to drag in guys in "c" or "d"---spread the loss so to speak. Notwithstanding that obvious conflict in the interests of the various groups, they're all represented by the same lawyer---ACPA's lawyer.

Think about this.....let's say that I'm in group "e" which is the group of pilots who interfered the least with Picher. Maybe the Plaintiff class would let us all out of the lawsuit for $1000 per man. I could forget any possibility of being required to contribute to some mega-judgment. But who is going to speak up for me? How do I make sure that my personal interests are being protected? How do I know I'm not a sacrificial lamb for a former AC MEC President?

Master Haberman saw this conflict. Here's what she had to say on the subject;

"As I see it, there is real potential for conflict among the sub-classes; one that will be

exacerbated if each pilot is not slotted into the appropriate sub-class now. I can only

imagine what will transpire once the court hands down a decision regarding liability. If some groups are found liable and others exempt, pilots may try to fit themselves into the exempt groups. It may well be far more difficult to delineate the various sub-class members after a decision regarding liability has been handed down. This, in my view, is a recipe for disaster and could not have been what was intended."

And yet----nothing has been heard from anybody. This is a legitimate concern and others better start speaking up, in my opinion.

[Homerun]

It is a fact that each Air Ontario pilot sustained a financial loss by reason of the successful efforts by the AC pilots to frustrate the Picher arbitration award and that the total of those losses is VERY substantial.

That is not a fact, that is the premise of the case.

ie That an internal union merger, not accompanied by an industrial merger and indeed publicly rejected by the employer (of only one of the groups), AC, led to a financial loss by the group not employed by AC. That is what has to be proved first, and if successful, then it must be proved that the AC pilots are responsible for this by way of an implied contract between union members. This is all in spite of the fact that AC was not bound in any way to recognize the merger. It's one heck of a stretch and a long way before damages are awarded.

[UpperDeck]

It is a fact that each Air Ontario pilot sustained a financial loss by reason of the successful efforts by the AC pilots to frustrate the Picher arbitration award and that the total of those losses is VERY substantial.

That is not a fact, that is the premise of the case.

ie That an internal union merger, not accompanied by an industrial merger and indeed publicly rejected by the employer (of only one of the groups), AC, led to a financial loss by the group not employed by AC. That is what has to be proved first, and if successful, then it must be proved that the AC pilots are responsible for this by way of an implied contract between union members. This is all in spite of the fact that AC was not bound in any way to recognize the merger. It's one heck of a stretch and a long way before damages are awarded.

Actually, Homerun, it is not a "premise"----it is a fact. However, I acknowledge that the Plaintiffs must prove that if they had taken a position on the AC seniority list, they would have earned more than they in fact earned remaining on the AO/Jazz list. Do you think that will be difficult to prove?

You refer to "implied contract". I stand to be corrected but I believe the claim is now based in "tort" and the allegation is that the defendants wrongfully interfered or agreed amongst themselves (conspired) to defeat Picher knowing that the plaintiffs would be damaged as a result.

You also refer to acceptance of Picher by the company. You are indeed correct that Hollis said that he wouldn't force Picher down the throats of "his" pilots. But that is the exact point, isn't it? Under the Constitution, the obligation on the AC pilots was to negotiate acceptance of the award by the company. Instead, they communicated their dissatisfaction with the award---and their position was effectively communicated to HH. But HH left shortly thereafter, didn't he? And didn't Lamar, his successor propose to consent to a Common Employer declaration. And that would have resulted in an enforced merger; an "industrial merger". And ACPA shot down that idea. The salient point is that the company quite clearly evidenced its willingness to accept a merged list notwithstanding the opposition of HH during his brief tenure.

Of course, we'll never really know what would have happened because of the efforts of the AC MEC and others to frustrate implementation.

And that reminds me of the case where a woman was denied the opportunity to participate in a beauty contest. She sued. The defence was to the effect; "How do we know she suffered any loss? She probably wouldn't have won the contest." And the Court said that the loss of opportunity brought with it an entitlement to compensation. The wrongdoer can't rely on the success of his wrongful conduct to defeat the claim. Sort of makes sense, don't you agree?

[John S.]

. . . .

And you thought the OAC and the CDN pilot merger had moments of serious acrimony

When the OAC and the CDN pilots merged one of the topics that generated some discussion was the 'merging' of pension plans. It would appear that the CDN pilots (at least those identified as ex-CDN on the pay packet) STILL have a different pension benefit than the OAC. This was one of the 'high priority' items that ACPA has yet to deal with.

Apparently there is a website for ACPA pilots and it requires you to identify your former airline. If you compare the two for same date of hire it shows many thousands of dollars per year difference.

I was told that there is a group of CDN pilots who all plan on working to age 65 unless the pension benefits are balanced.

Kip, good for you and all the current retirees - it may be best to watch this one from the bleachers.

[Hadji Ramjet]

It would appear that the CDN pilots (at least those identified as ex-CDN on the pay packet) STILL have a different pension benefit than the OAC.

That would be correct, and never the twain shall meet.

This was one of the 'high priority' items that ACPA has yet to deal with.

That would be incorrect, another example of ACPA believing they had a better deal and didn't want it contaminated by OCP. Ask Tim DeJong for details, he was there.

OAC paid higher contributions, why should they not then expect a greater return?

I was told that there is a group of CDN pilots who all plan on working to age 65 unless the pension benefits are balanced.

Name three. Heck, name one!? Ghost story.

BTW, OCP Capt I flew with three weeks ago showed me his end-2008 pension statement, eight years after the merger and his alleged "windfall gain" his CAIL pension best-of exceeded his AC pension best-of by $16,000 annually. Some windfall.