Air Canada's pilots union fights to keep age-60 rule

[Ex 9A Guy]

Air Transport

SubscribeYou are in: Home › Air Transport › News Article

DATE:22/11/10

SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news

Air Canada's pilots union fights to keep age-60 rule

By Mary Kirby

Air Canada's pilots union has appealed to the country's Federal Court to maintain a mandatory age-60 retirement rule at the carrier.

The Federal Court is conducting hearings into the matter this week, after a rights tribunal determined that two Air Canada pilots were unfairly forced to retire after reaching age 60, and called for their reinstatement.

"We are asking the Federal Court to reaffirm that the law and previous Supreme Court decisions recognize our members' democratic right to determine their age of retirement through collective bargaining," says Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) president Captain Paul Strachan.

Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the Air Canada pilots' contract and pension plan. The ACPA warns that the Federal Court's decision "could potentially impact the wages and benefits of thousands of federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement".

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently decided to reinstate two retired Air Canada pilots, although it did not extend the reinstatement to all Air Canada pilots. The reinstatement comes on condition that each pilot hold a valid pilot license, a medical certificate showing that he is fit to fly, and current instrument flight rating.

Counsel for ACPA will argue that the tribunal erred at law by ignoring Supreme Court decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to negotiate a normal age of retirement.

A recent survey of more than 1,800 Air Canada pilots showed that 82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger, according to the ACPA.

[Moon The Loon]

So if 82% of a group vote to limit the constitutional and/or human rights of the 18%, then they win. Right?

The only ones who really truly want this to go to the Supreme Court are the lawyers representing the 82%. Having a case heard in the Supreme Court for a lawyer is like winning an Academy Award. Not to mention the $$$ accumulated on the way there...

[Fido]

Yup:

It is only the lawyers that want to persue this

It is only the lawyers that originated this

It is only the lawyers that have a vested interest

It is the lawyers who ran the poll

It is the lawyers who phoned the lawyers and said 'Let's go to court'

It is never the client.

[Moon The Loon]

Yup:

It is only the lawyers that want to persue this

It is only the lawyers that originated this

It is only the lawyers that have a vested interest

It is the lawyers who ran the poll

It is the lawyers who phoned the lawyers and said 'Let's go to court'

It is never the client.

Let's not be silly about this. Of course they didn't "originate" this. But like a dog with a bone, once they sunk their teeth into the issue and realized that 82% of the meat was still left on it, they are wont to give it up until the bone is dry.

[Leading Edge]

So if 82% of a group vote to limit the constitutional and/or human rights of the 18%, then they win. Right?

The only ones who really truly want this to go to the Supreme Court are the lawyers representing the 82%. Having a case heard in the Supreme Court for a lawyer is like winning an Academy Award. Not to mention the $$$ accumulated on the way there...

Or 18% KNEW the retirement age when they ACCEPTED the job, and 18% now want to force a CONTRACTUAL change on the MAJORITY (82%).

[SkyBlazer]

Its probably that 18% have been married too many times and have failed to properly save along the way.

Joy of flying my arse.

SB

[Moon The Loon]

Or 18% KNEW the retirement age when they ACCEPTED the job, and 18% now want to force a CONTRACTUAL change on the MAJORITY (82%).

To the best of my understanding, the decision based on constitutionality and/or human rights was about whether the contract met both considerations, and that it did not. Whether the decision can be applied to past contracts??? That's another question...

If I sign a contract containing a clause to let someone do something to me (knowing full well that if I don't sign, I don't get the job), and subsequently the clause itself is deemed unconstitutional and/or a violation of human rights, then the clause could be deemed to never have existed in the first place.

You can scream all you want. I really don't think you will be successful.

I don't miss being in the thick of fights like this, but I feel for those that continue to be. Me, I'm away from that part of aviation now, hopefully for good, so I don't have any vested interest in one side or the other, with the exception of my personal opinion which I am vetting here.

[Johnny]

Nobody "Signs a Contract" to be employed with the Airline. You are governed by the "Collective Agreement" under which you work.

There is no way around this going to the Supreme Court, IMO. The impact is going to be felt by every working person in Canada.

As it stands we have been forced to take back a 67 year old Pilot, who has been retired for 7 years.

Where does it end?

...an 80 year old, that can maintain a CAT 1 Medical and an Instrument Rating?

Open the flood gates for every employee in Canada (from every walk of life,) that has been retired has the Right to come back to work?

This reaches far above the lonely Pilots at Air Canada fighting this.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

There may be some considerably larger and more powerful groups with intervenor status on the AC/ACPA side, if it gets to the Supreme Court.

[rudder]

Nobody "Signs a Contract" to be employed with the Airline. You are governed by the "Collective Agreement" under which you work.

There is no way around this going to the Supreme Court, IMO. The impact is going to be felt by every working person in Canada.

As it stands we have been forced to take back a 67 year old Pilot, who has been retired for 7 years.

Where does it end?

...an 80 year old, that can maintain a CAT 1 Medical and an Instrument Rating?

Open the flood gates for every employee in Canada (from every walk of life,) that has been retired has the Right to come back to work?

This reaches far above the lonely Pilots at Air Canada fighting this.

The floodgates to 67 year olds were opened when parties took extreme positions, gambled, and lost.

Now all hope is pinned on judicial review and the willingness for the Supreme Court to consider the file. To win JR, there must be evidence of errors in process or gross deviations in logic in reaching a decision. And what will the argument look like at the Supreme Court - everybody else in Canada is 65 but we are different? Best case scenario is the case sent back to the CHRT and a BFOR judgement restricted to age 65 maximum (thanks to ICAO).

The Americans had the same issue to deal with and it was adressed much more pragmatically.

This whole topic makes AC and ACPA look like a$$es.

[Seeker]

And what will the argument look like at the Supreme Court - everybody else in Canada is 65 but we are different?

The question to the Supreme court will not be whether the age for retirement should be 60, 65 or 85 but whether an employee group has the right have negotiate the age in the first place.

[Moon The Loon]

The question to the Supreme court will...be...whether an employee group has the right [to] negotiate the age in the first place.

That was my point, Seeker. Say the issue is different. Let's say society votes 90% to institutionalize all old folks 75 years of age and older to protect them from themselves. Just because something is wanted by a society doesn't make it the right thing to do. Thankfully, that was a silly example. Simply because a large group wants something that has been shown as the wrong thing to do to be put in place doesn't make it "right" because a majority voted for it.

Much of what is deemed "right" or "wrong" in our society changes with time. Not much more than 100 years ago, the "right" thing to do to a horse thief was to hang him. Seems silly today, but it wasn't at the time. Who knows what our great grandchildren will think of the way we accept or reject things in our society today.

[Seeker]

That was my point, Seeker. Say the issue is different. Let's say society votes 90% to institutionalize all old folks 75 years of age and older to protect them from themselves. Just because something is wanted by a society doesn't make it the right thing to do. Thankfully, that was a silly example. Simply because a large group wants something that has been shown as the wrong thing to do to be put in place doesn't make it "right" because a majority voted for it.

Much of what is deemed "right" or "wrong" in our society changes with time. Not much more than 100 years ago, the "right" thing to do to a horse thief was to hang him. Seems silly today, but it wasn't at the time. Who knows what our great grandchildren will think of the way we accept or reject things in our society today.

Well, OK, the difference is that these guys chose to include themselves in the group and they knew the rules going in. In both of your examples the choice is made for someone else without them having volunteered to be part of the group. The other side of the argument is that the guys being "forced" to retire at 60 benefited from the fact that every guy who retired prior to them did so at age 60 - these guys want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Johnny]

This whole topic makes AC and ACPA look like a$$es.

Considering there were two Complainants (V & K,) one of which is 67 years old. Had the, Association and the Airline, rolled over and said; "Okay, we'll do as the Americans, fly to 65."

It would not have satisfied these two individuals, as such, the case would have most likely continued anyways. Nothing short of ACPA and AC saying; "no age for retirement," nothing would have sufficed.

Which was (is) completely untenable!

The Courts are now faced with every employee in Canada, that was retired, can conceivably come back to work.

This is far from over, frankly, we should all be thanking AC and ACPA for standing-up and being counted.

[rudder]

This whole topic makes AC and ACPA look like a$$es.

Considering there were two Complainants (V & K,) one of which is 67 years old. Had the, Association and the Airline, rolled over and said; "Okay, we'll do as the Americans, fly to 65."

It would not have satisfied these two individuals, as such, the case would have most likely continued anyways. Nothing short of ACPA and AC saying; "no age for retirement," nothing would have sufficed.

Which was (is) completely untenable!

The Courts are now faced with every employee in Canada, that was retired, can conceivably come back to work.

This is far from over, frankly, we should all be thanking AC and ACPA for standing-up and being counted.

The outcome was not about satisfying V & K, it was about getting a ruling from the CHRT which had jurisdiction. If a credible and logical BFOR argument had been made (like age 65), perhaps the CHRT remedy might have been different. Extreme positions = extreme results.

AC and ACPA can look in the mirror when they see 70 years olds in the flight deck. They never read the tea leaves, never accepted change that was going on all around them, and never adopted a more moderate position other than "We won't budge".

So much like the V & K remedy ruling, be careful what you wish for when you involve third parties with power. If the SC does agree to hear the case, the ruling may be more extreme and far reaching than the reasonable alternative. AC and ACPA have already been spanked by the CHRT, will a spanking from the SC reinforce the message?

One of the justifications being advanced is that this is a bigger fight than just AC and its pilots. That is certainly true. And much damage has already been done on the matter due to the inept arguments and actions made to date by those two parties.

[Vsplat]

Rudder, with respect I don't think insulting a union for trying to enforce a legal contract and predicting the future by opinion are helpful. I think the CHRT decision to limit the application to the two complainants speaks more precisely to the difficulty of this matter than the posters here can. It's not the slam dunk some might like it to be, no matter how much rhetoric gets tossed about.

In my opinion, once the complainants decided they wanted more, it would not have mattered what line ACPA drew, it would have been fought. Any concession would have been used as tacit agreement that the 'cause' was just and we would have been right where we are today, possibly in worse shape.

The courts will decide the rights and numbers. From my perspective, I think it is sad that someone who has a pretty good pension and freedom to live how they choose should instead devote their energies to something like this. At 67 years old, how many more good years are left?

Vs

[Kip Powick]

.............At 67 years old, how many more good years are left?...........................

Sadly unless you are at, approaching, or past that number, that question seems to be on the back burner........

I have never seen a Brinks truck following a hearse ( old but ....some never realize that life the day we are born, we start to die).

[Moon The Loon]

?

I scratched my head too when I re-read it. It's gone...

[Guest rozar s'macco]

I think everyone should just concede that the Toronto Maple Leafs deserve to win the Stanley Cup this year. Forgo playing the regular season, forgo the playoffs, and just award the cup to the Leafs, as is just. It is the only way to restore parity in the league.

/end fantasy

Back in the real world, the games are actually played and the outcome decided on the field of play.