AOPG vs ACPG---The Saga Continues

[UpperDeck]

Some months ago, there was a discussion about "who knew what and when" about the impact of the Picher decision in March, 1995 upon the AC seniority list. I was surprised to read the post by Don Hudson in which he indicated that he was of the belief that even with 22 years' seniority, he was affected. I was aware that Don was involved in the YVR LEC at the time and presumed that he would have read the Picher decision. In fact, I assumed everyone would have read the decision. Don said that he might have relied upon misleading information provided by someone "with the union."

I've read the Picher decision released in March, 1995. It very clearly indicated that only the bottom 15% of the AC list was affected in any way and that those affected AC pilots were all on furlough at the time of the hearings. P.J.O'Hara and above were inviolate for all purposes. Why would anyone above O'Hara think they were impacted by the decision?

I recently had a chance to read the evidence of Chris Pulley in which he acknowledged circulating to every base in April, 1995 a "Picher-based Seniority List" which was a straight date of hire list. I had an "Aha" moment. If I hadn't read the decision and if I relied on information posted in the crew room by my MEC Chairman, I might also have joined in the chorus of opposition.

But why? Why would the MEC circulate clearly misleading information? After all, as Picher himself said in his reasons, the Connectors were only asking for doh dovetailing with the furloughed pilots with such a list to be inoperative until the recall of all furloughed pilots.

And further on in the evidence of Chris Pulley was the answer: "The over-arching objective of the MEC at the time was to protect the junior pilots to the best of our ability...."

So it doesn't matter at what level one examines the conduct of "elected officials"; at some point, they all know what's best for you.

Which brings me to.....I am reliably informed that the AOPG pilots have submitted a revised Offer to Settle wherein they propose to release from all claims without any payment a large group of defendant class members---those who basically did nothing to support or oppose the Picher decision. They also propose to Release another large group---everyone else not holding union office or on a committee---- in consideration of the payment of a relatively nominal sum. The Offer was supposed to go out to every pilot who is a member of the defendant class. Apparently, that's not happening because counsel is of the opinion that it is up to the named Representative Defendants to accept or reject any offer. If defence counsel is correct, Grieg or Vaillant (for example) can say; "Nope. I don't accept that offer." and each sub-class member loses the opportunity to get away from this lawsuit, assets intact---for nothing! And who do you complain to if the lawsuit is succesfull and you end up owing money---a LOT of it. Are the Reps freighting the bill?

I guess counsel is going back to court to get a ruling on whether or not he has to circulate the offer.

Doesn't it make basic sense that if you might be paying, you should be able to make your own decision to accept or reject any offer?

And the clock continues to tick!

[Seeker]

I am reliably informed that the AOPG pilots have submitted a revised Offer to Settle wherein they propose to release from all claims without any payment a large group of defendant class members---those who basically did nothing to support or oppose the Picher decision.

Isn't the signing of the petition to disolve Air Canada CALPA and form ACPA the measure of "opposing" Picher? In any case, I believe it will be moot - the offer will be rejected by the plaintants.

[rudder]

Not sure what a 'plaintant' is. Perhaps you meant 'defendant' since that is whom the alleged offer to settle is seemingly directed to. Also not sure that a court has the right to force consideration of a settlement offer.

Much like the original misinformation on the mechanics of the Picher Award which erroneously caused even the first page of the AC Pilot seniority list to believe that they had seen their seniority rights subordinated to senior connector pilots, 3400 ACPA members are freighting the legal bill of 1500 (many now retired or deceased) members of the defendant class under the "one for all, and all for one" mantra. That is noble but perhaps misguided. It insulates the truly affected parties from the reality of the legal proceeding and therefore reduces the impetus to reasonably and rationally consider any offer to settle.

The rumour mill says that the parties have previously exchanged settlement offers. If the difference between the two is less than projected legal costs (which one could expect will be in the millions by now), perhaps it would be wise to bring to a conclusion the last vestige of the regional/mainline merger era.

Given that makes sense it therefore probably will not happen.

[J.O.]

FWIW, Webster's lists plainant is another word for plaintiff.

[Seeker]

Haha, yes, I meant "plantiff", I don't know where "plaintant" came from either - just sounded right as I was writing. In any case, I had the whole thing backwards - I was thinking that this was another offer from the Air Canada guys toward the wronged ex-Air Ontario guys. I see now that it's the other way 'round.

This is an interesting development; you're saying that the plaintiffs have decided to change their target from the entire Air Canada pilot group in 1995 (those that signed the petition) to just the elected union leaders at the time? That's a huge change to make after so many years but I'm confused too; I was under the impression that the reason the Supreme Court decided to grant leave hear the case in the first place was because it posed a question that had never been heard before - the question regarding whether or not the legal liabilities of the union as a whole fall to the membership level and must be assumed by each individual member of the union. If the defendant group is changed to just the MEC and elected reps doesn't that change the argument made to the Supreme Court too?

I can certainly see huge implications if the offer is accepted; assuming the plaintiffs were to win I would assume they would have a better chance of collecting if they had 1800 pilots on the list "owing" 167 thousand each instead of a handful of guys owing many millions each so this seems to be more about getting personal satisfaction than actually collecting the cash. Of course another angle is that by going after the executive there is a better chance that ACPA will be forced to assume the liability on behalf of the named defendants.

Anyway, interesting turn to the whole situation.

[Homerun]

Upperdeck, are you insinuating that had the entire AC pilot list, including the senior members, clearly understood that the Picher award would only impact the bottom 15% that perhaps the AC group would have accepted the list?

I ask because this seems to have been a common premise over the years, a premise that I believe to be erroneous.

[exGXer]

It appears to have become a common premise only after the ACPG walked away from the binding arbtration. Before that, a lot of the AC pilots appeared to have their heads buried in the sand, but sure popped up and took notice when the lawsuit was launched.

[Seeker]

I think it's probably true that a lot of AC pilots didn't really take the time to understand Picher. I think you can also say, with 20/20 hindsight, that choosing to back the "scope" horse rather than the "merger" horse has been a costly mistake. Probably also true that the union executive of the day did little to educate the masses and chose to drive them towards the decertification process rather than making it an open and free choice.

[UpperDeck]

Homerun...

I was not attempting to "insinuate" anything but I think many would agree that there was an early resolve to pursue merger for the benefit of all AC pilots affected by the move to regional flying and the rationalization of existing equipment. Those pilots were in fact the pilots with the least job security--the "juniors". And then came the revised scope (no-jets) and the concurrent order by the company of the RJ's followed shortly thereafter by a MEC resolution to "delay, postpone or cancel" the merger.

Until the issue of "job protection" was addressed by alternate means, seniority list merger was the generally accepted solution even though it was known that a merger might result in something other than end-tail.

End-tail was ALWAYS the preferred solution of the AC pilots but the simple assertion of what one party believes is appropriate does not necessarily mean that will be the ultimate disposition. After all---there are two parties to a dispute and the existence of a dispute necessarily means--the other party doesn't agree with you!

Having invoked merger, not unreasonably the union expected the AC pilots to commit to the process even though the result might not be the "desired" result and with hopes that everyone would do the "right thing".

This was a consensual arbitration. Seriously---does anyone honestly think that it is appropriate to say; "I'm worried about job losses and job security so I want CALPA to declare a merger." and then while the process is ongoing, negotiate a LOU that you THINK gives you all you require by way of job security whereupon you can now say; "Okay. I no longer want a merger. Cancel the process."

So, Homerun, I look at this as an issue that was initiated to give some comfort to junior pilots----to give them a job---and I see their reaction to Picher as somewhat of a slap in the face of the same guys who were doing their level best to give them hope. And now---having gained absolutely nothing for their support, everyone from O'Hara (sorry, PJ) and above is facing the possibility (even remote) of liability for evidencing that support.

And so I guess upon reflection that I think that I would agree with the assertion that reasonable people reasonably informed will arrive at a reasonable solution. Yes---I think that the majority of AC pilots under those circumstances would have done the "right thing".

I'm sorry. I probably haven't expressed that very well. Forgive me--it's Sunday night.

[Innuendo]

Upperdeck,

This was a consensual arbitration.

Are you sure that was the case.

My recollection was that at some point during the negotiations the AC MEC conducted a ballot of the AC members asking if the attempt to merge should be abandoned. There was some accompanying explanation,

Pros/Cons etc for the ballot. Whatever the reasons or rationale for the ballot, in any event, the majority voted to abandon the merger attempt. The majority of the CALPA BOD did not agree with allowing the AC side to disengage from the declared merger and the arbitration was entered into by both parties. I don't believe that the AC component was a willing participant but were obliged to participate as a result of the BOD vote.

[Homerun]

Innuendo, if there was any early resolve, it was limited to the CALPA leadership. The membership at large certainly wanted nothing to do with it. I believe history shows that when the membership discovered that a "merger" had been declared on their behalf, they immediately tried to extract themselves.

As far as the senior pilots accepting Picher, I believe you are wrong. Whether it only affected the bottom 15% or bottom 1% or even 1 AC pilot, it was not acceptable to the group. The junior AC pilots would have been decimated.

I realize that it's difficult for you to understand the senior pilots taking a principled position and fighting for the junior pilots. My belief is that difficulty stems from the fact that if the roles were reversed, the AO pilots would sell their junior membership down the river in a heartbeat and just can't understand anyone doing differently.

imo

[UpperDeck]

Innuendo, if there was any early resolve, it was limited to the CALPA leadership. The membership at large certainly wanted nothing to do with it. I believe history shows that when the membership discovered that a "merger" had been declared on their behalf, they immediately tried to extract themselves.

As far as the senior pilots accepting Picher, I believe you are wrong. Whether it only affected the bottom 15% or bottom 1% or even 1 AC pilot, it was not acceptable to the group. The junior AC pilots would have been decimated.

I realize that it's difficult for you to understand the senior pilots taking a principled position and fighting for the junior pilots. My belief is that difficulty stems from the fact that if the roles were reversed, the AO pilots would sell their junior membership down the river in a heartbeat and just can't understand anyone doing differently.

imo

Homerun..

I don't intend to get into an historical debate but let me just point out that the merger expense had to be approved by the membership. It was. That was a secret ballot vote. Alternatively---show me the Recall Petition. There was none but when the issue was system or base seniority, a lot of people knew how to use that process. But--that may have been before your time.

Please look at the Minutes of the YVR LEC in March 1994 in which strong objection was taken to the decision of the MEC to "postpone, cancel or delay" the merger. The meeting was well attended and objections came from the floor. There are numerous resolutions from all LEC's (including YUL) in the late 80's to pursue merger. That was the beginning of the seniority merger.

"Consensual arbitration" refers to the initiation of the process. The parties agreed at Convention in Jan. 1991 to "re-start" the process and requested that the President make that Declaration. If you and I agree to a process that includes arbitration, you can't suddenly decide that you no longer need (or support) the result of that process and conclude that therefore, based upon your unilateral decision, the process is no longer consensual.

Boy! Wouldn't that be great! Don't like your spouse? Withdraw your consent post facto; "I divorce you. I divorce you." And the added benefit based upon your theory is that you owe nothing because, after all, you no longer "consented".

I know you feel strongly about the issue and I do not intend to trivialize your feelings on the subject. I am telling you that it is essentially beyond dispute that a BOTL merger was acceptable to the MEC and to a significant majority of AC pilots in 1993. I can also say without hesitation that as a compromise, the MEC was prepared to dovetail 125 Regional pilots with everyone below O'Hara on a doh basis with the balance of the Regional pilots at the bottom.

I'm not making this stuff up and your assurance to the contrary simply confirms that unfortunately, a lot of pilots had no idea what was going on around them. If you were out on the street at the time, that is certainly understandable.

[RussD]

Innuendo, if there was any early resolve, it was limited to the CALPA leadership. The membership at large certainly wanted nothing to do with it. I believe history shows that when the membership discovered that a "merger" had been declared on their behalf, they immediately tried to extract themselves.

imo

If that was the case (and it defies the definition credibility to suggest it was) the entire membership was asleep, comatose, inebriated or in an over fed apathetic stupor for over FOUR YEARS.

During that period 3 successive AC MEC's initiated, participated, upheld and demanded that NO party could exit when one of the regionals expressed a desire to (YEG 1992) leave the process. This was all published , on the record in amongst a multitude of other places, a freaking magazine for gosh sakes.

If anyone suggests their successive group of elected reps of the time, were skulking around in the shadows, running rogue for all those years, in defiance of the will of the group, well they must have had their head firmly implanted in a physiologically impossible position. To blame the successive group of your elected peers, is by my definition, a cowardly act.

UpperDeck has accurately painted the picture. The entire aviation community is poorer for it.

[skyline]

This has lasted for so long and to be honest quite complicated.... what is the next step? Any end in sight?

Thanks

[UpperDeck]

This has lasted for so long and to be honest quite complicated.... what is the next step? Any end in sight?

Thanks

Skyline.....

Subject to the sky falling, I believe the trial will begin on March 12th upcoming and is scheduled to last for 8 to 12 weeks.

The Plaintiffs have submitted a revised offer to settle the claims against two sub-classes of the defendant class---sub-classes 6 and 7. They have offered to Release from liability without any payment any and all pilots in sub-class 7 who swear that they in fact belong to that sub-class. They have offered to accept a fairly nominal sum from all pilots in sub-class 6 in return for which, they have offered to Release those pilots as well. They have offered to reduce any damage award against those remaining by an amount proportionate to the number accepting the offer.

The offer was extended to each pilot individually. Not all pilots in either sub-class have to accept for the offer to be effective. It is unconditional in that regard.

The two sub-classes represent about 95% of the defendant class. The offer does NOT extend to those holding a union or committee position at the time.

The offer was to be circulated to every pilot in the defendant class. ACPA's lawyer who represents the defendant class has objected to the mass circulation of the offer and argues that it is for the Representatives to decide whether to accept or reject any offer. A date is being scheduled to obtain the direction of the court.

I am only guessing but I assume that defence counsel (and ACPA) is concerned with presenting a united front. If everyone sees the offer and a bunch accept, it will no longer appear that the plaintiffs are opposed by a multitude.

This approach, in my opinion, places all of the unnamed defendants at risk and denies them the opportunity to protect (legitimately) their assets. That's just my personal opinion. The Court will decide that issue----one hopes sooner rather than later.

[Mitch Cronin]

UpperDeck... Is there any risk that if such an offer is accepted in any degree, that such acceptance would constitute some measure of admission of [?] guilt, or culpability or something?

[anonymous]

UpperDeck

Once again, you jump into this topic....but you have "no dog in this fight"...

But your comments display a strongly biased viewpoint in favour of the Air Ontario pilots.

So how about you come clean with why you keep diving deep into this issue?

Your knowledge of the intimate details of this litigation betray an interest that is way beyond a interested bystander...so what is it?

[UpperDeck]

UpperDeck... Is there any risk that if such an offer is accepted in any degree, that such acceptance would constitute some measure of admission of [?] guilt, or culpability or something?

Mitch....Offers and the acceptance of same are essentially "without prejudice". They can be accepted (or rejected) without admission of fault. Certain offers that comply with specific criteria do carry with them consequences if they are not accepted and the disposition at trial is more favourable to the offering party than the offer. In other words, I offer to settle for $10.00. You reject that offer and I am awarded $15.00. You are "at risk" of the Court requiring that you pay almost all of my legal costs from the date of the offer---substantial indemnity.

Reasonable question but the fact of the Offer is not disclosed to a trial judge until after judgment.

Anonymous-----why "anonymous"? Nothing to hide, right? Aren't I entitled to the same assumption? In any event, question asked and answered. See "history".

By the way---I understand that a number of people affected were very interested to learn of the existence of the offer which is an objective fact and not a subjective (biased) response.Even if I was a member of the Plaintiff class (which I am not), my posting on the subject obviously served a purpose.