Machinists union ties up traffic with Trudeau Airport protest

[mrlupin]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Machinists+traffic+airport/4451891/story.html

IAM protest about Air Canada's non adherence to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Under the act, AC is to keep heavy maintenance bases in both YUL and YWG. ACE aviation sold off the heavy maintenance bases to KKR in 2007. Air Canada bought back in to the tune of a 27% participation (when AVEOS was about to go belly up)last year. The split of the labor work force is under way and employees know that deep down AVEOS isn't a solvent company.

Also...

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090605/mtl_aircanada_090605/20090605/?hub=MontrealHome

[dagger]

employees know that deep down AVEOS isn't a solvent company.

I'm sure some AC workers feel the same way about AC. But AVEOS has been insolvent before and was restructured, as was AC. AC isn't going to buy the 73% of AVEOS it doesn't own, so ...?

[mrlupin]

I'm sure some AC workers feel the same way about AC. But AVEOS has been insolvent before and was restructured, as was AC. AC isn't going to buy the 73% of AVEOS it doesn't own, so ...?

Good morning Dagger, it's mostly an issue of losing recall rights to AC. The employees working at AVEOS are still AC employees. The split is on-going. The employees who will not have seniority to go to AC have the opportunity to either take layoff or go to AVEOS. Employees opting for AVEOS lose all recall rights to Air Canada. That particular issue is what is causing most of the grief...

According to the ACPPA, AC is to maintain maintenance bases in both YWG and YUL. That is what is presently being contested by the union. AC is subcontracting the work out to AVEOS, AC might be in breach of the ACPPA.If so, AC needs to get the ACPPA.

[Guest]

Good morning Dagger, it's mostly an issue of losing recall rights to AC. The employees working at AVEOS are still AC employees. The split is on-going. The employees who will not have seniority to go to AC have the opportunity to either take layoff or go to AVEOS. Employees opting for AVEOS lose all recall rights to Air Canada. That particular issue is what is causing most of the grief...

According to the ACPPA, AC is to maintain maintenance bases in both YWG and YUL. That is what is presently being contested by the union. AC is subcontracting the work out to AVEOS, AC might be in breach of the ACPPA.If so, AC needs to get the ACPPA.

Eric I believe the wording from the ACPPA states that Air Canada must maintain "OVERHAUL AND OPERATIONAL CENTRES IS THE CITIES OF WINNIPEG MONTREAL AND MISSISSAUGA". I fail to see how the selling of of heavy meets this criteria. At the transport committee meetings, AC counsel say they are meeting the act but yet refuses to answer HOW. I do not recall anywhere in the legislation where it states that Air Canada gets to maintain these centres through a subcontractor.

[Guest]

Eric I believe the wording from the ACPPA states that Air Canada must maintain "OVERHAUL AND OPERATIONAL CENTRES IS THE CITIES OF WINNIPEG MONTREAL AND MISSISSAUGA". I fail to see how the selling of of heavy meets this criteria. At the transport committee meetings, AC counsel say they are meeting the act but yet refuses to answer HOW. I do not recall anywhere in the legislation where it states that Air Canada gets to maintain these centres through a subcontractor.

This is directly from the act!

(d) provisions requiring the Corporation to

maintain operational and overhaul centres in

the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban

Community and the City of Mississauga; and

(e) provisions specifying that the head office

of the Corporation is to be situated in the

Montreal Urban Community.

[boestar]

Quoted from the act...

6. (1) The articles of continuance of the Corporation shall contain(a) [Repealed, 2001, c. 35, s. 1]( provisions imposing constraints on the issue, transfer and ownership, including joint ownership, of voting shares of the Corporation to prevent non-residents from holding, beneficially owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, otherwise than by way of security only, in the aggregate voting shares to which are attached more than 25%, or any higher percentage that the Governor in Council may by regulation specify, of the votes that may ordinarily be cast to elect directors of the Corporation, other than votes that may be so cast by or on behalf of the Minister;© provisions respecting the counting or prorating of votes cast at any meeting of shareholders of the Corporation and attached to voting shares of the Corporation that are held, beneficially owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-residents so as to limit the counting of those votes to not more than 25%, or any higher percentage specified for the purposes of paragraph (, of the total number of votes cast by shareholders at that meeting;(d) provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga; and(e) provisions specifying that the head office of the Corporation is to be situated in the Montreal Urban Community.

“corporation” includes a body corporate, partnership and unincorporated organization;

There are no less than 3 different definitions of CORPORATION contained within the act itself. The above definition is contained in the section defining the above section 6 of the act. That being said I do not believe AVEOS and AC to meet the criteria set out in the remainder of the act where the coproration must be CONTROLLING, meaning greater than 50% ownership.

From what I see in the act and what AC has done (from my limited knowledge) they are NOT in compliance with the act.

[moeman]

Are they arguing that they are in fact "maintaining operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg" by the simple fact that they are contracting out such work in the city of Winnipeg? The wording of the act seems a little vague to me. I can see how one could argue that the word "maintain" could be construed several different ways, for example AC could support a maintenance facility in Winnipeg by giving it work, thus satisfying one definition of maintain.

[dagger]

Are they arguing that they are in fact "maintaining operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg" by the simple fact that they are contracting out such work in the city of Winnipeg? The wording of the act seems a little vague to me. I can see how one could argue that the word "maintain" could be construed several different ways, for example AC could support a maintenance facility in Winnipeg by giving it work, thus satisfying one definition of maintain.

In as much as Strahl says the government believes AC is in compliance, and I assume AC lawyers have always believed AC to be in compliance, then the onus seems to be on the union to go to court to prove otherwise. I assume if the union hasn't done so, it believes AC to be in compliance.

[Lazionic]

IAM files a lawsuit against AC

http://www.iam140.ca/userfiles/file/Transition/Machinists%20Take%20Air%20Canada%20to%20Court%20-%20edit.pdf

[moeman]

So there you go. The IAMAW believes that AC not only has to keep maintenance jobs in YWG, as per the ACPPA, it must also ensure that those jobs remain within AC and, therefore, the IAMAW.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[Guest]

The argument has been going back and forth for a while now. During one of the transport committee meetings on parliment hill, Air Canada cousel as well as a director for moc were questioned. The counsel stated that the act was being met but when questioned on how, they just kept saying the act was being met with no description on how. When the director of MOC was questioned he clearly stated that line work in NOT overhaul and went on to give a clear description of what overhaul is in his eyes.

So now the case is in front of the courts, and hopefully a clear decision will be made. In the mean time I would hope the courts put a cease and desist on any further transitioning until such time as a decision has been rendered.

[boestar]

According the the definition in the act refrencing the appropriate section of the act. AVEOS would need to be 51% owned by AC to be in compliance IMHO.

The definition of a corporation in the act is:

“corporation” includes a body corporate, partnership and unincorporated organization;

The partnership would need to be 51% AC controled or a fully owned corporation (AC) or a unincorporated organization controlled by AC.

Currently with 21% ownership this is NOT the case.

[Guest]

According the the definition in the act refrencing the appropriate section of the act. AVEOS would need to be 51% owned by AC to be in compliance IMHO.

The definition of a corporation in the act is:

“corporation” includes a body corporate, partnership and unincorporated organization;

The partnership would need to be 51% AC controled or a fully owned corporation (AC) or a unincorporated organization controlled by AC.

Currently with 21% ownership this is NOT the case.

Word has it the union is seeking and injunction to stop the transition until a decision has been made on the ACPPA

[Ex 9A Guy]

I find it interesting that in the past there has been kicking and screaming and toys being thrown out of the sandbox because of some of the onerous requirements of the ACPPA and now folks are clinging to the portions of the Act that suit them to defend their arguments.

Don't get me wrong as a non-AC employee I think the majority of the ACPPA is a dinosaur that should have died years ago. Any of the requirements of the Act that make sense commercially Air Canada would continue to do and those that deserve to die would do so.

[conehead]

Don't get me wrong as a non-AC employee I think the majority of the ACPPA is a dinosaur that should have died years ago. Any of the requirements of the Act that make sense commercially Air Canada would continue to do and those that deserve to die would do so.

The point is, the law is the law. You can't pick and choose which elements of a particular Act you wish to comply with. The Act states that Air Canada must maintain overhaul facilities at certain locations, and they are not complying.

[AME]

IAM files a lawsuit against AC

http://www.iam140.ca/userfiles/file/Transition/Machinists%20Take%20Air%20Canada%20to%20Court%20-%20edit.pdf

Deleted.... sorry, sometimes I forget that I no longer have an opinion

[mrlupin]

http://westislandgazette.com/community/21430

Once a "National Treasure", Air Canada now Reads like a Mystery Novel

posted by Barry Drennan at 3h59

by Barry Drennan

Enlarge

Once a "National Treasure" now "porkchops"?

The “Air Canada Public Participation Act” requires the “Corporation” to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga. Simple words to determine a breach of federal law and the fate of thousands of Canadian families.

Underscored by recent economic crisis’s, bailouts, and executive accountability this constitutes a news story; now consider this... ACE’s and Air Canada’s American led directors, in apparent contravention to federal law, have sold its assets.

Meantime this upper brass is accused of gorging ala “Frank Lorenzo” on multi-million dollars paycheques while redirecting profits to ACE, the mother corporation, which seems to have no function except storing profits. Aveos, new owner of Air Canada’s Overhaul centres has parents registered off-shore in the Cayman Islands?

The IAMAW’s Canadian arm has launched nationwide protests and applied to the Supreme Court of Ontario regarding these very issues. With Air Canada’s plight strikingly similar to Eastern Airlines’, one would think that the IAMAW International would be vocal. Considering the calculable nationwide economic down turn that this could ignite, not a single political, public or by the media warning has been sounded.

Where are the defending voices and parliamentary challenges of Jack Layton, Micheal Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and Pauline Marois?

Where are the voices of workers' rights, of saving jobs and of Quebec’s aviation industry?

Where are the front page articles, the talk shows enquiries, and the bark of political and public watchdogs?

It just doesn’t add up!