TA Vote by FA's

[UpperDeck]

You are seriously confused about the Labour Code and labour law. Also bargaining dynamics.

First, the employer - any employer - is under no obligation to keep returning to the bargaining table and offering more ad infinitum. At some point, it can determine that it has no more to offer and that what was offered - and rejected - was its last/best offer. In other words, final. There is no bad faith involved in drawing a line in the sand, especially after the union committee has TWICE concluded that it has negotiated a fair deal. Otherwise, negotiations would never end. Contracts would never be ratified because of a belief that the union can keep signing agreements and - nudge-nudge-wink-wink - there is always a better deal to be had by rejecting those tentative agreements.

I have never claimed any expertise in Labour Law but I'm not convinced that I am "seriously confused about... the Code". I presume that Air Canada is content with the terms of the existing agreement. You can certainly correct me but I believe that until that agreement is replaced, both parties continue to be governed by those terms. The fact that negotiations may continue for an extended period may be frustrating but at least one party may enjoy the status quo for the duration.

You appear to conflate CUPE with its membership. The flight attendants as a group may be represented by CUPE as their bargaining agent but so also were the Air Canada pilots once represented by CALPA. They are not necessarily "of one mind". The same can be said of a "negotiating committee". Obviously, ACPA's negotiating committee arrived at a tentative agreement that was put to the membership and rejected. The company did not thereupon "wash it's hands" of the process. I know to a certainty that the company's negotiators in the past have taken a firm position---drawn a line in the sand--only to learn later that other discussions were taking place between representatives of the employee group and senior management and an agreement reached WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPANY'S NEGOTIATORS.

Is that a departure from the norm? Certainly but it makes the point that "bargaining dynamics" are fluid and (in my opinion) one must be reluctant to assume the mutual acknowledgment of firm boundaries when in fact those boundaries may be shifting precisely because of those dynamics.

With respect to service of the Notice and my "lack of understanding"...the following is extracted from the Canada Labour Code:

87.2 (1) Unless a lockout not prohibited by this Part has occurred, a trade union must give notice to the employer, at least seventy-two hours in advance, indicating the date on which a strike will occur, and must provide a copy of the notice to the Minister.

Lockout notice

(2) Unless a strike not prohibited by this Part has occurred, an employer must give notice to the trade union, at least seventy-two hours in advance, indicating the date on which a lockout will occur, and must provide a copy of the notice to the Minister.

New notice

(3) Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, where no strike or lockout occurs on the date indicated in a notice given pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), a new notice of at least seventy-two hours must be given by the trade union or the employer if they wish to initiate a strike or lockout.

You will agree that the existence of sub-parag. (3), by necessary implication establishes that a Notice may be served and expire without a labour interruption. It was my understanding that it was a term of the conciliation agreement that if the second TA was rejected, a strike notice would be served within a certain number of hours of publication of the vote results. That is why the Notice was served. I remain of the belief that the union may determine that the Notice should expire to permit of the replacement of the negotiating committee and the resulting resumption of discussions. I also remain of the opinion that a lockout by the company and a refusal to negotiate would not be the result of "wise counsel".

So, say again---how was 2009 for you?

[UpperDeck]

As an aside, Dagger, I am mindful of a number of cases decided by the Board including its decision in "Maritime Employers Association" (Decision No.26; July 23rd, 1999.)

I do not suggest that it is appropriate for a party to constantly revise its negotiating demands and that such can be construed as "bad faith". However, that conduct must be assessed in light of all surrounding circumstances. Further, the Board has indicated that the preferred recourse is a resumption of conciliation based upon the initially tabled demands.

[rudder]

Some posters are trying to draw parallels between the ACPA industrial situation and CUPE. From a technical perspective, there are none. The clock started running with the conciliation application by CUPE many months ago. And now the bell has chimed (twice). There is no such clock running on ACPA.

AC cannot and will not have their customers and other staff on some type of rolling contingency plan. And on the advice of the Minister, may pull the same stunt as Canada Post and lock out the staff to provoke the already drafted legislative settlement. The lockout will cost AC several million even for just one day of disruption, but perhaps the Minister will make sure that AC makes it back in savings within the terms of the legislated solution.

In respect of the Code, the Minister of Labour has stated that in her eminently qualified opinion, the 'process' not working. Watch out for what her version of process will look like. Perhaps it will be no process at all, just terms. CUPW did not get a further opportunity to bargain. And Canada Post didn't want one. And the government is ever mindful that AC has an ongoing and unresolved pension funding problem that will only be aggravated by increased labour costs.

Situational awareness is everything. I am certain that the CUPE Executive have a pretty good idea of what happens next. They would have had a confidential preview from the Minister three weeks ago.

[dagger]

Further, the Board has indicated that the preferred recourse is a resumption of conciliation based upon the initially tabled demands.

I have it under good authority that the two federal mediators appointed under the Code made it plain to CUPE that another rejection means a strike/lockout not a return to bargaining.

You gave a technical argument - a strike notice can go un-used - to try to counter a practical reality: that an employer is not going to continue bargaining under these circumstances. And CUPE needs legislation now to get out of the danger zone the membership has put it in.

Rudder's analysis is basically correct. There will be no rolling 72-hour uncertainty. The minister is going to end this, but if somehow she changes her mind, it's not going to be beneficial to CUPE members.

[Guest 06L06R]

I hope they were watching YYZ last week. Keep working just at a different pace. Really focus on each passenger! Do you job and do it really really well!

[dagger]

I hope they were watching YYZ last week. Keep working just at a different pace. Really focus on each passenger! Do you job and do it really really well!

a. That was declared illegal

b. Some do it out of habit.

[FA@AC]

a. That was declared illegal

There's a lot that FAs could do that wouldn't be illegal that would severely impact AC's operation. If, for example, we began arriving to check in for work at the time AC considers us to be on duty rather than a good 15-20 minutes earlier than that as most of us now do, on time performance would be close to zero.

AC should hope for a way out of this dispute that doesn't involve government intervention. It may now be too late for that, and if it is CUPE is as much to blame as the company is, but both parties should still hope for a solution that doesn't leave front line employees unhappy.

[dagger]

There's a lot that FAs could do that wouldn't be illegal that would severely impact AC's operation. If, for example, we began arriving to check in for work at the time AC considers us to be on duty rather than a good 15-20 minutes earlier than that as most of us now do, on time performance would be close to zero.

AC should hope for a way out of this dispute that doesn't involve government intervention. It may now be too late for that, and if it is CUPE is as much to blame as the company is, but both parties should still hope for a solution that doesn't leave front line employees unhappy.

The example you give would probably be subject to a CIRB injunction through the application of estoppel.

Estoppel simply works on the principle of fairness. It isn't fair for an employer or union to suddenly effect change when, through practice, words, or silence, they have led the counter-party to believe that a certain way of doing things will continue.

[FA@AC]

The example you give would probably be subject to a CIRB injunction through the application of estoppel.

It might be, but I imagine that the employer would first need to be able to demonstrate that a concerted campaign was underway, and that might not be easy to do. Even if the CIRB did intervene, I don't see how anybody could be sanctioned simply for showing up to work on time rather than early. Something as simple as following TC regulations to the letter would also create disruption, and AC would want to tread carefully on seeking CIRB injunctions on that one as they can't run afoul of TC rules.

I'm personally not interested in joining a campaign to show displeasure at government intervention should it be the outcome of this dispute. I voted to strike, and I voted to reject TA2. If we're legislated back to work or prevented from striking in the first place, I'll just swallow it and get on with things. Despite my view that we should be allowed to strike I know who pays my salary and I don't believe in venting displeasure over our industrial relations situation at our customers. Many feel the way I do, but a large number are of a different mindset, and I think that it is very much in AC's interest to settle things outside arbitration.

[conehead]

I hope they were watching YYZ last week. Keep working just at a different pace. Really focus on each passenger! Do you job and do it really really well!

And they seem to be doing it again this morning...

[Dork]

Estoppel goes boths ways. Careful what you wish for.

Dork

[conehead]

Estoppel

Estoppel is a very important and often misunderstood doctrine of

fairness. Even where the collective agreement or an employer

policy clearly does not establish an entitlement, a separate

question may arise as to whether “fairness” would prevent its

strict application.

A frequently cited description of the doctrine of estoppel was

provided by Lord Denning in the famous English case of Combe v

Combe 1 .

The principle, as I understand it, is that where one party has,

by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or

assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations

between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once

the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it,

the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot

afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal

relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made

by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to

the qualification which he himself has so introduced, even

though it is not supported in point of law by any

consideration, but only by his word.

[mrlupin]

It might be, but I imagine that the employer would first need to be able to demonstrate that a concerted campaign was underway, and that might not be easy to do. Even if the CIRB did intervene, I don't see how anybody could be sanctioned simply for showing up to work on time rather than early. Something as simple as following TC regulations to the letter would also create disruption, and AC would want to tread carefully on seeking CIRB injunctions on that one as they can't run afoul of TC rules.

From what I have seen in the past, the corporation will look to the various communication sources used by the unions. They will then try to identify the leaders of the concerted action. And once found, it is there that they will strike with the full force of their lawyers (who are on retainers and ready for work at a moments notice). The actions of the corporate entity are usually so strong, that it resistance is futile. It is like a David against a troop of Goliaths struggle. It is nearly impossible to defend oneself unless you are yourself a lawyer and want to drag it out in court. (in which case, if you were independently rich and had lawyers skills and connections a la Elliot Spitzer, you could have tons of fun with the whole process)

Justice is absent when a corporation with a group of lawyers attacks, they are out to intimidate, bully and they instill fear in the victims...

[Dork]

People around the world are simply fed up. Unions don't organise anything these days. Emloyees just are tired of watching the corporate greed which is globally systemic. Legislate that.

Time for work...time for pay. Simple as that.

Dork

[DEFCON]

“Rudder's analysis is basically correct. There will be no rolling 72-hour uncertainty. The minister is going to end this, but if somehow she changes her mind, it's not going to be beneficial to CUPE members.”

Doesn’t or won’t Government intervention represent the application of the doctrine of ‘Too Big to Fail’? In reality, if I was the owner of a small federally regulated business and facing strike action by my employees, I’m pretty certain the power of the Minister wouldn’t be available to resolve my problems.

A further question might follow; does interventionist action on the part of government produce unexpected negative corollary results? For instance; will or does a corporation’s size necessitate management dependency on government ‘action’ to ‘manage’ its labour issues? The ‘policy’ leads to a number of interesting potential consequences.

[dagger]

"Rudder's analysis is basically correct. There will be no rolling 72-hour uncertainty. The minister is going to end this, but if somehow she changes her mind, it's not going to be beneficial to CUPE members."

Doesn't or won't Government intervention represent the application of the doctrine of 'Too Big to Fail'? In reality, if I was the owner of a small federally regulated business and facing strike action by my employees, I'm pretty certain the power of the Minister wouldn't be available to resolve my problems.

A further question might follow; does interventionist action on the part of government produce unexpected negative corollary results? For instance; will or does a corporation's size necessitate management dependency on government 'action' to 'manage' its labour issues? The 'policy' leads to a number of interesting potential consequences.

All policy has consequences. If the government stopped taking airport rent and abolished the Air Canada Public Participation Act and its related requirements, the government could introduce a significantly different, more competitive aviation policy. The addiction to these revenues and fear of policy ramifications (if AC were to close maintenance bases, or move HQ out of Quebec) is felt in the need to restrict carriers like EK and to intervene in AC's labor relations.

[Don Hudson]

“Rudder's analysis is basically correct. There will be no rolling 72-hour uncertainty. The minister is going to end this, but if somehow she changes her mind, it's not going to be beneficial to CUPE members.”

Doesn’t or won’t Government intervention represent the application of the doctrine of ‘Too Big to Fail’? In reality, if I was the owner of a small federally regulated business and facing strike action by my employees, I’m pretty certain the power of the Minister wouldn’t be available to resolve my problems.

A further question might follow; does interventionist action on the part of government produce unexpected negative corollary results? For instance; will or does a corporation’s size necessitate management dependency on government ‘action’ to ‘manage’ its labour issues? The ‘policy’ leads to a number of interesting potential consequences.

Hi DEFCON;

I don't think this government, (any government) is that sophisticated, thoughtful or anticipatory. It is the policy of this government's leadership to be pro-business, anti-labour. There's nothing inherently wrong with being pro-business as that's what makes the world go 'round but being anti-labour, (ie, not permitting/requiring business itself to handle labour matters) is a different matter.

It isn't the notion of "too big to fail" that is at work here. "Your" employees in your hypothetical federally-regulated business don't matter because they aren't big enough to be an example to labour of what will happen every time labour exerts its earned right to bargain collectively. This isn't about a "necessary service", and even if it was, bargaining collectively is how business and labour should sort out their differences. This government's response is Nanny-statism for business...same stuff the NDP is made of, just a different group is being supported by government action. There are processes in place in labour law to permit these negotiations to continue even if the result is med-arb. Mr. Harper needs to be a true conservative and let business be.

Somebody here said on another thread that the government should "Reaganize" the Security people. The present government's response is a right-down-the-middle mini-me approach. Security people on an illegal job action? It is laughable...of all groups to organize and take such steps, but there it is.

These approaches to labour in Canada are actually well behind the times in terms of imaginative solutions to a political economy that is now passé - solutions are to be found not in "either/or", (the only way Bush II was capable of perceiving the world), but in ways forward that make both sides mutually angry but closer to something that looks like "cooperative" and open in terms of discussability. Stephen Harper is far, far brighter than Bush II and while he has been able to keep a lid on the hungry-right within his group, these notions of smacking labour down before they begin to expect too much, smell of old fears and new liberalism.

Employees are angry with multi-million-dollar CEOs being rewarded for failure, (nothing succeeds like failure, and nothing fails like success), while they, employees, are being cast as the bad guys who "owe it to their employer" to give until it hurts in the hunt for profit. The "Occupy X" movement does indeed have an agenda and goals, they just don't know it. It is all about this anger...not anger about profit per se but about "The 1% Factor", and is why it will gather steam, but of course will fail in the short term because they don't have any power. Business doesn't need to be "ousted", it needs to change the reality, AND the optics...

Of course, we could run things like Singapore runs them. After all, isn't control of a thinking population under the rule of law a good thing?

Don

[Don Hudson]

All policy has consequences. If the government stopped taking airport rent and abolished the Air Canada Public Participation Act and its related requirements, the government could introduce a significantly different, more competitive aviation policy. The addiction to these revenues and fear of policy ramifications (if AC were to close maintenance bases, or move HQ out of Quebec) is felt in the need to restrict carriers like EK and to intervene in AC's labor relations.

Precisely.

[better4me]

Labour minister to block Air Canada flight attendants from going on strike

MONTREAL — Labour minister Lisa Raitt says the government is calling on the Canada Industrial Relations Board to deal with Air Canada's failed negotiations with its flight attendants.

She says referring the matter to the labour relations board will prevent nearly 7,000 flight attendants at Canada's largest airline from going on strike on Thursday.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1067829--labour-minister-to-block-air-canada-flight-attendants-from-going-on-strike?bn=1

[Seeker]

#@^%{;*^#@#^%$#@!!!

[Don Hudson]

#@^%{;*^#@#^%$#@!!!

Well, they're not true conservatives, are they? They interfere with private enterprise just as much if not more than those "socialist" NDPr's and Liberals.

People in all employments may hate unions as much as malcolm has expressed but these organizations are the only barrier between ordinary people and this clear example of rule-by-decree. That standard swings both ways and next time it may be one's own ox being gored instead of someone else's. Why ordinary workers so hate the only organizations which used to stand up against both private greed and the government which facilitates such greed through the rule of law is truly a mystery.

There is no recourse, democratic or otherwise, for employees in this affair, and even though we may strongly agree with this government that the FA's should not strike, it is the right to protest under the law that is being disrespected by this law-and-order government, in favour of business. This is the kind of behaviour that causes people to look twice at "Occupy X" alternatives. There must always be a safety valve and that is med-arb in this case, but Stephen Harper has a majority and we are now seeing just what that means.

[AIP]

The game has changed again.

CTVNews.ca Staff

Date: Tue. Oct. 11 2011 6:05 PM ET

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt says she will refer the two failed attempts between Air Canada and its flight attendants to reach a deal to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which prohibits a possible strike until the agency issues a ruling on the case.

Raitt told CTV's Power Play Tuesday that she intends to refer the issue to the CIRB on Wednesday, and while the agency is probing the matter, "there cannot be a work stoppage."

"It's not only about the work stoppage and the notice of the strike, but it's the overall way in which the ratification failed," Raitt said of why she wants the CIRB to examine the matter.

Raitt said while the board could render "a quick decision," it can take all the time it needs to interview all the parties to find out how the Canadian Union of Public Employees reached two agreements with the airline that flight attendants then failed to ratify.

She also said that as a back-up plan, the government does have a notice on the order paper of its intent to introduce back-to-work legislation if flight attendants eventually do strike.

On Sunday, CUPE announced that nearly two-thirds of the flight attendants who took part in a Sunday vote did not support the deal that had been negotiated with Air Canada.

That has put the flight attendants in a legal position to strike at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Air Canada has said it is preparing for the likely possibility that its 6,800 flight attendants could be headed off the job.

Duncan Dee, the chief operating officer of Air Canada, said the airline is "perplexed" as to why its flight attendants rejected back-to-back deals.

"We are perplexed and disappointed that two tentative agreements negotiated in good faith with and unanimously recommended by the democratically elected representatives of our flight attendants have failed to be ratified," Dee said in a statement posted to the Air Canada website earlier Tuesday.

"Air Canada remains hopeful that a disruption can be avoided."

In any case, the airline says it intends to offer a partial schedule should a strike ensue.

The flight attendants rejected a prior tentative agreement in August, which sent union negotiators into a new set of talks with Air Canada that produced the deal that was turned down Sunday.

Airline analyst Karl Moore told CTV's Canada AM that there are some flight attendants who are now calling for heads to roll, after union representatives offered members two unsatisfactory deals in a row.

"The members just don't feel this is what they want to get out of Air Canada and so voted it (the latest deal) down, and a number of members have gone to set up a petition to oust some of the union officials," Moore said Tuesday morning.

"So there's some differences between the officials and the rank and file members of the union."

Some of the key issues in the dispute between the flight attendants and the airline include wages, pensions, crew rest, working conditions and work rules.

Raitt said Tuesday she was told by union officials that they had received 80 per cent of what they asked for, so it is unclear "what the difficulty is."

"In this case, we've got a situation where two times you've had unanimous recommendation of a deal and two times ratification has failed," Raitt said. "We want to know why, what happened, and we want the parties to talk about what their process was, and maybe there's something that happened within the ratification vote that the CIRB can take a look at."

Moore said it is rare for Ottawa to force union members back to work, but like in the recent postal strike, it is the government's view that an Air Canada work stoppage would harm the economy.

"The argument they are making is that Canada Post, and in this case Air Canada, are so important to our economy that we can't afford to have them out," said Moore.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111011/air-canada-flight-attendants-strike-option-111011/#ixzz1aWCg9gml

[FA@AC]

It will be interesting to see whether the CIRB views the government's move as a tactic to undermine our right to strike until legislation can be passed and thus tosses it immediately, or if they see the referral as legit and take time to consider it.

[Spinnaker]

I imagine that "Sexxy Lisa Raitt" may need to travel WestJet the way she is making friends at AC! I can't imagine her getting very good service....

[FA@AC]

I imagine that "Sexxy Lisa Raitt" may need to travel WestJet the way she is making friends at AC! I can't imagine her getting very good service....

Actually, she might be making very good friends of the bigwigs at HQ. There's a story on our discussion group about Raitt having been given an upgrade recently on the instructions of one of our executives. It's unsubstantiated and could well be BS, but if there's any truth to it she's popular in the executive offices.