TA Vote by FA's

[UpperDeck]

A further explanatory note on the use of this section of the Code:

Continuation of Essential Services -- Sections 87.4, 87.5

Section 87.4(1) requires the parties to a dispute to “continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public.” Either party to a dispute or the Minister may refer any question arising from the operation of section 87.4(1) to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for a determination. Only the Board can make a determination as to whether the parties have complied with the section and make any orders to comply.

The provision requires the parties to compile a list detailing the services, operations or production of goods that must be continued during a strike or lockout, as well as the approximate number of employees that would be required for that purpose (subsection 87.4(2)). If the employer and the union are in agreement as to which services, operations or production of goods are to continue to be provided, such agreement may be filed with the Board, where it will have the effect of a Board order. Where the parties cannot agree on what services or operations are to be continued, the Board may, on application by either party, determine the question.

Section 87.4(5) additionally grants the Minister the power to refer any matter arising from the operation of the essential services provision to the Board for a determination, after notice of a dispute has been given.

The Board may make a range of orders, including an order to designate the services or operations that must be continued, the manner in which they are to be continued, and any other measure it considers appropriate. The Board may also, on application by either the employer or the union (but not by the Minister), order the parties to resolve any disputes by a binding dispute resolution process (effectively binding arbitration) if it is of the view that a strike or lockout would be rendered ineffective by the parties’ compliance with the essential services provisions of the Code (section 87.4(8)).

The term “immediate … danger” has been interpreted expansively. It need not mean imminent or right away or even “very shortly,” but the danger must be expected to occur soon or within a short period of time. (11) The phrase “safety or health of the public” has similarly been interpreted broadly. (12)

During the period when the Board is considering an application by one of the parties or the Minister for a determination on what services or activities of an employer are essential, the employer may not alter wage rates or conditions of employment and may not interfere with the bargaining agent’s rights of representation. (See section 87.5.) This prohibition continues in force until the later of the date on which Board makes its determination and the date that the parties are in a legal strike or lockout situation, as detailed in paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d).

[rudder]

Like I said, any bargaining agent that has a clue what they are doing resolves the essential services issue at the outset of bargaining. In this case, the determination between the parties should have been that there are no services that AC provides using mainline services that are essential. Failing agreement, the matter could have been referred to the CIRB months ago.

[dagger]

Uh huh. And were that to happen, I wonder how long those employees hired to replace the CUPE members would themselves become unionized? Really---do you think AC could long remain a non-union shop?

That aside---mass resignations are highly unlikely but...I was wondering; on what basis can the Minister make a referral to the Board? See the following extract from the Code. Is she jumping the gun? Is everyone flying blind?

87.4 (1) During a strike or lockout not prohibited by this Part, the employer, the trade union and the employees in the bargaining unit must continue the supply of services, operation of facilities or production of goods to the extent necessary to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public......

5) At any time after notice of dispute has been given, the Minister may refer to the Board any question with respect to the application of subsection (1) or any question with respect to whether an agreement entered into by the parties is sufficient to ensure that subsection (1) is complied with.

She's not jumping the gun, though she may be late.

How long would a flight attendant group remain non-union? No one knows, but if they do unionize, it won't be with CUPE!

I'd bet on the CAW, and that would be a good thing for all concerned because the CAW, as a private sector union, tends to be a better communicator with its people about what is possible and what is not. It also tends to send its best negotiator - generally the president, like Lowenza or Hargrove before him - to Air Canada negotiators which adds some weight to the eventual tentative agreement. My lack of respect for CUPE begins with its tendency, as a public sector union invariably in a monopoly relationship with governments, to overstate its case between negotiations out of a view that it doesn't have to be held accountable for what it ends up negotiating. It fires up the troops to unrealistic levels, but can never be broken by the employer because governments don't set out to be anti-union. CUPE is always shocked when municipal governments resist, as they did in Windsor two years ago and as Toronto is attempting to do now.

One thing is certain, as militant as ACPA or CAW might be, they generally are pretty clear-headed that there is an industry out there and that their employer has to be somewhat competitive. CUPE and the IAM, for different reasons, behave publicly as if they are detached from that reality. CUPE is the inheritor of long-standing fissures inherited from CALFAA and Air Canada's one-time status as a Crown Corporation. To CUPE, Air Canada is still a Crown corporation. For the IAM, the fissures relate more to the nature of a bargaining unit structure that combines skilled people (mechanics) with less-skilled (ramp) and tries to make it so ramp piggybacks the mechanics, except that tends to create a situation where the mechanics never get as good as they deserve and ramp (with all due respect to de-icer), overachieves. We all know there should be two unions for those groups and let them get the contracts they deserve on their merits, replaceability, etc. Even the CAW has a split between call centers and airport staff that adds to the airline's expense.

So if I am Air Canada, there is no downside to CUPE members resigning. Even if 6,000 non-union attendants eventually unionize, it will be a reboot situation, with a better union.

[Miles]

The pilots could get away with a mass resignation. The FA's, however, would have their resignations graciously accepted immediately. Sure, a new non-union group of FA's wouldn't stay non-union for long, but they'd be negotiating from the bottom-up, instead of the current top-down reality.

[dagger]

In this case, the determination between the parties should have been that there are no services that AC provides using mainline services that are essential.

The cargo stream might be different than passenger side. There is a chance that AC mainline flies medical supplies, organ donations, isotopes, on some routes where WJ is not present and which are highly time sensitive, even life critical, and so the board will have something to consider. Also, mainline might feed those to the AC Express flights at different hubs in the most practical, time-efficient manner.

[rudder]

The cargo stream might be different than passenger side. There is a chance that AC mainline flies medical supplies, organ donations, isotopes, on some routes where WJ is not present and which are highly time sensitive, even life critical, and so the board will have something to consider. Also, mainline might feed those to the AC Express flights at different hubs in the most practical, time-efficient manner.

If AC and CUPE had agreed in advance that there were no essential service issues, then the issue would have been settled. If they had failed to agree, then the CIRB would have been used as the dispute resolution mechanism on that matter.

Once again, the illustrious Minister of Labour is turning decades of labour practice and jurisprudence on its side in order to advance her party's agenda. If the government wants AC, or portions of AC, labelled as an essential service (akin to police and fire) then she should pursue that objective legislatively.

[cp fa]

Unless someone is fabricating copies of RES printouts showing an upgrade for Lisa Raitt, authorized by Duncan Dee, then it is not BS.

If this document actually exists, shouldn't your union be bringing it to the attention of the ethics commissioner?

[rudder]

But CUPE responded by disagreeing with statements by the airline and Ms. Raitt that a strike had been blocked.

“This is merely an underhanded tactic by the Harper government, to buy time for it to table and pass return-to-work legislation before a strike occurs. This has nothing to do with essential services or health and safety,” CUPE said in an internal memo obtained by The Globe and Mail.

“Let’s call a spade a spade. This government is not your friend. It is trying to take away your right to strike and it will use whatever tools and tricks that it can,” said the memo signed by seven union negotiators with the Air Canada component of CUPE.

The memo argued that Air Canada “has already agreed that flight attendants would not be considered an ‘essential service’ as defined under Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code in this round of bargaining.”

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/12/air-canada-flight-attendants-still-preparing-for-strike/

CUPE now saying that they had an essential service agreement with AC already. Can't wait to see what the submission from the government will be based on. Also. wonder if AC will agree that they had an essential service agreement with CUPE.

[Dropzone]

Hey CUPE

Do not back the government into a corner....it would be a BIG mistake.!

[dagger]

Hey CUPE

Do not back the government into a corner....it would be a BIG mistake.!

http://business.fina...ing-for-strike/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/12/air-canada-flight-attendants.html

[Guest]

Could well be, but then what was Duncan's involvement--if he was involved--all about? If she wasn't going to be upgraded outside the pecking order, I can't see why things couldn't have been handled by an agent (or a kiosk) rather than by a V.P.

In my AC days, the Concierges spent a lot of time jumping through hoops for "high" profile people regardless of what fare they were on. I know plenty of times where upgrades,lounge access, event tickets were tracked down for pseudo celebrities on some pretty cheap fares.

[UpperDeck]

In my AC days, the Concierges spent a lot of time jumping through hoops for "high" profile people regardless of what fare they were on. I know plenty of times where upgrades,lounge access, event tickets were tracked down for pseudo celebrities on some pretty cheap fares.

Geez! Of course the company is willing to "sweeten the coffers"!! That wasn't the point. The issue was simple; should a person with a "statutory power of decision" accept a benefit from one party to a dispute?

Wasn't there a certain politician whose sundeck was "improved" by a contractor who had tendered on a contract? That was deemed not only unethical; it resulted in criminal sanctions.

[dagger]

The minister's order goes beyond health and safety:

Using Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, Raitt cites the rejection of two tentative agreements recommended by the union as a possibility where conditions “are unfavourable to the settlement of the industrial dispute at hand.”

Raitt also suggested if the board determines that such a situation exists, “I hereby direct the board to either impose a new collective agreement on the parties or impose a binding method of resolving outstanding terms of the collective agreement.”

CUPE said Wednesday afternoon that it has just been served with these documents, and its officials and lawyers are reviewing them, before issuing a comment.

Earlier in the day, the union had said it was still planning to strike at 12:01 am Thursday because it had not received any order that would block its legal strike.

[Guest]

The pilots could get away with a mass resignation. The FA's, however, would have their resignations graciously accepted immediately. Sure, a new non-union group of FA's wouldn't stay non-union for long, but they'd be negotiating from the bottom-up, instead of the current top-down reality.

It does not work that way, CUPE is recognized as the representing agent for the FA's at Air Canada as per the CIRB, so if all the FA's resign en masse and Ac hires new ones, the new ones then automatically become CUPE members. The bargaining unit must de-certify CUPE first, and good luck with that!

[Guest]

Geez! Of course the company is willing to "sweeten the coffers"!! That wasn't the point. The issue was simple; should a person with a "statutory power of decision" accept a benefit from one party to a dispute?

Wasn't there a certain politician whose sundeck was "improved" by a contractor who had tendered on a contract? That was deemed not only unethical; it resulted in criminal sanctions.

For the most part, the debate has been around Air Canada's (via a Duncan Dee or whoever) efforts to offer the complimentary upgrade. What I'm saying is that in my past experience they routinely did this and more on a daily basis for B,C,D level celebrities, so I don't see why anyone would be shocked that they would do this for a Minister.

I don't dispute or have an informed opinion about the ethics involved in having the Minister accept the upgrade. My uninformed opinion suspects that Ms. Raitt has received this gesture many times before, witnessed most if not all of her colleagues receive this gesture in the past and likely seen some of the B,C,D level celebrities receive it and decided that she had no obligation to refuse it. I don't think it was a good idea but these things aren't exactly black or white all the time either.

[dagger]

It does not work that way, CUPE is recognized as the representing agent for the FA's at Air Canada as per the CIRB, so if all the FA's resign en masse and Ac hires new ones, the new ones then automatically become CUPE members. The bargaining unit must de-certify CUPE first, and good luck with that!

Ya right, the old employees would have no residual voting rights (having resigned, after all), there would be a lockout in effect, and the replacements would decertify to keep their jobs. How straightforward is that?

[UpperDeck]

For the most part, the debate has been around Air Canada's (via a Duncan Dee or whoever) efforts to offer the complimentary upgrade. What I'm saying is that in my past experience they routinely did this and more on a daily basis for B,C,D level celebrities, so I don't see why anyone would be shocked that they would do this for a Minister.

I don't dispute or have an informed opinion about the ethics involved in having the Minister accept the upgrade. My uninformed opinion suspects that Ms. Raitt has received this gesture many times before, witnessed most if not all of her colleagues receive this gesture in the past and likely seen some of the B,C,D level celebrities receive it and decided that she had no obligation to refuse it. I don't think it was a good idea but these things aren't exactly black or white all the time either.

I intend no disrespect when I suggest that such things should in fact be etched in the moral compass of a politician---but they are not. One in a position of authority cannot afford to live a life that permits of the characterization of certain ethical questions as being within "a grey area". On such issues, there can only be black and white.

Others have referenced the occasions when so-called "celebrities" are upgraded. That is of no consequence. Those individuals presumably can "promote" Air Canada and the company derives a benefit. Those individuals do NOT however, have legislative authority over the airline and/or its employees. I believe that the "special dispensation" for Ms.Raitt from Duncan Dee was on Sept. 25th, 2011. That was in the midst of this process!!

I worked for an individual who had been a member of the Trudeau cabinet. When she flew in "J", she paid for the privilege. Ed Broadbent was a pax on a flight when I was commuting and I think he reveled in his seat in "Y". He certainly didn't hesitate to exchange kind words with those around. Another example was Andrew Young, the mayor of Atlanta. You'd think Delta might bestow a favour or two but no---there he was back in the boonies with the rest of us "common folk". Perhaps any of those people could have given a "wink and a nod" for an upgrade. Perhaps their character is evidenced by the fact they did not.

[livin']

Conflict of interest?

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/videos/160458

[Guest]

Ya right, the old employees would have no residual voting rights (having resigned, after all), there would be a lockout in effect, and the replacements would decertify to keep their jobs. How straightforward is that?

Dagger, why must you always be the eternal A-hole, I do not make the rules. Have you ever dealt with the CIRB?????? It is not as cut and dry as you suggest, the CIRB very rarely if ever decert a union, it has to be some very serious allegations via a section 37 to be considered.You can not just walk into the CIRB and say, we do not like the CUPE and want to decert, the CIRB will laugh in your face.

[UpperDeck]

In my opinion, the FAs should be allowed to strike and then let the chips fall where they may. Seldom any winners on either side. I wonder if they did strike, would any one, support them by honouring their picket lines?

Everyone seems to have it a little ass backwards---maybe. CUPE required a strike vote selling the necessity of a strong "Yes" vote to communicate their solidarity and to give their bargaining committee some suasive force. The membership gave them that mandate.

The bargaining committee returned with a wholly unsatisfactory agreement which was rejected. The committee and union didn't go back to the "drawing board"; they served a strike notice! The Minister threatened intervention and negotiations resumed and the strike notice expired whilst a new agreement was drawn. Again the agreement was rejected by the membership. That "new agreement" was negotiated and recommended by the same group who had recommended the first rejected agreement!

Again, a strike notice was served.

Where in that process did the union member get the opportunity to say; "I don't want to withdraw my services or threaten to withdraw those services until I am satisfied that every reasonable effort has been expended to find common ground to address the needs and expectations of the employee group."?

Exactly which term or terms of the latest agreement were pivotal in the decision of the membership to reject the proposal? Can that even be ascertained? If the duty day -4 provision was implemented in 6 months; the first and second year wage increase 3%; and some acknowledgment forthcoming about the sanctity of pass priority and the levying of service charges---would that result in labour peace with the flight attendants? The only cost of those possible concessions is limited to the additional 1% wage increase. Nothing I have read identifies the LCC or pension plan adjustments as a "thorn".

Bottom line----I don't think a majority of the employees want to strike unless and until they've exhausted bargaining options and I think the same majority want negotiations conducted on their behalf by a differently constituted panel. Until that happens, everyone is chasing their tail---and exhausting scarce political resources where they are as yet not required.

[boestar]

I intend no disrespect when I suggest that such things should in fact be etched in the moral compass of a politician---but they are not. One in a position of authority cannot afford to live a life that permits of the characterization of certain ethical questions as being within "a grey area". On such issues, there can only be black and white.

Others have referenced the occasions when so-called "celebrities" are upgraded. That is of no consequence. Those individuals presumably can "promote" Air Canada and the company derives a benefit. Those individuals do NOT however, have legislative authority over the airline and/or its employees. I believe that the "special dispensation" for Ms.Raitt from Duncan Dee was on Sept. 25th, 2011. That was in the midst of this process!!

I worked for an individual who had been a member of the Trudeau cabinet. When she flew in "J", she paid for the privilege. Ed Broadbent was a pax on a flight when I was commuting and I think he reveled in his seat in "Y". He certainly didn't hesitate to exchange kind words with those around. Another example was Andrew Young, the mayor of Atlanta. You'd think Delta might bestow a favour or two but no---there he was back in the boonies with the rest of us "common folk". Perhaps any of those people could have given a "wink and a nod" for an upgrade. Perhaps their character is evidenced by the fact they did not.

Back in those Trudeau days Ministers of Parliament did not pay for the privledge to fly on AC. As AC was the government owned flag carrier government officials flew on "complimentary tickets" This process ceased when the airline was privitized.

[deicer]

[deicer]

If this document actually exists, shouldn't your union be bringing it to the attention of the ethics commissioner?

Proof in the pudding...

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/videos/160458

Edited to add,,,

Oops, didn't see it higher up, but still worth repeating

[dagger]

Dagger, why must you always be the eternal A-hole, I do not make the rules. Have you ever dealt with the CIRB?????? It is not as cut and dry as you suggest, the CIRB very rarely if ever decert a union, it has to be some very serious allegations via a section 37 to be considered.You can not just walk into the CIRB and say, we do not like the CUPE and want to decert, the CIRB will laugh in your face.

If the application is made at least six months into a strike/lockout, and the evidence of support for the petition is clear, not only will the federal board grant the request, it may do so without a vote.

This would not be an intra-union schism, but a straightforward case of the members of the unit showing sufficiently strong interest in de-certifying. The premise of the original post is that the current flight attendants have resigned - and therefore are irrelevant to the labor dispute - and the replacement employees have taken a stand against CUPE.

Decertification can even happen in the federal public sector.

http://www.yorku.ca/...lawblog/?p=2569

[Guest]

If the application is made at least six months into a strike/lockout, and the evidence of support for the petition is clear, not only will the federal board grant the request, it may do so without a vote.

This would not be an intra-union schism, but a straightforward case of the members of the unit showing sufficiently strong interest in de-certifying. The premise of the original post is that the current flight attendants have resigned - and therefore are irrelevant to the labor dispute - and the replacement employees have taken a stand against CUPE.

Decertification can even happen in the federal public sector.

http://www.yorku.ca/...lawblog/?p=2569

And how do you think you are going to convince Lisa Ratt to allow a 6 month strike????? I have first hand dealings with the CIRB, they answer to no one. Just this year we made an application to break away the maintenance group from the IAM, supplied with supporting documentation from HRDC and the NOC clearly demonstrating the unit was not appropriate, the CIRB denied and refused to explain as to why the application was declined except to say that in their opinion the unit was proper. Now listen real close, the CIRB is not there for the members of a union, they are there to protect the unions or the employers, we the members are the ones who are sent to slaughter.