Exception To The Rule?

[UpperDeck]

There must be some form of special arrangement.

In a recent Newsletter, JMB said;

"The NC is travelling to Ottawa today to meet with our legal team. They are forced to travel on standby, contrary to the previous arrangement where they were able to book business confirmed seats for negotiations work. All this while the CEO’s daughter travels on a confirmed business class seat to Florida."

Obviously the reference to the travel privileges exercised by a dependent on vacation is irrelevant. Forget that error in judgment by JMB.

However, I thought to look at the Travel Policies of Air Canada:

"Personal travel privileges provided by Air Canada are solely for the purpose of pleasure/Leisure travel and not for any personal/business venture for the employee, family member or travel partner or on behalf of an individual/company

whether a salary or commission is paid or not."

So---either the NC members are in breach of Air Canada's employee travel policy or they have "special dispensation".

Which is it?

And in another recent Newsletter, JMB said that if you booked off but since he was "not needed", there was no withdrrawal from his sick bank.

Moeman---do FA's have the same "benefit"?

And----are lawyers like weathermen? Apparently, it may not matter how frequently you're wrong; what matters is whether you sound good when expressing your opinion!!

[UpperDeck]

Forgive the typos.

I believe that the agreement permits of travel on union business. My point is that this is a "benefit" not enjoyed by all employees. It should not be the occasion of objection.

However, like everything else, it is far easier to give a benefit without complaint than to later rescind or limit that benefit. Witness the complaints about the re-imposition of service charges.

[Fido]

The intent of positive space travel while on union business is for the union executive to travel to have meetings to discuss agendas with management.

Going to Ottawa to lobby or demonstrate against the government does not seem to fit that case.

[Seeker]

The intent of positive space travel while on union business is for the union executive to travel to have meetings to discuss agendas with management.

I don't think you're correct here. The dispensation to use pos business priority was "union business" whatever it was/is and it was actually rescinded during the last round of roadshows - has nothing to do with going to YOW or any lobbying. It seems clear that it was taken away simply to throw a hurdle up in an attempt to thwart the union (oh, sorry, association) - at least that's the way it's perceived.

[DEFCON]

"at least that's the way it's perceived"

Quite naturally for sure and another example of poor childish game play by management. On the other side then; why all the wonderment when employees behave in equally expressive ways?

From my pov; genuine leadership results in followship while chaotic management can only be expected to generate more of the same from the employee. AC emerged from bankruptcy without any kind of meaningful plan to fix the company, which led to the latest round of employee give-backs and today’s very serious lack of management credibility?

CR clearly doesn't have the background or apparent management support necessary to a sound labour relations strategy. His recent bonus is being seen as just another example of the separation from reality that exists in today’s management / employee relations. Perhaps it’s time for CR to fall on his sword, exit stage left and perhaps allow someone with an actual background in the business to take over?

[airt]

Wasn't there a dustup between Bob Deluce and AC over this issue?

Never did hear how that played out. Maybe it's still in the courts?