Westjet Pilots Begin Union Vote — What's At Stake?

[DEFCON]

"Last week, WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky said he doesn't believe the company's relationship with its workers will change, regardless of the outcome of the vote."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this statement run contrary to at least a couple attributed to him prior to the vote?

[Guest]

"Last week, WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky said he doesn't believe the company's relationship with its workers will change, regardless of the outcome of the vote."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this statement run contrary to at least a couple attributed to him prior to the vote?

Could be he sees the handwriting on the side of the aircraft and knows he will have to mend fences with the pilots.

[Zan Vetter]

Denial

Anger

Bargaining

Depression

Acceptance<--------Gregg Saretzky

[airt]

GS will deal with the situation as directed by the BOD. Might as well say as directed by CB.

If the pilots vote YES , I believe they are in for some surprises.

[dagger]

GS will deal with the situation as directed by the BOD. Might as well say as directed by CB.

If the pilots vote YES , I believe they are in for some surprises.

The problem with the latter approach is that the relationship with pilots could deteriorate almost overnight, at a considerable cost to the company in both financial and performance terms, and of course a deterioration in performance will also end up costing Westjet financially. We've seen how the ups and downs in the AC-ACPA relationship have ramifications for the overall performance of the company and its stock. When relations have been at their worst, some pilots adopt a clearly adversarial relationship in the performance of their duties. Like calling in sick at inopportune times, or not being available when the ops centre needs extra flight crews. On the other hand, when the relationship is more positive, and both sides are trying to maintain a positive environment of mutual respect, things can work well for the company.

So if GS responds to a yes with vindictiveness, I'd guess that the pilots will find a way to exact their pound of flesh, too. Hopefully, there would be board members who aren't afflicted with a cowboy mentality and insist on restraint from the management side of the table.

[CanadaEH]

Vote is no

[rudder]

Unofficial result - 55% NO.

[Guest]

Now official according to the cbc except for the mandatory review by the CIRB

WestJet pilots vote against forming union

After 2 weeks of voting, the majority of the airline's pilots say no to a union

By Tracy Johnson and Kyle Bakx, CBC News Posted: Aug 05, 2015 4:06 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 05, 2015 4:33 PM ET

The drive to form a union for WestJet pilots has been going on for nearly two years, but a vote shot down the idea. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

The majority of WestJet's nearly 1,300 pilots have voted against forming a union at the Calgary-based airline, according to the WestJet Professional Pilots Association.

The decision comes after a nearly two-year campaign and two weeks of secret ballot voting.

In a release on its Facebook page, the WPPA said that 1,247 pilots voted — 561 voted yes, while 684 voted no, with two spoiled ballots, resulting in 55 per cent of pilots voting against certification.

The WPPA said that it was disappointed with the result.

"We hope the open discussions that have taken place as part of this process will set the stage for constructive dialogue between our pilots and WestJet leadership going forward," the group said in the release.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board said it will examine the results before they are considered official.

[dagger]

With a 55-45 result, this battle is going to be fought again before long.

[Guest]

With a 55-45 result, this battle is going to be fought again before long.

Let us hope it does not impede the operation.....

[John S.]

I don't know the exact number of WestJet pilots but I'm thinking that the number of non-voting pilots is probably more than 5%.

If that is true then that whole airline is in for some very difficult years.

They will get through it, but it will not be as much fun to work there as it was ten years ago.

[airt]

I believe 1247 of 1266 pilots voted.

An exceptional turnout that I don't think I have ever seen before in ANY democratic voting process

[Guest]

I don't know the exact number of WestJet pilots but I'm thinking that the number of non-voting pilots is probably more than 5%.

If that is true then that whole airline is in for some very difficult years.

They will get through it, but it will not be as much fun to work there as it was ten years ago.

If you read the CBC news release that I posted: In a release on its Facebook page, the WPPA said that 1,247 pilots voted — 561 voted yes, while 684 voted no, with two spoiled ballots, resulting in 55 per cent of pilots voting against certification.

[ILB]

98.5% turnout.

[MD2]

Hmmm...between YES and NO two people managed to spoil their ballots!

With this result, the near future transition is going to be critical for the leadership...

[Johnny]

Anyone know why the Encore Pilots weren't included in the vote? Can't help but think the results would have been substantially different.

[Lakelad]

.
Union drive at WestJet highlights current tensions in labour policy

Thu Aug 06, 2015 - Globe and Mail
David Doorey
(David Doorey is a professor of labour law at York University)

The much-hyped unionization bid by WestJet pilots is over, for now. On Wednesday, a small majority of WestJet pilots voted against being represented by an independent union. Fifty-five per cent of the pilots voted to remain non-union, while 45 per cent voted to unionize.

On one hand, the WestJet story is just a footnote in Canadian labour history, another close but unsuccessful attempt at unionization. But if we step back, we can see in the WestJet story some important themes that speak to the most pressing tensions in labour policy debates in Canada today.

The story of the WestJet pilots is ultimately a story about the search for a meaningful collective voice at work. Since the 1940s, the mechanism through which governments promoted or tolerated collective worker voice was through a particular institutional form: majority trade unionism. If a majority of employees wanted collective rather than individual bargaining, they could join a union and the state would order the employer to bargain with the union. In limited circumstances, those unionized workers could even strike to pressure their employer for a better deal without fear of losing their jobs.

That model worked well enough in its time, but more recently, fewer workers have access to it. Only about 15 per cent of private-sector workers are unionized in Canada, down from 26 per cent in the mid-1980s. Yet, we know from surveys that workers want a collective voice in the workplace, although many would prefer that representation to be “less adversarial” than traditional collective bargaining. There are well-documented personal and business-related benefits associated with having an effective collective worker voice.

Therefore, policy makers are asking whether our laws should promote alternative forms of collective employee voice as a supplement or even a substitute for traditional collective bargaining. Two experts selected recently to lead Ontario’s review of labour laws posed the following question in their guide to public consultations: “Are new models of worker representation, including, potentially, other forms of union representation, needed beyond what is currently provided?” How we answer this question could have dramatic effects on the Canadian labour-relations landscape for years to come.

'For unions and advocates of collective bargaining, all this talk of legally mandated alternative forms of employee representation is deeply concerning'

.

[Guest JSYK]

Anyone know why the Encore Pilots weren't included in the vote? Can't help but think the results would have been substantially different.

Because WestJet and PACT (pilots sub-unit called WJPA specifically) said that WestJet should not buy and operate Dash-8-Q400s as another fleet type (like we are now going to do with the 767 or did previously with NG/-200s). It had to be a separate company in all respects and pilots could not be integrated with 737 pilots in case there were to be a merger (with Porter was the rumour) or sold off later. WJPA said they must protect the pilots off the street first. After all, this was a "startup" and therefore had to be ultra low pay & costs like WestJet was in 1996. Everyone was told and shown with a nice powerpoint. Any questioning of why it could not merely have been another fleet type was dismissed and those who mentioned that alternative option were ignored.

So, the pilots and all employees were invited to "vote" on whether the company should grow or stagnate. WJ then decided a fully separate company was the only way to go and that was accepted well over 90% by the employees (pilots got separate "vote" from rest of employees and agreed at just under 90%).

WestJet then set up an entirely separate legal company and therefore separate legal employers. Legally separate employers cannot be unionized at the same time together under one unit, unless employer agrees(such as for pilots with Air Canada and Rouge). Each group requires its own drive, own Executive and would have to achieve the (now, under new rules) 40% minimum membership and individually apply to the CIRB for certification. However, if at least one group achieved certification, but ideally both had, there would have been options for the two bargaining units to seek to join or file for Common Employer (nothing like situation with Air Canada Regionals and AC & ACPA whatsoever).

[Seeker]

Because WestJet and PACT (pilots sub-unit called WJPA specifically) said that WestJet should not buy and operate Dash-8-Q400s as another fleet type (like we are now going to do with the 767 or did previously with NG/-200s). It had to be a separate company in all respects and pilots could not be integrated with 737 pilots in case there were to be a merger (with Porter was the rumour) or sold off later. WJPA said they must protect the pilots off the street first. After all, this was a "startup" and therefore had to be ultra low pay & costs like WestJet was in 1996. Everyone was told and shown with a nice powerpoint. Any questioning of why it could not merely have been another fleet type was dismissed and those who mentioned that alternative option were ignored.

So, the pilots and all employees were invited to "vote" on whether the company should grow or stagnate. WJ then decided a fully separate company was the only way to go and that was accepted well over 90% by the employees (pilots got separate "vote" from rest of employees and agreed at just under 90%).

WestJet then set up an entirely separate legal company and therefore separate legal employers. Legally separate employers cannot be unionized at the same time together under one unit, unless employer agrees(such as for pilots with Air Canada and Rouge). Each group requires its own drive, own Executive and would have to achieve the (now, under new rules) 40% minimum membership and individually apply to the CIRB for certification. However, if at least one group achieved certification, but ideally both had, there would have been options for the two bargaining units to seek to join or file for Common Employer (nothing like situation with Air Canada Regionals and AC & ACPA whatsoever).

In other words - the pilots at Encore didn't get to vote because it's better for the company if they don't.

[Zan Vetter]

Sort of, except to say that die was cast prior to Encore's startup.

[Critter]

That and the union...in their own words...didn't have enough cards signed at encore to achieve the 40% threshold to apply.

The incumbent association tried to include Encore, but was unsuccessful. The current pilot list includes Encore pilots and recognizes their date of hire for movement to WestJet and upgrades with no interview.

[J.O.]

Interesting. If the current list includes them, wouldn't excluding them from the vote be a violation of federal labour laws?

[MD2]

Interesting indeed. And, how can employees of legally different entities be on the same list without a claim to commonality of their employer(s)?

[DEFCON]

The answer is simple, when it comes to anything labour, laws that exists to define the lines etc. are obscured by political intent and interference...it's the unholy truth and nature of administrative law.

[Guest JSYK]

That and the union...in their own words...didn't have enough cards signed at encore to achieve the 40% threshold to apply.

The incumbent association tried to include Encore, but was unsuccessful. The current pilot list includes Encore pilots and recognizes their date of hire for movement to WestJet and upgrades with no interview.

No interview however, it is entirely new employment with a standard legal new hire probation (the 6 month probation for upgraded Captains at WestJet is NOT a similar probation, it is in the role not for overall employment). No different than for a pilot hired from anywhere else such as Jazz, Porter etc.

There is no accumulation pay or benefits under the Encore minimum 25% preferential hiring program. Just a number based on Encore date of hire that eventually means bid for upgrade (or 767 FO) ahead of those hired at WestJet after them. It is important to note that this flow arrangement is amendable, revokable and unenforceable by or on WestJet at it's sole discretion. It exists in no legal framework at all.