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

[Guest JSYK]

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

No. Because they are separate companies. No different than Porter or Jazz. Commonality of ownership is not relevant unless there is a certified group(s) claiming that bargaining is being impaired or harmed by common control.

[Guest JSYK]

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

absolutely not, no.

[Zan Vetter]

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.

Nice cozy relationship, move along nothing to see here!

[Critter]

The MOA is a contract agreed to and signed by two parties and is a contract by any definition under common law.

Companies can violate a collective agreement as well. The difference is that a certified group brings their case to the CIRB and the non-union representation takes it directly to the courts. Both would have part one of the Canada Labour Code applied as the airlines are a federally regulated body to which the code applies.

Any quick google search will find several papers on this written by academics as well as law firms.

[Seeker]

No. Because they are separate companies. No different than Porter or Jazz. Commonality of ownership is not relevant unless there is a certified group(s) claiming that bargaining is being impaired or harmed by common control.

Yes, well, that's my point. There's no reason to create Encore as another, separate, company other than to divide the employees into different groups - makes it harder to organize, opens opportunities for whipsaw, etc, etc.

[Guest JSYK]

The MOA is a contract agreed to and signed by two parties and is a contract by any definition under common law.

Companies can violate a collective agreement as well. The difference is that a certified group brings their case to the CIRB and the non-union representation takes it directly to the courts. Both would have part one of the Canada Labour Code applied as the airlines are a federally regulated body to which the code applies.

Any quick google search will find several papers on this written by academics as well as law firms.

Absolutely false. Let's rely on facts not Google searches, please. Part I of the Code is not applicable to pilots at WestJet beyond the protections it affords to those who seek to be involved in or support the lawful activities of a union. That is from the top labour law firms in Canada and now, the CIRB as well. Also, that is WestJet's own stated position in their evidence before the Board. Each pilot is traditionally employed in accordance with their respective, generic, standard, "Offer of Employment letter", nothing more. Common law applies to the rights afforded any non-union employee, anywhere else in Canada, such as at Tim Horton's. It establishes that the employment relationship exists. These "MoA"s, "pilot agreements" etc. does not afford any additional rights. Your assertion otherwise is not based in fact nor law.

Since you mention academics, did you read the article in the Globe & Mail yesterday from the York University professor, David Doorey (referenced above)? PACT has no legal status. The "agreements" it "negotiates" are non-binding upon the employer.

There are no "two parties" in this situation. That is another misconception. WestJet pilots are individually employed only. PACT (therefore WJPA) is NOT an authorized bargaining agent for the pilots. It has never obtained agency as any entity is required to in order to act on the behalf of others.

The CIRB made this clear on August 5th, 2015, "Reasons for Decision - Board file 31149-C".

"[35] In the current circumstances, the WJPA has no status under the Code and cannot purport to have rights to represent the pilots in their wish to be collectively represented for negotiations of terms and conditions of employment. If a group of employees wish to avail themselves of their rights under the Code, they are free to do so and are afforded certain protections in the exercise of that right."

[Longranger]

Absolutely false. Let's rely on facts not Google searches, please. Part I of the Code is not applicable to pilots at WestJet beyond the protections it affords to those who seek to be involved in or support the lawful activities of a union. That is from the top labour law firms in Canada and now, the CIRB as well. Also, that is WestJet's own stated position in their evidence before the Board. Each pilot is traditionally employed in accordance with their respective, generic, standard, "Offer of Employment letter", nothing more. Common law applies to the rights afforded any non-union employee, anywhere else in Canada, such as at Tim Horton's. It establishes that the employment relationship exists. These "MoA"s, "pilot agreements" etc. does not afford any additional rights. Your assertion otherwise is not based in fact nor law.

Since you mention academics, did you read the article in the Globe & Mail yesterday from the York University professor, David Doorey (referenced above)? PACT has no legal status. The "agreements" it "negotiates" are non-binding upon the employer.

There are no "two parties" in this situation. That is another misconception. WestJet pilots are individually employed only. PACT (therefore WJPA) is NOT an authorized bargaining agent for the pilots. It has never obtained agency as any entity is required to in order to act on the behalf of others.

The CIRB made this clear on August 5th, 2015, "Reasons for Decision - Board file 31149-C".

"[35] In the current circumstances, the WJPA has no status under the Code and cannot purport to have rights to represent the pilots in their wish to be collectively represented for negotiations of terms and conditions of employment. If a group of employees wish to avail themselves of their rights under the Code, they are free to do so and are afforded certain protections in the exercise of that right."

JSYK,

You a actually incorrect and do you work for WJ? Quoting only select paragraghs from recent CIRB documents that run over 900 pages and taking statements out of context is no different then your criticisim of the poster who used google search. The agreements that the WJPA has negotiated and signed with the officers of WJ are legal contracts, and the CIRB is not the only way that labour contracts can be legally enforced if required.

As well you are incorrect as Encore pilots bring their years of service with them to WestJet for the purposes of vacation entitlement. As well it is a two way flow, as if WestJet ever laid off pilots, they could bump into Encore instead of being laid off, which will hopefully never happen.

The WJPA has never had to take WJ to court because they have lived up to all the agreements negotiated since the start of the WJPA over 16 years ago. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is not correct, and mimics incorrect information that the WPPA has been spreading.

[Moon The Loon]

JSYK:

Rubbish.

The only difference between a collective agreement agreed upon by an "in house" union ("Pilot's Association") and a union certified by the CIRB is when a dispute arises. With a certified bargaining unit, the CIRB certifies the "union" is the official spokesperson for the group. Without that certification, the company can challenge forever the union's voice.

Learn your law, then come back here to post...

[Guest JSYK]

I love how the first question is always "do you work for WestJet?" whenever the message is not pre-approved by the corporation. That is irrelevant to the discussion/debate. It is either meant to out the person or establish dominance in the conversation, or both.

This quoted point is most clearly contextual to refuting claims by PACT (WJPA) that they exercise any rights to represent the pilots at WestJet. It is not merely selective, as you suggest, it is a direct judgement by an authority against such claims. It is most directly relevant and without counter or you would post such in response instead of simply stating that "..documents run over 900 pages..". Implying that there is more to the story without proof of such.

The WestJet "model" is very easy to understand by simply looking at the historical roots of unionization in America. This is a repeat of the events that occurred 100 years ago being replayed now in the Canadian context, in our industry. PACT (WJPA) is a WestJet corporate construct, both in all function and existence. Fully contained within the corporation as a business unit (such as Flight Operations, Marketing etc). It is the most obvious conflict of interest in employee representation possible.

Paragraph 35 is a strict legal point from an actual ruling, under actual labour law, recently provided by the CIRB to WestJet. It is public record. Unfortunate that it did not come out prior to the vote. Also, it is a direct repudiation addressed to the WJPA, by the CIRB, of the specific argument you attempt to make above. That is undeniable.

The CIRB, acting under Part I of the Code, is the only legal authorization in this country with respect to all collective (as in group) bargaining & agreements between employers and employees, full stop. If WestJet pilots want to have actual agreements collectively negotiated, in good faith and applied(binding on the employer), as the CIRB indicates in that quoted point, they must appropriately organize.

Individual employment contracts are negotiated by individuals. Collective agreements are negotiated by agents. WJPA is not the legal bargaining agent for the pilots at WestJet. It has never obtained agency, as required under the law and denies that part I of the Code is applicable to it, except when convenient i.e.; when protesting the right for the WPPA to be allowed to apply for a certification vote.

[Guest JSYK]

JSYK:

Rubbish.

The only difference between a collective agreement agreed upon by an "in house" union ("Pilot's Association") and a union certified by the CIRB is when a dispute arises. With a certified bargaining unit, the CIRB certifies the "union" is the official spokesperson for the group. Without that certification, the company can challenge forever the union's voice.

Learn your law, then come back here to post...

Incorrect. The WJPA is NOT an in-house union. They and WestJet deny they are a union at all times before the Board.

If they are a union, and they certainly by statements like yours, are implying to the uninformed that they act as such, then as per the Code they are illegal because they are supported, dominated, influenced and inappropriate (PACT covers professional with non-professional employees in one group) for bargaining.

You are confusing legitimate, arm's length, voluntarily recognized trade unions which have not been certified with the not equivalent, not arm's length, company business unit called PACT/WJPA.

You Sir, do not know the circumstances nor the law. So go learn the law and the facts yourself! (Nice 5 year old type response by the way).

( Too bad you had to throw in the insult, could have been a good discussion. But, just like we see at WestJet, when facts and truth get in the way, insults and attacks and even threatening the individuals begins. This was a contributing factor, in my opinion, why the vote failed, this time.)

[Guest]

Did the pilots at some point vote to allow the WJPA to represent them or was this simply a management decision and part and parcel of their PACT program?

[DEFCON]

When the economy burps and the musical seats game begins in earnest at WJ a real union will be installed in no time. When that day does finally come, the pressure for 'union help' will be great and immediate making it quite unlikely that the representative organization will be home grown; time constraints will necessitate letting either ALPA, or the CAW through the door.

[Critter]

JSYK.

Accusing one of 5 year old typing skills is clearly meant to do exactly what you've accused others of doing. Using insults as a way to degrade the other parties points.

Since you've brought up unionization in America, I feel it's only fair to point out that discussions regarding non union representation happened in Canada in 1943 during the National War Labour Board hearings. Canada decisively elected not to follow the Wagner Act of 1935 which declared non union representation illegal in the States. This repeat of events of 100 years ago you refer to has already been put to bed and non union representation has a level of legal status in Canada as long as the intent was to provide employees with a voice and not to thwart union drives.

You have also refered to the cozy relationship between management and the WJPA and I can attest 100% that this is false. The WJPA has pushed for change. Not only within it's structure, but within the company as well and are far from the "yes men" you seem to be inferring.

[thor]

JSYK, are you still on med leave?

[Guest JSYK]

JSYK, are you still on med leave?

A) why would I tell you? Who are you? Why is that necessary for you to know in this context?

B ) what does that have to do with the topic discussed?

C) is this question a thinly veiled attempt to imply that I am "sick"? (Thus to attempt discredit the arguments of facts and law I make which challenge the false claims made by some in this thread.)

This is very typical passive-agressive type behaviour by "WestJetters". Excellent at stifling debate, casting doubt based on the "who" versus the "what" in any discussion. Definitely a contributing factor in why 45% of the pilots do support legitimate, legally recognized, arm's length representation now.

[Guest JSYK]

Did the pilots at some point vote to allow the WJPA to represent them or was this simply a management decision and part and parcel of their PACT program?

The WJPA is merely a subordinate part of PACT covering all employees under one umbrella.

No, the WJPA did not properly obtain any rights from the pilots to be allowed to represent them. Point 35 of the August 5, 2015 CIRB decision is directly aimed at WJPA's claim they do represent pilots and refutes it.

[Fido]

I am purely an outsider in this bun toss, but I wonder

'What needs to be changed at Westjte so badly that there is a need for a union'?

[Guest]

The WJPA is merely a subordinate part of PACT covering all employees under one umbrella.

No, the WJPA did not properly obtain any rights from the pilots to be allowed to represent them. Point 35 of the August 5, 2015 CIRB decision is directly aimed at WJPA's claim they do represent pilots and refutes it.

Thanks for the information. I see that Encore is mentioned as being included in the WJPA on the PACT page but not on the WJPA web site. I guess the WJPA site is just not up to date or ?

From the PACT website: http://wjpact.ca/wp/wjpa-westjet-pilots-association/

JPA – WESTJET PILOTS ASSOCIATION

• Home
• WJPA – WestJet Pilots Association

Our commitment to our WestJet and WestJet Encore pilots has been to represent their best interests at all levels of the company. Below are a few examples of how we’ve maintained this commitment in 2014. Many of these accomplishments were achieved through collaboration with PACT, its other subgroups and the WestJet leadership team.

• Pilot agreement - We reached a tentative agreement in late November 2014 and WestJet pilots voted in favour of the agreement a few weeks later.
• Wide-Body Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) - To support WestJet’s growth, in June 2014 we negotiated a Wide-Body MOA which outlined the compensation and working conditions that accompany operating long-haul flights.
• Single department list with WestJet and WestJet Encore - To support the flow of and career opportunities for WestJet Encore pilots into WestJet, we negotiated a single department list in July 2014.
• O-fare and standby priority code extensions - To further support WestJet and WestJet Encore pilots in the transition to multi-bases, the WJPA negotiated these extensions.
• Relocation package enhancements - To cover the unexpected land transfer tax costs incurred by pilots when moving, the WJPA and WestJet agreed to a land transfer tax top up.
• The WJPA also re-aligned the relocation packages between WestJet and WestJet Encore pilots.Open time Letter of understanding (LOU) - In November 2014, LOU 7C implemented improvements to company open time flying to support our pilots until a new pilot agreement was voted in.

While this is not an exhaustive list, it does represent some of our biggest initiatives for the year. In addition to this work, the WJPA continued to support its members on a day-to-day basis by supporting the Pilot Support Network, attending employee meetings, addressing individual matters, and having representation on the Hotel and PACT’s Total Rewards committees.

And from the WJPA website http://www.wjpa.ca/main_site/public_about.cfm

Mission -

The WJPA is the recognized representation for WestJet pilots committed to enhance and enrich the lives and professional interests of our pilots through open and honest communication with the leadership team.

Article 1 - WestJet Pilot Association (WJPA)

Charter 1.1 Members of the WJPA

1.1.1 WJPA is made up of non-management pilots. Non-management pilots include:

• Line pilots employed by WestJet as captains.
• Line pilots employed by WestJet as first officers.
• Training, check, and standards pilots levels 1 and 2.

[Longranger]

Did the pilots at some point vote to allow the WJPA to represent them or was this simply a management decision and part and parcel of their PACT program?

It was voted on by the pilots, over 90 % in 1999.

[Longranger]

I love how the first question is always "do you work for WestJet?" whenever the message is not pre-approved by the corporation. That is irrelevant to the discussion/debate. It is either meant to out the person or establish dominance in the conversation, or both.

This quoted point is most clearly contextual to refuting claims by PACT (WJPA) that they exercise any rights to represent the pilots at WestJet. It is not merely selective, as you suggest, it is a direct judgement by an authority against such claims. It is most directly relevant and without counter or you would post such in response instead of simply stating that "..documents run over 900 pages..". Implying that there is more to the story without proof of such.

The WestJet "model" is very easy to understand by simply looking at the historical roots of unionization in America. This is a repeat of the events that occurred 100 years ago being replayed now in the Canadian context, in our industry. PACT (WJPA) is a WestJet corporate construct, both in all function and existence. Fully contained within the corporation as a business unit (such as Flight Operations, Marketing etc). It is the most obvious conflict of interest in employee representation possible.

Paragraph 35 is a strict legal point from an actual ruling, under actual labour law, recently provided by the CIRB to WestJet. It is public record. Unfortunate that it did not come out prior to the vote. Also, it is a direct repudiation addressed to the WJPA, by the CIRB, of the specific argument you attempt to make above. That is undeniable.

The CIRB, acting under Part I of the Code, is the only legal authorization in this country with respect to all collective (as in group) bargaining & agreements between employers and employees, full stop. If WestJet pilots want to have actual agreements collectively negotiated, in good faith and applied(binding on the employer), as the CIRB indicates in that quoted point, they must appropriately organize.

Individual employment contracts are negotiated by individuals. Collective agreements are negotiated by agents. WJPA is not the legal bargaining agent for the pilots at WestJet. It has never obtained agency, as required under the law and denies that part I of the Code is applicable to it, except when convenient i.e.; when protesting the right for the WPPA to be allowed to apply for a certification vote.

You are again incorrect on your assertions, as all the agreements that the WJPA has negotiated, supersede the previous ones, and no pilot working at WestJet is working under their orignal terms of employment, as each subsequent WJPA agreement, updates their individual contract signed on their date of hire.

NO PILOT negotiates their individual contract and that is why I asked if you work for WestJet, as on one hand you speak as if you know about our organization, and then go on to make statements that are not true. The WJPA has always negotiated on behalf of all the pilots collectively. We all know that because the WJPA is not a union it would not fall under those applicable terms under Part 1 of the labour code, that's not news.

[IFG]

You are again incorrect on your assertions, as all the agreements that the WJPA has negotiated, supersede the previous ones, and no pilot working at WestJet is working under their orignal terms of employment, as each subsequent WJPA agreement, updates their individual contract signed on their date of hire.

NO PILOT negotiates their individual contract and that is why I asked if you work for WestJet, as on one hand you speak as if you know about our organization, and then go on to make statements that are not true. The WJPA has always negotiated on behalf of all the pilots collectively. We all know that because the WJPA is not a union it would not fall under those applicable terms under Part 1 of the labour code, that's not news.

The MOA is a contract agreed to and signed by two parties and is a contract by any definition under common law.

Companies can violate a collective agreement as well. The difference is that a certified group brings their case to the CIRB and the non-union representation takes it directly to the courts. Both would have part one of the Canada Labour Code applied as the airlines are a federally regulated body to which the code applies.

Any quick google search will find several papers on this written by academics as well as law firms.

Perhaps not so clear what's news, or who knows it. I have to say I was surprised at Critter's assertions about the Code. Some time ago, I actually did labour through the chore of reading them, in all their obtuse splendour, and recall nothing enabling uncertified representation in any way (hastening to add that I might learn something if a link or two was provided with these legal pronouncements - so far, my recollections seem strong enough to squelch an inclination to wade through them again )

On the rest of your post, Longranger, I think you're constructing a straw man with your over-literal take on what JSYK wrote. Nobody thinks,or states, that any WS Pilots still work under some original-hire terms - clearly your Company has been upholding its end of successive "agreements". What has been suggested is that Pilots are on their own IF the Company ever decides to flip them the bird, and they try to enforce any PACT-negotiated terms. There is (I believe until shown otherwise) no provision in labour law to act as an uncertified group. I wonder if class-action litigation in the civil courts is an available route, but if the CIRB is slow, an almost interminable civil suit would be functionally useless to enforce WAWCON's. But that's for folks better-trained in Law to shed light on.

Cheers, IFG

[Critter]

Nothing implicitly disabling them either. Hence they're acceptable in the Canadian labour landscape.

Here's one document I've referenced with a good explanation of the difference.

http://www.weirfoulds.com/files/9117_WeirFoulds%20-%20Employment%20Law%20In%20Canada%20(2011).pdf

[Guest JSYK]

Longranger wrote:

You are again incorrect on your assertions, as all the agreements that the WJPA has negotiated, supersede the previous ones, and no pilot working at WestJet is working under their orignal terms of employment, as each subsequent WJPA agreement, updates their individual contract signed on their date of hire.

NO PILOT negotiates their individual contract and that is why I asked if you work for WestJet, as on one hand you speak as if you know about our organization, and then go on to make statements that are not true. The WJPA has always negotiated on behalf of all the pilots collectively. We all know that because the WJPA is not a union it would not fall under those applicable terms under Part 1 of the labour code, that's not news.

No, YOU are incorrect. Terms of employment can and are changed via company policy, solely at company discretion. A strict legal fact for non-unionized employees not employed as contractors or managers. Your attempts to say otherwise cannot be proven with reference, evidence or in any specific law. WestJet has unilaterally changed pilot policies in the past. Details of which are not necessary on this public forum in order to substantiate the point because, even in the absence of those changes, it is clear under the law (whatever form) that they can be changed by the employer at its will provided doing so does not violate sections II or III of the Code(basic limited rights).

This was meant to be a discussion of facts here. It is obvious that it clearly offends some despite being based strictly on facts and law. There is no misinformation or anything incorrect it what I have said thus far. Therefore, yourself and others here who are saying I am incorrect, must go back to making it about "who is this person?". OR, attempt to infer that this poster is external and therefore incapable of having all the facts. Yet another attempt to discredit rather than constructively debate. If both of us are identified, the personal biases for and against each of us, by those who may know us(or have preconceived ideas of us), will cloud the arguments being made or discussed. Essentially ending the debate. This is very typical glimpse of how it goes inside the WestJet world for those of you on the outside. So, on that note, I am out for awhile.

[dagger]

Looking at this thread, three things come to mind:

1) This isn't over. Not by a long shot. I knew that as soon as I saw the 55-45 split. This thread reinforces that. The cat is set loose among the pigeons.

2) Westjet might have been better off if the vote had gone 55-45 the other way. It would have been hard for the new union to bargain hard and fair with a large anti-union minority.

3) Irony of irony, the pilots at the big airline with a union are more unified right now than the pilots at the big airline without a union.

[IFG]

Nothing implicitly disabling them either. Hence they're acceptable in the Canadian labour landscape.

Here's one document I've referenced with a good explanation of the difference.

http://www.weirfoulds.com/files/9117_WeirFoulds%20-%20Employment%20Law%20In%20Canada%20(2011).pdf

C'mon, Critter, "nothing implicitly disabling"? If that's the standard, I guess we needn't even bother with all those statutes carefully enabling things.

As for your document: it's a Law Firm's handout aimed at foreign management, ostensibly to show general guidelines for stickhandling labour issues. Hope that's not PACT's source for guidance on representation. Even so, it says the following about non-unioon workplaces (p26,27):

.... Non-unionized workplaces are governed by employment law. The employment contract in the non-unionized environment is between the employer and the individual employee and non-unionized employees deal directly with their employer in accordance with the governing employment contract and the common law.

While non-unionized workplaces are also subject to a range of legislation, the common law plays a much more important role. Most disputes in the non-unionized workplace (and particularly disputes regarding employee dismissal) are adjudicated in court ....

- and further -

.... In a non-unionized setting, the terms of employment are governed by an employment agreement between the employer and the individual employee or, where there is no such agreement, by the common law. As in a unionized workplace, no term or condition of an employment agreement can diminish or take away minimum standards set out in legislation ....

It simply does not seem to me to say what you claim it says.

Perhaps there's a misconception here is that resorting to civil litigation in Court is on an equal plane with a CIRB hearing. The CIRB is slow, taking months but at least adjudicates according to the CA. Litigation in Court takes many years of hearings and appeals, only to decide issues of Common Law and the very, very basic protections in II & III of the code (minimuum wage, stats, etc.)

All of that said, the WS Pilots have made their choice, and by a pretty clear margin. I doubt the world will end, hopefully you're able to build on considerable successes to date. But it IS an arena we'll all be watching. There's a great deal of spill-over in WAWCON's, so let's all hope for the best for you guys.

Cheers, IFG