Guest lizard Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 I have been following a thread on another forum, and am surprised that the subject hasn't appeared here yet. As of April 1st, 2003 (the same day that Air Canada filed under CCAA), HRDC changed its rules for flight attendants who will be filing for EI. The concern is that only their "flying" hours will count toward their insurable hours (as opposed to their duty hours), making most ineligible to collect EI upon layoff. The key phrase here is "flight attendants are insured only for the hours actually worked and renumerated". This is contrary to the pilots who are considered full time employees (i.e., 35 hrs/week) regardless of their actual hours. At Jazz, the f/a's easily put in twice as many duty hours as flying hours, due to the the short flights and lots of ground duties (boarding, deplaning, grooming, catering lists, special passengers etc.). As such, I would imagine that it wouldn't be difficult to argue that the Jazz f/a's are renumerated for 160 duty hours in an 80hr credit month. However, what happens at the mainline, where 80 hrs of credit might only mean 90 hrs of duty? For the HRDC, this is considered "part-time work, and the mainline flight attendants are justifiably concerned. I am curious to find out if anyone has had their claim refused since the new rules came into effect? The link for the HRDC memo (from the Air Transat component website) is: http://www.tscomponent.ca/french/furloughed_fre.htm The link for the thread on the other forum is: http://www.airlinecrew.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=AC2&Number=82471&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1 What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schooner69 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 What do I think? Well... Reprehensible comes to mind. Cop-out. Weasely. In my most recent employment, I was credited with working 40 hours/month; in reality I was "on the job" probably about 120 hours/month. I was actually flying 30-40 hours per month. I would have been really, really upset to find out I would only be credited with the 30-40 hours/month (10 hours/week) if I had applied for IE. HRDC had two ways to play this: they took the cheap way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Some offices of "HRDC" pulled this crap with C3 pilots. Interesting to note: the offices one deals with are not HRDC offices but sub-contractors that "deal with the problem" for HRDC. Each office has its own interpretation of the legislation. Unbelievable as it may seem, issues are not dealt with provincially, nor by region, but by individual "officers" in each office of whatever contractor is providing the "service" on behalf of HRDC. The way the pilots of C3 were dealt with was appalling and a subject for a forum unto itself! If the b*****rds persist (my ***'s!), tell them you want a refund for all the premiums paid on full time employment. Put it into a letter to your MP with cc's to Jane what's-her-name and Jean who's-its... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eva3 Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 I certainly hope this is resolved very quickly and may it not rear it's ugly head again. Something so simple and obvious and yet they choose to be stubborn about it. There is no question that we are indeed full-time employees who put in MANY hours, to say otherwise is simply ridiculous and insulting. No doubt where it "benefits" them we are deemed as Full-time employees. Now many are faced with much anxiety, frustration and fear, and we are forced to put out many man hours to resolve an issue that has been resolved many times before. This certainly should not have happened and it should be over by now. So who opened-season on flight attendants??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charterdude Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 I understand that some of the Skyservice Flight attendants are going through this battle right now. This is an unbelievable thing that HRDC is doing. I'll bet dollars to donuts that there taking full time premiums from the Flight Attendants. This is so wrong in so many ways, but will writing your MP or government official help?? I'm not sure as the Government seems to not listen very well to their constituants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 So who opened-season on flight attendants??? CUPE and all the other FA unions. Lets look at some facts. What was the only unionized employee group that gave up nothing at CAI (through their restructuring)? What union group failed to negotiate when C3 went down the tubes? What union group just about forced AA to file chapter 11? What union group can't even hold an election without getting it overturned? What union group allowed their merged counterparts to get layoff protection, and pay increases while they held out for more? What was the only unionized group to tell AC management to get stuffed on the eve of CCAA filing? See the common theme here? There are great FAs, but as a group they nead a reality check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cargonaut Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 This is what eventually got it straightened out for some of us out at C3/Royal. (From a friend) "Apparently in the EI government manuals there is direction regarding special cases that include pilots and flight attendants. Tell your EI worker to look at: Chapter 3a - insurability policy paragraph 3A.4.2.3 - hours limited by statute Reg 11(1). This paragraph states that we are to be credited with 35 hours per week, which will run your receipt of EI to the maximum allowable weeks for your region. Apparently a few EI offices need to be pointed to this regulation." If the rules have changed, then maybe we will all be SOL. At the same time as the more conservative US approves increased benefit periods for aviation workers affected since Sept. 2001. Just another example of how the US views aviation as a necessity and Canada views it as a luxury. Maybe in the future we need to negotiate contracts that in some way recognize duty periods, just for this purpose. Our duties on the ground are after all obligatory, not voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Important Information on Employment Insurance Insurable Hours of Work for Flight Attendants What is new: As of April 1, 2003 Records of Employment for flight attendants must reflect the actual number of hours worked and remunerated instead of a standard 35 hours per week. Why this has changed: As a result of an insurability ruling at Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), it was determined that flight attendants are not included under subsection 11(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations as there is no federal or provincial statute with respect to the total hours they are permitted to fly. Transport Canada has confirmed that only the pilot and navigators are considered flight crew and have such restrictions (according to Civil Aviation Regulations 700-14 through 700-23) Prior to this ruling request, both CCRA and Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) believed that flight attendants were considered part of the flight crew and were entitled to inclusion under subsection 11(1) of the Employment Insurance Regulations, which states that if a full-time employee’s weekly hours of work are restricted to less than 35 hours because of a federal or provincial statute, they are deemed to be employed for 35 hours per week. However, because no federal or provincial statute applies, flight attendants are insured only for the hours actually worked and remunerated. What this means to your claim for Employment Insurance benefits: HRDC does not intend to reconsider retroactively the insured hours of work for flight attendants submitted when applying for EI benefits, even if a claim is still active. However, future claims will be based on actual hours worked and remunerated and you will need to meet the minimum number of hours of insurable employment for your home region in order to qualify for benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eva3 Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Well, since April 1, that has changed. Unbeleivable that you can attack honest hard working contributors to society and the economy. But definitely, all of our duty hours as well as TAFB should be added to this calculation. Of course we've been paying into EI (with no choice), as full-timers, yet when we need it, we're conveniently part-timers, on some goofy loophole!! Where do they get off?? In my opinion that is VERY dishonest and goes against my rights as a Canadian citizen. Not what I expect from my Government, when I adhere to Canadian Law and have never abused the systems in place...just PAY for them. THIS ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED!!! It honestly makes me sick!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wilber Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Get a hold of your MP's. This is bull&%$@!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.