Merger route map

[Mitch Cronin]

Ok, I'll try it this way:
... right about when you quit Jack and Molly's air service (after being there for 4 years and accumulating 2000 hrs.) to take a job at Air BC, Some kid with 250 hrs was hired by Jack and Molly... Later, Air BC acquired Okanagan Wings who themselves had acquired Jack and Molly's air service... Now that kid and you have the same seniority, or better yet, he's senior to you, since he started at Jack and Molly's the day before you left for the good life at Air BC.

Ain't that a peach? How many guys do you think would find that kind of thing perfectly acceptable?

And what it was that I'm tired of explaining that FL410 didn't know... I'm not a pilot. Have wrench, will twist. (Or sometimes that should be, Have pen, will sign. )

Mitch

[wizard]

You are sooooooo right CJ, A pilot is a pilot it dosent matter what type you fly,give it a break or you should go for a walk and get some air Mitch.

[Guest CJ]

I know there are many issues to be worked out, but it needs to be done now. From this day forward I mean as GDR has suggested, once this restructuring is completed an agreement should be reached that, the next time Air Canada hires the new hire starts with Jazz. All Jazz pilots have a flow through with mainline. Easy. I just can not digest the lack of respect given to a group of pilots simply because they fly smaller equipment, ultimately they both have peoples lives in there hands. Equal respect for all pilots at Air Canada. Does a doctor in Grande Prairie have any less responsability as one in Toronto? There is a way to work it out so in the long run you are all working towards the same goal. A profitable Air Canada, one your kid would be proud to work for.

[Guest CJ]

So of course there is no solution to this conundrum...... all because some kid started flying at Jack and Molly's. It's bogus bulls#*t like that that keeps people afraid. Fear is the only thing stopping the solution from emerging.

[Mitch Cronin]

Go back and read what JW had to say... I'm not hearing anyone saying it can't be done.... Only that it'll take some work to find the solution all can live with.

[Par88]

I expected you would be the last one to jump on mine with both feet....it was just a compromise from DOH and to help alleviate the concerns about "dock hands" carrying service dates.....that presumes AC didn't have "dock hands" and therefore allow them to bid based on that DOH. If they did I'm sure they have since long retired.
As for the last.....AC has never been bought by anybody and if United felt so inclined we would have to work on that then.....OK now I'm getting carried away!!

[Guest GDR]

I think that if you put the two lists togeher in any way other than what I suggest there are going to be losers and hard feelings.

I think that what you were suggesting as to where the new equipment is going to go is unlikely because I can't see a process that will cause lay offs at the mainline while JAZZ is hiring.

For the sake of argument however if that did happen then at least the pilots laid off at the mainline would have the choice of whether to go to JAZZ or not, (Junior to everyone currently on the JAZZ list), and when he did get recalled he would return to his original seniority at the mainline.

The impediment to this is the hard feelings that have been built up around Picher, the AO law suit, and now last week's negotiations. Personally, I think it is better to look ahead than to look back and we should get this done.

IMHO

Greg Robinson

[Guest JW]

I don't think you read my post. I've read Picher a number of times. It was on my site for about 6 years. You could have misposted, but I did say that DOH was discounted in Picher, and that the selection of the dates that the connector group chose was a major sticking point - otherwise, in my opinion, a merger could have taken place at a number of points in the history of those attempts - had a "reasonable" DOH been selected.

Picher happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back wrt to AC pilots relationship with CALPA, also, and was the spark that ignited the decertification from CALPA, and all the rep by pop requests.

Maybe you misposted, or only skimmed my post.

JW

[Guest FL410]

The list in Picher was constructed as to minimize the negative impact to each list. It was arrived by discovering that a DOH with a cap of 1980 would only impact the top 15% of the regional list while only impacting the bottom 15% of the mainline list. 85% of both lists would feel no negative impact.

Pretty hard to beat those numbers.

It was indeed a shame to see that a DOH list was published without explaining the effect of the 1980 date. There should have been published an EFFECTIVE seniority list at that time that reflected the impact.

410

[Guest FL410]

The list in Picher was constructed as to minimize the negative impact to each list. It was arrived by discovering that a DOH with a cap of 1980 on the regional list would only impact the top 15% of the regional list while only impacting the bottom 15% of the mainline list. 85% of both lists would feel no negative impact.

Pretty hard to beat those numbers.

It was indeed a shame to see that a DOH list was published without explaining the effect of the 1980 date. There should have been published an EFFECTIVE seniority list at that time that reflected the impact.

410

[Guest FL410]

The list in Picher was constructed as to minimize the negative impact to each list. It was arrived by discovering that a DOH with a cap of 1980 on the regional list would only impact the top 15% of the regional list while only impacting the bottom 15% of the mainline list. 85% of both lists would feel no negative impact.

Pretty hard to beat those numbers.

It was indeed a shame to see that a DOH list was published without explaining the effect of the 1980 date. There should have been published an EFFECTIVE seniority list at that time that reflected the impact.

410

[Don Hudson]

Kal;

The following has been available to all members of both sides but in the interests of information for both sides, the following is offered. Perhaps Jim could supply a link for those who wish, to a web-copy of the Picher award and the Supplementary Clarifying (April '95 I believe) Award.

There is always the risk of stepping on a landmine in this conversation, so I offer the following only as information for others. That is my intent. The URL is:

http://www.lancasterhouse.com/supreme/recent_berry.asp

Don Hudson

========================

Supreme Court Watch – Applications For Leave Granted

Labour Law – Labour Relations – Action for breach of contract – Members of union suing other members of union for breach of contract and seeking remedy of damages

Name of case: Berry and others v. Pulley and others

Supreme Court Panel: Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Arbour, Bastarache, Binnie, and LeBel

Court appealed from and date of judgment: Judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal dated April 28, 2000.

Facts: In March 1991, the president of the Canadian Airline Pilots Association issued a merger declaration covering Air Canada and six other feeder airlines, including Air Ontario. Under CALPA's constitution, the Association's president was authorized to declare a merger when the consolidation of member airlines had occurred or was imminent. Once this provision was invoked, employees were required to establish an integrated seniority list. The pilots were unable to agree on a merged seniority list, however, and the matter was ultimately referred to arbitration, as the constitution provided.

After hearing the arguments of the parties, Arbitrator Michel Picher ruled that the pilots for the regional airlines, including Air Ontario, should be able to exercise the seniority that they had accrued in their bargaining units against the 249 most junior Air Canada pilots, the majority of whom were then on layoff.

The Air Canada pilots were not satisfied with Arbitrator Picher's award and voted to reject it. Despite their dissent, however, the president of CALPA went ahead and formally accepted the arbitrator's award. One month later, the Air Canada pilots left CALPA and formed their own union - the Air Canada Pilots Association. The new association defeated CALPA in a representation vote and was certified by the Canada Labour Relations Board as the new bargaining agent for the Air Canada unit.

The Air Ontario pilots responded by suing their counterparts at Air Canada personally for $300,000,000 in damages. They alleged that the pilots had breached the CALPA constitution by refusing to accept the arbitrator's award. They later amended their statement of claim to include the torts of conspiracy and unlawful interference with economic interests. Both claims were based on essentially the same facts. The Air Canada pilots brought a motion to have the action dismissed.

Case history: Judge Warren Winkler of Ontario's Superior Court dismissed the claim for breach of contract, ruling that union membership did not give rise to a contractual relationship between individual members. Accordingly, Winkler declared, an individual union member did not have a remedy in damages against other union members for alleged breaches of contract. However, the judge declined to dismiss the pilots' claims for damages in tort, concluding that there was a genuine issue for trial. Both parties appealed Winkler's decision to Ontario's Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both parties' appeals. According to the Court, a union's constitution was "a complex of contracts" which conferred rights and obligations as between each individual and the membership as a whole. "In [our] opinion," the Court declared, "it would be a distortion of the very nature of the complex of contracts between each and every member to suggest that members are individually liable to each other." As a result, it held, "the contractual right of an individual member to damages lies against the membership as a whole and not against other individual union members."

Turning to the tort claims of the Air Ontario pilots, the Court concluded that the acts of individual members could attract liability for conspiracy and interference with economic relations. Since it could not state "with the necessary degree of certainty" in this case that the Air Ontario pilots would be unable to establish tort liability, the Court ruled, those claims must be allowed to proceed. The Air Ontario pilots appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Supreme Court's decision (unanimous): The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons: Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Frank Iacobucci dismissed the appeal. Iacobucci noted that the idea that union members were joined to each other through a web of contracts arose as a legal fiction designed by the courts as a way to assert jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a trade union. However, with the passage of legislation creating labour relations schemes across the country, the judge held, this legal fiction was no longer necessary. "A member wishing to sue his or her union for breach of the constitution is not impeded by a lack of legal status," said Iacobucci. "Since the underlying problem which led to the establishment of the fiction has been resolved, in the absence of some compelling reason to maintain it, the idea that union members are contractually connected to each other should likewise be abandoned."

Justice Iacobucci was not persuaded that the Court should fill "legislative gaps in the labour relations schemes" by allowing the plaintiffs to pursue an action for breach of contract against other union members. "Absent an independent basis for recognizing a breach of contract action between members, the mere argument that there exists a legislative gap is insufficient justification for transforming this contractual metaphor … into a concrete basis which allows for personal liability to exist between union members," Iacobucci ruled.

In Iacobucci's opinion, it would have a "chilling effect on union democracy" if union members were permitted to make claims against the personal assets of other union members. "f union members were permitted to bring suit against other members instead of resorting to internal dispute resolution mechanisms where breaches of the constitution were alleged, the ability of unions to resolve internal conflicts would be hindered," declared the judge. "This loss of control over internal affairs would undermine the ability of unions to present a united front to employers and pursue the collective interests of their members." However, Iacobucci left the door open for a union member to pursue a claim against another member in certain circumstances. "Aside from actions against the union, a member who is harmed by the breach of a union's rules by another member may, if the requisite elements are present, have an action in tort against that member," said Justice Iacobucci.

Date of the Supreme Court's decision: April 25, 2002. For a detailed review of this decision, see the March/April, 2002 issue of Lancaster's Labour Law News.

Top

Recent Decisions

Pending Decisions

Applications For Leave To Appeal Granted

[Guest fasteddy]

Of course it's nonsense...why would anyone want to leave a Twin Otter for a 747..Cheers Ed

[Guest Hawkeye]

((("I have pilots on the AC list that came over from the AC connector flow through who weren't old enough to hold a commercial license when I was flying the 737 at Canadian.")))

What AC connector had pilots flying for them without a commercial license? An Airline Transport Rating was required to work at any of the Connectors ( Air Nova, Air Ontario, Air BC Etc.).I'm sure CRA had the same requirements.

[Guest JW]

Don:

I gave up my web space. It is available in a file for posting, if there's an host site load it to - no problem.

JW

[Guest Hawkeye]

((("I think that what you were suggesting as to where the new equipment is going to go is unlikely because I can't see a process that will cause lay offs at the mainline while JAZZ is hiring.")))

Process? there is no process, just I don't think the banks & creditors who are owed 12 to 13 Billion dollars are too concerned that a mainline pilot will be laid off . It is the least of their worries.

Economics will be order of the day . AC owns Jazz & if they can do it for less ( $160 million)then common sense would prevail here and it would be a easy decision. They want the best available return for their investment. That will be the process, nothing complicated.

If I were owed that kind of money, I sure as hell would want to have a say & we all know they well in the comming months.

[Guest JW]

Not quite. You're almost there. The light will go on for everyone very soon I think wrt to what has transpired in the past week.

...imo!

JW

[Guest Hawkeye]

((("I just can not digest the lack of respect given to a group of pilots simply because they fly smaller equipment.")))

I think the Bae 146 is somewhat larger than the CL-65 and one of only a few 4 engines flown commercially now that the SST is retiring.

Your right , we get no respect.

[Guest Hawkeye]

Ain't that the Truth!

[Guest Terminated]

There are surprises for everyone.

And more importantly, this is only act 1 of the latest Air Canada soap opera.

[Guest Kal]

Jim:

I read your post three times, that 's what it usually takes

It was in response to Mitch's senario. You stated you felt he was on the mark and what he stated was the similar to the situation with Picher.

I stated and I will restate you have a flawed perception of the actual effect Picher's award would have had. If that is the source of your discontent with that award, you were misinformed.

Listen,,, we all know what the real issue was .. It was the 243. That and the notion that a bunch of "feeders" would dare hope to "back door" or "gate crash" their way into the sanctity of the "most coveted list" in the,,, well universe (or so the propogandists would say). All the rest is crap. IMHO

If you do dig it up read the last page of Picher again. See if todays events don't resonate in his words. He wasn't a shamin he just wrote about the inevitable product of the choices you made.

[Guest Kal]

Don:

I read the first line of the summation and found it flawed so I stopped. There wasn't 6 "feeders" there were 5. ZX,GX,3J, Qk and NV

By the way you do know that most of us "feeders" take to that term like a non caucasion takes to "hey ni%%er"? Just in case you didn't know.

There are a few things I've come to believe

1. If when I first wrapped my hand around a control column 29 years ago, I was told I would have to be able to understand a labor related legal brief to determine the security of my family,, well I would have walked away.

2. When it comes to labour related legal positions, you always love your own and hate the other guys.

3. The closer you get the judicial/quasi -judicial system the more afraid you should be.

4. In this battle for winners and losers there will be no winners and a whole lot of losers

There's more but I' get to sad when I think about it too long.

When it comes to the lawsuit, i don't have a dog in that hunt, but I hope that the actions that your group took are not with out consiquense.

That is my opinion

g'nite

[Guest Kal]

Mitch , Mitch , Mitch

How did a guy like you allow so much smoke to be blown up your a$$.

Try this on:

Buddy gets hired outta flying school to a right seat twin otter chucken frieght.

Twin Otter company bought by bigger bush wacker who had a couple of jets and a bunch of prop jobs.

Said bigger outfit bought by "regional" airline who,

subsiquently bought and merge a bunch more, who,

inevitably was bought by the folks who now sign your checks.

Our friend, Buddy who just got a job outta school in 73 with the bush whacker is now worried about his pension at AC having been a skipper on your beloved 10 and now outta work on the 74.

He started flying bread to Garden Hill, never quit or had to rehire and now he is where he is.

That's the way it is bucko. So what led you so far astray???

[Don Hudson]

Kal;

Re, "By the way you do know that most of us "feeders" take to that term like a non caucasion takes to "hey ni%%er"? Just in case you didn't know."

The author of the legal paper is responsible for his/her own writing, but I thank you for the information... I didn't know, but also haven't used the term for years. I use "Connectors", but I suspect that's going to change to!

Kal, if I'd known the same three things, (I knew the 4th already) in 1967, I probably would have done the same thing, but I was a teacher before and today the nonsense going on in that profession too, in the name of labour, representation, invigilation by governments and just plain quackery is enough to make one high-tail it to Denman Island, grow tomatos and raise chickens.

Sad? Me too. Not sure it'll change. Last decade and a half have been like this...haven't been able to plan a thing and passed up some good opportunities because of the insecurity. Too conservative I guess. Government policies have destroyed a lot of this industry since de-regulation.

On your last opinion, I have my private thoughts but will leave all that to the lawyers, for whom both our groups have bought far too many Beemers, Jaguars and waterfront properties already.

g'nite

Don

[Don Hudson]

OK...I think I have it on my computer somewhere. Don