Guest q650 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Since it was discovered that ACPA never had a no-layoff clause, is it anticipated that layoff notices will be sent to ACPA members? Is this bargaining unit excluded from any of the 3600 layoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I think the concept of layoff clauses needs a context. If the company survival hinges on it, the unions will re-open their respective contracts to change wages, working conditions, and, I suspect, no-layoff clauses. Do do otherwise would result in a total layoff should the company fail. Our Minister has begun to wade into the debate. The sense I have is that they would prefer a solution that does not open awkward political discussions such as the real government agenda when AC bought CAIL, or any financial aid that might set a precedent for other carriers. What does this mean? One option is buy-out help, using UIC money to deal with early retirement penalties or severance packages. Another, far more ominous, is to step in and suspend the legal underpinnings of contract law, using the same kind of logic (albeit with a different legal application) as was used to facilitate the ONEX talks in 1999. Should the government intervene in the collective agreement process (not unheard of, they did it to their own civil servants), then the wages, working conditions and staff numbers will be determined by a third party, quite possibly someone with no connection to aviation or Air Canada. All this to say, I now believe the presence of a layoff clause, for any union, to be of only short term effect. If the company has too many staff in an area, one way or another, the situation will be addressed. Some who read this may wonder if I am spinning information for some purpose. Not the case. I have been an intervener in similar situations, and trust me, every single employee at Air Canada will be better off, now and forever, if the unions and the management can stay ahead of the need for government intervention. Just my opinion Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Unless I am missings something, the way I read the contract...there is a no layoff clause for all pilots except the bottom 200 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 "Force Majeure" means any layoff clauses are INVALID...so assuming layoffs are coming, my calculator says 3490 x 10% = 349 pilots....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 "Force Majeure" means any "no layoff" clauses are INVALID...so assuming layoffs are coming, my calculator says 3490 x 10% = 349 pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Where is the pilot FM written triple7? Just curious.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 It is an obscure legal clause contained in most "large company" union contracts. Designed for the remote possibility that something really bad might happen outside of the company's control and threaten its' survival. If it is invoked it usually becomes a battle between lawyers arguing whether it is necessary or not....right now I think the chance for AC to have it invoked is excellent. IMO CUPE's position , as advertised by Pam Sachs yesterday will lead the F/A's union into chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Where in the ACPA contract is there a "Force Majeure" clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Thanks T7 I am aware of FM clauses, the powers and the legal issues involved. They are as you have stated. However, while some AC unions have a specific FM clause in their current collective agreement with AC, the pilots do not. I cannot tell you much more than that as that would be disseminating information that in my opinion, would not benefit anybody. Finally, are you saying that there is an obscure legal clause over and above language contained in the current ACPA collective agreement? Again, I do agree with you that there are legal arguments, re: layoffs and FM on the horizon. Let’s not forget that they have DC on their side in this opportunistic and false environment, at least on this issue. Cheers comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tri-spool Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 FYI AC has not specified yet any pilot jobs. There is a meeting in the coming week to see if ACPA will be affected. Given that the next 2 years will see about 300 pilot retire, it may not be prudent to lay off any pilots. The cost of retraining due to a reduction bid, coupled with a retraining at a later date normally negates any cost savings gained from salary and benefits. Remember your laying pilots off who are making flat salary in the range of $40K-55K. Hardly worth it IMHO. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I can't say for sure, but it's probably in the company's broad labour relationship documents that cover all unions...not in the individual contracts.....you'd have to ask a lawyer for certain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I agree.....and I think this is where CUPE and Pam Sachs have severly miscalculated .......the government will be on the company's side.....DC is already giving out those kinds of signals..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozerboy Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 "Can't say for sure". Then why say it all? There are some "349" right now, pretty worried. Why stir the pot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Read the company press releases....10% of all unionized workers...in each department...since when are the pilots immune to layoffs?...I didn't make these numbers up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 db, You are in good hands with both ACPA and with Air Canada pilots. I realize this is easy for me to say but keep sight of the important things in your life and try not to worry too much. There is a long way to go yet and unlike other 'fat' departments, pilots are, as you know, relatively skinny, especially as you project forward in both retirements and the stated strategy of overseas expansion. Cheers comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 FM has been discussed many times in the media over the last few days.....it is something we will have to deal with...regardless of anything I say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 If you have ever worked for any of the major US airlines, as I have(Western) then you get used to the fact that furlough is a fact of life for an airline pilot. That AC has had only 2 major furloughs since 1960 is due IMO to just pure luck and the great efforts of a responsible union...it says nothing about what or should happen in the future.....furloughs happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhunter Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I very much doubt there is a FM clause per se… I believe it is more of a concept in law that releases one or perhaps both of the parties from their contractual obligations in the event of war or some natural disaster outside their control. Since Canada is not a contributing member of the military coalition (other than exchange duty personnel), this may well be a tough sell on Air Canada’s part. The indirect effects of high fuel costs and drop in pax loads while painful, may well not meet the required threshold IMO. Any lawyers in the group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 If you have ever worked for any of the major US airlines, as I have(Western) then you get used to the fact that furlough is a fact of life for an airline pilot. That AC has had only 2 major furloughs since 1960 is due IMO to just pure luck and the great efforts of a responsible union...it says nothing about what or should happen in the future.....furloughs happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 For clarity, this is my understanding with respect to the Force Majeure (FM) arguements. 1. Unless there is a FM clause within the contract, then the contract stands including no-layoff clauses. No amount of internal company documents or policy can override this. 2. If there is an FM clause in the contract (as I believe is the case for the FA's no lay-off clause) then the Company will have to demonstrate that a FM condition actually exists. Just saying so is not enough (though they may be able act on it in the meantime unless ordered to cease by the CIRB). 3. The newspapers have implied that there may be some option for federally regulated industries to have the regulator or the legislature void contracts due to a force majeure (I haven't looked up the real facts on this yet though). If such a power exists, I suspect that it would be applicable mainly for companies that had not contemplated FM issues. Since AC has negotiated either FM or "beyond control" clauses in a number of contracts, I think it would be hard for the regulator/legislature to justify its application (ie. where the Company wanted the ability to invoke FM, they should have negotiated into the contracts). 4. The AC pilots contract has only one small section of the contract that contains a "beyond control" type clause and it is not the no-layoff clause. Philip Aubin AC pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Thanks Phil....now if you can only keep DC and friends from screwing things up even more.......not likely.....Regardless, we just may have to face the reality that furloughs might happen...I'm not convinced that continuous sacrifices by the senior pilots to keep the most junior ones always makes sense....sometimes you just have to furlough for the longterm good of everyone. It happens...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Lay offs are done to save the company money. If the company can save as much by having us work share then isn't the same thing accomplished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.