Coffee, Tea or Cat II Approach?

[Airband]

'CUPE maintains that the principle of equal pay for

work of equal value requires that flight attendants receive the same pay

as pilots.'

Air Canada News:

Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court of Canada today granted Air

Canada leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal on the

definition of establishment for equal pay purposes under the Canadian

Human Rights Act. CUPE maintains that the principle of equal pay for

work of equal value requires that flight attendants receive the same pay

as pilots. In a ruling which overturned the decisions of both the

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Federal Court's Trial Division,

the Federal Court of Appeal had ruled in March 2004 that CUPE's

complaint on behalf of Air Canada flight attendants alleging wage

discrimination would be allowed to proceed, as flight attendants, pilots

and also technical operations personnel are within the "same

establishment" and are properly comparable for pay equity purposes. With

today's Supreme Court decision, the company will now be able to appeal

the March 2004 decision.

[Guest Skirt]

I'm speachless... WTF over!

[ccairspace]

'CUPE maintains that the principle of equal pay for

work of equal value requires that flight attendants receive the same pay

as pilots.'

I am trying to remember the last time I read anything quite so stupid...

I'll let you know if it comes to me...

ccairspace

[Don Hudson]

ccairspace;

Well, the F/A's should be careful what they wish for. Most Flight Attendants are doing far better than some RJ First Officers after the almost-40% paycuts. Perhaps they want "pay equity" with less than $3600/mo gross?

As to the rest of the argument, I couldn't agree more with your characterization.

[moeman]

What I find interesting is that it has gotten this far. I also have a hard time with the whole thing, even though I'm an fa myself, but if there was no merit to whatever they're arguing about, you'd think the courts would have tossed it out by now and it would be the fa's appealing, not the company.

So it can't be as simple as "fa's want to be paid the same as pilots". There has to be something else to it that is keeping the case from dying. What that is, I don't know. Perhaps someone here who's more "in the know" can help us out here.

[Guest Stargazer]

I don't know much about anything;

BUT could it be that since 9/11 the pilots are locked away, the FA's are the ones that face the most danger? Is that why the court ruled that way?

If that is the case then most FA's will need more than a few weeks of training. All airlines should now raise the standards and have Law Enforcenement graduates only, preferably those trained with Tazers "as I have heard the rumor that those may be allowed soon at a certain airline."

[ccairspace]

BUT could it be that since 9/11 the pilots are locked away, the FA's are the ones that face the most danger?  Is that why the court ruled that way?

The short answer to your question is: No. And you may wish that you hadn't asked it, because I then went to Federal Court of Appeal site and looked up the judgement. (The original complaint goes back to 1991, so there isn't any 9/11 overtone that you surmised. I just don't know what prompted the the compalint in the first place.) Fascinating to read (if you like reading that kind of stuff) and I will add the address here:

Federal Court of Appeal Judgement

But I will also include some quotes with empasis added (mine) because the original text is very long. In a nutshell, the original Tribunal decision was found to wrong on a point of law.

2] In 1991 and 1992, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC or Commission) against Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International Ltd. (together referred to as Air Canada), alleging wage discrimination against the predominantly female flight attendants, as compared to two predominantly male employee groups - first and second officers (pilots) and technical operations personnel.

[3] A preliminary issue is whether the three employee groups are in the same establishment, a requirement for application of section 11 of the Act. By a decision dated December 15, 1998, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) found that the three employee groups were not in the same establishment. As a result, the Tribunal found that the complaints could not proceed. (Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., [1998] C.H.R.D. No. 8.)

[7] The parties agree that the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the Tribunal's decision is correctness. The Tribunal was engaged in an issue of statutory interpretation - the meaning of establishment in subsection 11(1) of the Act and what the statute and the Guidelines required or permitted the Tribunal to consider to determine if employee groups are in the same establishment. Curial deference does not apply to a tribunal's interpretation of human rights legislation. See Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [2000] 1 F.C. 146 at paragraph 73 per Evans J. (as he then was).

[12] If a predominantly female group of employees wishes to compare itself to a predominantly male group of employees and demonstrates that both groups are in the same establishment, a complaint under subsection 11(1) of the Act can proceed to a determination of the merits of the complaint. Generally, an inquiry into the merits entails an evaluation of the work performed by the employee groups and a comparison of the wages paid to the employees in each group. It is the preliminary determination that both employee groups are in the same establishment that permits the matter to proceed to a determination on the merits.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

[13] The Tribunal was asked to determine whether the three employee groups were in the same establishment. To do so, the Tribunal was required to consider the term "establishment" in subsection 11(1) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected a corporate definition of establishment, finding that such a definition would equate an establishment with an employer. The Tribunal concluded that a corporate definition was not envisaged by the wording or intent of section 11 of the Act. Rather, it focused on whether the employee groups sought to be compared were subject to common personnel and wage policies. It held that "the search for common personnel and wage policies must include collective agreements negotiated in bargaining units" (paragraph 91). At paragraph 94 the Tribunal wrote:

Therefore, a logical and functional definition of "establishment" in the context of section 11 of the CHRA as "guided" by the ambiguous provisions of section 10 of the E.W.G., 1986, would be that establishments can be defined as functional units where employees are covered by common wage and personnel policies, including general human resources policies, but not excluding consideration of collective agreements in unionized workplaces.

[14] Having regard to collective agreements and branch specific manuals and, notwithstanding Air Canada's general human resource policies and negotiating strategy that may apply to all employees, the Tribunal found that the Commission and CUPE had failed to demonstrate "any semblance of common wage and personnel policies across bargaining units" (paragraph 100). The Tribunal concluded that the three employee groups were not in the same establishment for purposes of subsection 11(1) of the Act and that, therefore, the complaint could not proceed. At paragraph 100 of its reasons, the Tribunal wrote:

This Tribunal finds that the present bargaining units at Air Canada and Canadian Airlines comprised of pilots, flight attendants and technical operations employees negotiate separate collective agreements which contain the vast majority of the wage and personnel policies applicable to each of the functional branches of the respondent companies. These collective agreements, taken together with the branch specific manuals, prevent the creation of a single establishment comprising the pilots, flight attendants and technical operations at Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. The existence of general human resource policies and common negotiating strategies at each of the respondent companies that may apply to all employees, unless superseded by the relevant collective agreement, cannot by themselves establish a single establishment comprising the pilots, flight attendants and technical operations at each of the respondent companies. The Commission and the complainant have substantially failed to demonstrate any semblance of essential common wage and personnel policies across the bargaining units.

[32] In order to share a common personnel and wage policy, the employee groups being compared must be subject to the same general principles or approach guiding the employer in wage and personnel matters. That is, there must be evidence that the employer treats the employee groups as being part of a single, integrated business. If there is such evidence, the employees are in the same establishment. In such a case, an inquiry looking more closely at the details of the nature of their work, their working conditions and their remuneration is then justified.

CONCLUSION

[47] For these reasons, applying the correct legal test to the relevant evidence, I conclude that the employee groups sought to be compared in this case consist of employees employed in the same establishment.

[48] I would allow the appeal with costs here and in the Court below, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and substitute the decision that the Trial Division should have given. The decision of the Tribunal should be quashed and the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination on the basis that the employees in the employee groups sought to be compared are employed in the same establishment.

"Marshall Rothstein"

Concurring reasons with the following clarification by John M. Evans:

[68] I agree with my colleague that the central issue in this case is one of statutory interpretation and that if the Tribunal's interpretation is wrong, its decision must be set aside for error of law.

[62] Finally, I should emphasize what this case is not about. It is not about whether the work of flight attendants is of equal value to that performed by the designated comparator groups when measured by "the composite of the skill, effort and responsibility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which the work is performed" (subsection 11(2) of the Act). Nor is the case about whether, if the work is of equal value, the "wages" (as defined by subsection 11(7) of the Act) paid to flight attendants, a female dominated employee group, are less than those paid to the male dominated comparators. These are the tough issues that lie at the heart of any pay equity inquiry, but they have not yet been reached in this claim.

[63] This is not to say that the seemingly technical issue of interpreting the Guidelines' definition of "the same establishment" is unimportant. Far from it. If the Tribunal's view prevails, the complaint is ended, which will have very significant consequences for the parties.

[64] On the one hand, Air Canada will avoid an expensive and time consuming pay equity comparison, not to mention significant potential liability if the claimants succeed. On the other, the flight attendants will be denied the opportunities of a determination of whether their work has been undervalued compared with that of aircraft maintenance mechanics (or, more formally, "technical service personnel") and pilots, and if it is, of obtaining redress.

[65] Because I have concluded that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 10 of the Guidelines is wrong and its decision should be set aside, I need express no view on whether the Tribunal also breached the duty of fairness when it refused to admit evidence of systemic and occupational segregation in the labour market tendered by the Commission in support of its interpretation of section 10.

[66] Nonetheless, a significant clue to the Tribunal's interpretive approach is apparent in the following statement in its reasons (Appellant's Memorandum of Fact and Law, Appendix A, at 47):

it was beyond the mandate of this Tribunal to examine systemic discrimination against women in occupationally segregated workplaces under the [Act] in general and from that examination proceed to redefine the concept of establishment under section 11 of the [Act] which would counter such systemic discrimination. [emphasis added]

"John M. Evans"

[Mitch Cronin]

Also worth highlighting in that above text:

"It is not about whether the work of flight attendants is of equal value to that performed by the designated comparator groups when measured by "the composite of the skill, effort and responsibility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under which the work is performed" (subsection 11(2) of the Act). Nor is the case about whether, if the work is of equal value, the "wages" (as defined by subsection 11(7) of the Act) paid to flight attendants, a female dominated employee group, are less than those paid to the male dominated comparators. These are the tough issues that lie at the heart of any pay equity inquiry, but they have not yet been reached in this claim."

Personally, I'm still left wondering just what the heck it is about...

We've got some ladies doing our job... and I know there are some lady pilots... I'm damned sure nobody says, "oh heck, you're female, so you won't get paid as much".... likewise, there are many male flight attendants who I'm at least pretty damned sure don't get paid more than their female counterparts...

So it seems this may be just some cockeyed scheme to pay some lawyers more to prove nothing? Who dreamed this up anyway? ....Pam Sachs?

[AME]

Mitch

This is a good thing as we could see maint wages elevated to those of the F/As

and also technical operations personnel

[groundeffect]

Wait till the nurses get a hold of this one!

[Kip Powick]

A great example of a total waste of time, at great expense, to come to a conclusion which means absolutely nothing.

IF companys see fit to pay F/As the same wages as pilots...you will not see many, if any, pilots working for any Canadian Airline....utter balderdash.

Do dental hygenists make the same as a dentist, they work in the same establishment,do .................anyway.......you get my drift

Of course that is my totally unbiased opinion.

[moeman]

IF companys see fit to pay F/As the same wages as pilots...you will not see many, if any, pilots working for any Canadian Airline

That's pretty funny. Can you imagine the shame if fa's made the same money as a big old uber-important pilot! How could they walk down the street without averting their eyes! The shame of it all!

Yeah, I don't really understand it either, especially since the decision states it's not about money. It seems like they have agreed with CUPE on the definition of "establishment" and that's about it. I guess they have to let it go for now as CUPE has proven the one point that allows them to proced to the next level at which point I suspect they will be denied.

[Seeker]

This is all about ensuring that everyone has the right to the "process". Eventually, at enormous cost, the obvious decision will be made but not until every appeal is exhausted because SAS if it wasn't there would arise a great hue and cry claiming justice denied.

[Mitch Cronin]

It's a flippin' crock o' crap... an' that's all! Everyone knows it. To legitimize this nonsense by claiming "justice" or "due process" or whatever the hell some fools might claim...?

It's a ridiculous waste of energy and money... why not take the coin and slide into Dreams Take Flight or something worthwhile, and invent the memory of the "justice" proceedings.....

Good grief, are lawyers hard up for legitimate ways to earn their take?

[Guest Starman]

If I try to do the average Flight Attendant's job, service levels may, or may not, suffer a little.

If the average Flight Attendant tries to do my job, everybody dies.

End of argument.

[JL]

What get's me about any of these arguments (teachers/nurses, pilots/engineers, etc...) is that no one is forcing you to do the job YOU selected. Get out, get a license, be a pilot, if you want pilot wages. I think it's that simple!

[Steam Driven]

Wouldn't it be refreshing if the Union would take all the money it is collecting and wasting on this frivolous exercise and give it back to the people it is supposed to be representing...

Instead of trying to justify their existance, why not send everyone a gift certificate for a free turkey this Xmas?

[CD]

What get's me about any of these arguments (teachers/nurses, pilots/engineers, etc...) is that no one is forcing you to do the job YOU selected. Get out, get a license, be a pilot, if you want pilot wages. I think it's that simple!

Or to turn that arount a bit, "No one is forcing you to do the job YOU selected. Get out, be a flight attendant if you're not happy with FO wages."

[conehead]

Hmmmm... I can see it now.... the janitors in the Hangar will want the same wages as the AME's because they "work in the same establishment".

Where's my broom?

[Guest rattler]

Cab drivers transport people and control the movement of their vehicles 24/7 in all kinds of weather. Guess they should also have parity with pilots....

[moeman]

Now, if only God had a salary, pilots would be able to cash in big .

[Canus Chinookus]

the way i look at it, how long would it take to cross-train one to do the other's job. Pretty simple I'd say.

[moeman]

Must be tough finding a hat that fits .

[Canus Chinookus]

whatever

[Guest rattler]

the way i look at it, how long would it take to cross-train one to do the other's job. Pretty simple I'd say.

Of course then there would be the question of uniforms....... and of course there would still be the problem with "Scope".