Guest CarryOn Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 ACPA recieved CIRB Decision 925 late yesterday afternoon. This decision , made by a panel of Vice-Chairs and written by CIRB Vice-Chair Pineau denies, for the most part, ALPA's attempt to overturn Decision 236, the decision that granted a review of the Keller award. It confirms the legitimacy of the now-ended MEC process. More importantly, it confirms that the review of the Keller award will proceed, and will be turned over to a tri-partite (3-member) panel of the CIRB. It will be up to that panel to decide all issues of jurisdiction, procedure and substance regarding its review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 . . . . it confirms that the review of the Keller award will proceed, and will be turned over to a tri-partite (3-member) panel of the CIRB. Hoo boy, that sounds like about ten months at the minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sustainable Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Funny, I read it twice and didn't get that interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Continuous Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Right, because the whole process hasn't quite made the lawyers rich enough yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Question: Didn't ACPA, ALPA, and the CIRB agree that Keller would be "Final & Binding" and not subject to further review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Yes! It was ACPA's insistence that Keller be binding. Only subject to Judicial Review. Furthermore, it was ACPA's insistence the Mitchnick could be subject to appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 If it's "yes" as you say then is a Canadian pilot's right to "natural justice" being compromised by this lattest CIRB Decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 LOLOL....you guys blow me away sometimes.....how easy it is to forget that the first award, MITCHNIK was final & binding as well. Its all fair in love & war when the Canadian guys whine like little pusssies,,,,,but lo & behold.......the skies fall in when an Air Canada pilot says something......Talk about a double standard !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Based on Johnny's info I believe you to be in error with your Mitchnik comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I had this huge response all typed out about two parties trying their best, unable to agree, shaking hands like gentlemen should, agreeing to abide by an arbitrators award, relying on another man's word, pride in ones efferts, etc, etc,.... then thought....wtf does it matter ? This has been debated for close to 3 years now, and nothing that you or I or anyone else can type will change anything. IMO, this utterly stupid seniority fight was the beginning of the end for the Piloting profession in Canada as any of us now know it to be. We became Miltons dream come true and he took full advantage of every opportunity playing us off against each other. We STILL haven't learned a dam thing as he now does the same thing between the mainline and Jazz and we continue to fall for it. Hats off to Milton for a job well done. At the end of the day, no matter what the final outcome will be, a giant wedge has been driven down the middle of the present Air Canada group. There will be no winners in this argument, only losers. The only cure will occur when about 3000 of us retire in about 20 odd years and a new generation of Air Canada pilots slowly take over the mess we left them with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Now that.... that honest expression of exasperation... can be the foundation for the gentlemen to stand upon and shake hands, and agree to shake hands again after all the legal eagles have done their thing, and accept the result as the best each could do for their own interests, with nothing taken personally. And you know what... We've seen that here before. That same expression. And in fact, I've seen some of these gentlemen stand there and shake hands on that. The rest of you will either follow suit, or torture yourselves with notions of what could've-should've happened, and gain nothing. Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans. You argued over Mitchnick... you argued either for or against a review of that award... Then came Lordon and you argued some more... then Keller... and now again a review. It's happening as it can. The result will come. You'll wake up to fly another day. Your reprentatives and your lawyers will have done the best they could. Enjoy your time. Life is too short. Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kilo Mike Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Actually no it isn't. Lordon stated in the packed courtroom that the protocol agree'd upon didn't abdicate the Board's jurisdiction of reviewing the end result if the Board felt the result was flawed. Hence the judicial review and the pending round three attempt of " you screwed me, so I'll screw you ". Quite the farce if you ask me. I've come to the conclusion that binding only applies if every party agrees to it being so....AFTER THE FACT. Respectfully KM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.