GMC 1500:
That was my point. As I understand it, these guys were dismissed years ago. Their complaints with the Commission were that their employment was terminated. Yes, it took years to get a decision on their termination, but isn't the issue whether their continued employment then would have justified termination of employment. Would Air Canada have suffered undue hardship then as a result of their alleged adverse cost impact on the airline resulting from the ICAO restrictions?
How does what happened years after the decision was made to terminate their employment (i.e. post-November 2006 ICAO changes) have to do with the decision to terminate them months or years prior to those changes? I fail to see the relevance.
Is the impact of the ability to manage the over-under restrictions not a matter of degree? Could Air Canada handle 1 pilot over age 60 without undue hardship? 2? 5? 20? 100? 1,000? So why were these two guys fired, especially if, working as First Officers, there was no adverse impact on Air Canada's ability to meet the ICAO restrictions.
That is what I mean about errors in the decision. It just seems obvious to me that there was no reason to dismiss their complaints if there was no occupational requirement that they could not meet as pilots, especially as First Officers, given that there are no ICAO restrictions at all for F/Os.
But then again, I am not a judge. What do I know?