Originally Posted by brucelee
My point is the seniority issue is coming to an end. Some will be happy with the outcome, some won't. It won't ruin any future negotiations with the company.
Okay Brucelee. I can understand why you want to believe this. To believe otherwise would be admitting a large strategic error on 'OAC's part.
Lets back up a few months into the past and test your theory.
Heres your reference document:
http://www.formercanadianpilots.ca/index.cfm?pid=15299
I would guess that by mid-June 2005 that the former Canadian Pilots were comfortable that the Keller award was going to stay because by that point ACPA had lost every court appeal and CIRB decision since July 2002 when the Mitchnick Award was thrown out.
In this environment I would think that everyone is on the same page on the 777 negotiations, all pilots from both sides of the fence are focused on getting the best deal they can get to fly the 777 airplanes. The deal is not good enough and gets voted down. The company says its because of seniority, ACPA says the same thing but was seniority the factor?
I dont think so.
http://www.formercanadianpilots.ca/index.cfm?pid=15298
In the spring 2005 Air Canada was seeking further concessions from only the pilot group (which would require a vote), as it sought to introduce new aircraft from Boeing. The whole pilot group, Air Canada and ex-Canadian pilots alike, were concession weary after taking the lion's share of cuts during Air Canada's CCAA restructuring. Also, they were now well aware that the senior management of Air Canada had taken millions of dollars each in share options, not available to any other employees, during the restructuring. Mr. Milton stands to make tens of millions from his share options and the pilots see this as unfair for him to ask them for more cuts. By a narrow margin, they voted NO (one third of the pilots didn't even bother to vote).
This no vote was hijacked and labeled a vote against the Keller award by a small, but vocal group of a few hundred disgruntled OAC pilots. After the fact, the other OAC pilots jumped on the band wagon, seeing an opportunity to further enhance their seniority.
ACPA decided to capitalize on the 'seniority ' aspect and hired a mediator to decide two things.
1- Should the 777 deal be changed?
2- Should the Keller seniority list be adjusted?
The answer to both questions came quickly.
1- The 777 deal stayed the same, no changes and all pilots are stuck with the deal they voted down months earlier.
2- There was no reason for the former Canadian Pilots to show up for the 2nd question because the CIRB didnt sanction the process and the Canadian Pilots won every court decision and CIRB ruling for years. They stayed away and ACPA produced a list which favoured themselves.
The only hurdles ACPA faces in the future is :
Does the seniority process carried out meet this test?
Natural justice
A word used to refer to situations where audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in parte sua (no person may judge their own case) apply. The principles of natural justice were derived from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were "natural" or self-evident and did not require a statutory basis. These two basic legal safeguards govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions.
http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-no.aspx
If it doesnt the 'seniority' process ACPA carried out in the fall is dead in the water, your lawyers probably already told you I hope. You probably knew yourself when the Canadian Pilots didnt show up for the 'mediation'.
Which brings us to this,
Why would the former Canadian Pilots vote "no" on any future deal if it means another unrecognized 'seniority' process with another mediator? There is less risk to voting yes. The company knows this, and you know it but wont admit it.
My guess is Air Canada will low-ball ACPA as much as possible. Look, ACE just made more money than any carrier in North America last year and they are laying-off managers. They will low-ball you and you dont have the membership support to counter it because you burned 1/3 of them last year and they wont forget it.
Thats my take. Yours is different. I accept that and we'll see who's right in the next few months.