Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End

[Raymond767]

J.O.:

If this case were truly and legitimately about age discrimination instead of just a cash grab, there would have been many more than two people signing up to take on this fight. Of that you can be sure.

In fact, there are almost 150 Air Canada pilots who have filed complaints with the Commission, since 2006, with about five new complaints being filed every month.

No one is arguing the fact that Canadian law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. What is being argued is:

1. whether the tribunal should be allowed to throw out a mutually agreed and collectively bargained working condition;

The Tribunal not only has the jurisdiction but the duty to do so, when the provision offends the law, as it does. In fact, it has already ruled that the provision violates the Act. The Chairman stated that the pilots will be reinstated. A good portion of the hearing this week dealt with the terms of that reinstatement. Neither the airline nor the Association opposed the reinstatement.

1. the fact that these retirees frequently benefited from the mutually agreed retirement age when it came to progression up the seniority list and the requisite benefits that came with;

Please read my post above regarding the impact of changes in the law;

1. neither of these gentlemen faced discrimination on the basis of age when they were hired by Air Canada, nor when they were moving up the seniority ladder as their elders retired;

Absolutely not correct, in this case. First Officer Vilven received a letter from the Chairman of the Pilot Selection Board at Air Canada in 1974 stating that he was too old to be hired, and that he should therefore consider other options. He was hired 12 years later, after some other pilots took their case of age discrimination to the Tribunal, forcing Air Canada to abandon is maximum age of hiring restriction.

1. neither of these gentlemen has suggested that those who went before them at 60 were discriminated against and that those individuals who retired after the adoption of the Human Rights Act should therefore receive compensation prior to seeing anything themselves;

The statute governs this, as well. Under its provisions, one cannot file a complaint until one’s rights are violated. Protesting would have had no impact. The fact that these were the first two pilots to file complaints should not affect the determination of whether their claims have merit.

1. they were members of a collective body (the union) that agreed that retirement at age 60 was mutually beneficial to the employees and their employer.

Please read my post above regarding the impact of changes in the law. Unions are not entitled to bargain away one’s rights under the statute. Regardless of whether there was an agreement or not, the collective agreement is subservient to the law of Parliament. If parties could “contract out” of the human rights law, the law would have no validity.

I must say that invoking Machiavelli in this argument is interesting. Unfortunately the altruism you are attempting to convey just doesn't wash when one knows the particulars of the case. If this case had been presented solely on its merits and without hypocrisy, you wouldn't be seeing much of an argument. But because the truth is far less noble, you are seeing a backlash from the vast majority of those who will ultimately be affected negatively.

To what particulars and what hypocrisy are you referring? In what way was this case not presented on its merits? The pleadings are all public, the hearing was public, and the positions taken by all the parties were all public. Suggesting that there is a hidden, less noble agenda is not only unfair, but irrelevant. The real issue here is not the motivation of those supporting the change, but the fact that the change is coming, with or in spite of the Association’s position on the issue.