Originally Posted by ea340
[W]hen you win the case will the Fly Past 60 group support forcing Air Canada to include all retired pilots not just this narrow group in a return to work order [?]
These misconceptions are part of the problem with having no few effective means to communicate among ourselves. Thankfully, for the most part, the conversation here on this Forum is candid and open, so that misconceptions like that can be laid to rest.
Fact 1: Those who haven’t asserted or protected their rights under the statute by filing a Complaint within the one-year limit allowed by the Act have no recourse to regain their employment as a result of any alleged violation of their rights.
Fact 2: There is nothing in the actions of our group that supports any proposition that anyone should be forced to be employed beyond age 60. We have asserted only that it is improper, under the Act, to involuntarily terminate the employment of pilots on the basis of age. It should be a matter of choice for the pilots, whether they wish to stay employed or accept their pension and terminate their employment.
Fact 3: We have supported the Commission’s request for an Order requiring Air Canada to cease and desist from involuntarily terminating the employment of pilots, based on age. That is one of the issues that will be decided by Tribunal in its decision that is expected to be rendered on or before June 1st. If the Order is granted, Air Canada will be required to inquire of each individual, prior to termination, whether he or she plans to terminate his or her employment at that age, or continue working.
Originally Posted by ea340
As for other pilots making attempts to stay past 60 is it a fair statement to say they had little or no support and fought the battle alone [?]
This has been a David vs. Goliath battle from the outset. Air Canada must have spent over $1 million on legal fees, plus a huge additional amount of money on internal expenses to cover the hidden costs of its managers supporting the unwinnable case (their internal lawyers (on salary, not fees) and their senior managers (on salary) were constantly tied up in the hearings; their senior flight ops managers had to act as witnesses and provide technical support to their legal staff).
ACPA’s legal fees on this issue are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Again, those fees do not include the hidden internal costs of supporting the action. For example, ACPA has had one of its labour relations staff attend each of the hearings (salary) and has had to spend countless hours internally for its Committee members and the MEC to deal with the litigation.
On the Complainants’ part, how could one pilot be expected to fight this ground-changing battle alone? Notwithstanding the propositions of some external writers (such as Ezra Levant) that the burden of fighting an human rights case before the Tribunal largely lies on the Respondents, not the Complainants, the fact is that no pilot on a pension the size of G.V.’s pension (nowhere close to the maximum) could have single-handedly afforded to finance this litigation against these titans.
Last edited by Raymond767; 9th May 2010 at 14:37.