For those that have not looked at the FP60 website. Please read the updates from the following link:
FlyPast60 Index Page
This is the last update from the FP60 site:
Update
Thursday, November 11th, 2010
We have now turned the corner. George Vilven and Neil Kelly will be reporting to work at Air Canada next Wednesday, November 17th. Two days ago, on Tuesday, the morning after the release of the Tribunal's remedy decision, Air Canada Flight Operations personnel called both George and Neil to confirm that they are available to start work immediately, and to ask them which aircraft they each wish to be trained on, and which base they would like to select. Initially they were advised that they would sit in on a new-hire course starting next Monday in order to bring them up to date on the most recent operations procedures. Later in the week they were informed that instead of starting on Monday, they would start on Wednesday next, and that their procedures indoctrination training would last only three days.
Both elected to be trained as First Officers on the B777. Neil elected to be based in YYZ. George elected to be based in YVR. They will commence aircraft ground school immediately after the procedures training, and then be slotted into simulator training as soon as feasible. They are expected to complete their line indoctrination training in January or shortly thereafter, depending upon simulator availability and Homeland Security processing (for the U.S.-based simulator).
The Coaltion is disappointed that the Tribunal did not issue the cease order to prohibit Air Canada from continuing to terminate the employment of other pilots at age 60. However, given the impending other developments, that issue may soon become moot.
The first major development is the impending release of the Thwaites decision, which will likely occur within the next few weeks. Should the 70 complainants in that proceeding win their case on the merits of the actual exemption clause in the Canadian Human Rights Act (i.e. should the Tribunal find that age 60 is not the "normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work") it is unlikely, in our view, that Air Canada will continue its practice of mandatory retirement of pilots.
Although the Tribunal decision explicitly stated that the decision applied to only those two pilots, the underlying principles of the decision stand to be followed by subsequent decisions. For one thing, Air Canada's evidence before the Tribunal was that Captain Kelly should be paid for lost salary from September 1, 2009 until his date of reinstatement (as a Captain, until he turned age 65, and then as a First Officer during subsequent months) inthe amount of $10,000 per month as the difference between his pension and the Captain's salary that he would have earned, had his employment not been wrongfully terminated. Of course, a lesser sum would apply for the period after he turned 65.
Obviously, $10,000 per month, when considered for virtually all of the other pilots before the Commission and the Tribunal (almost 150, and growing every month), leads to a potential liability of $1.5 million per month, assuming the Tribunal accepts the same Air Canada argument in the impending additional cases, should they be successful on liability, as were Vilven and Kelly. The number is staggering, but quite within the realm of a possible award, especially given that it was based on Air Canada's ownsubmission to the Tribunal. Of particular note is that the Tribunal ordered ACPA to pay 50% of the awarded lost compensation. However, no matter how one looks at the award, the implications are compelling for both Air Canada and ACPA, given the number of complainants in the queue with the almost identical salary profiles.
Should the
Thwaites complainants be successful in the impending decision, liability for lost salary to be determined in the subsequent remedy hearing for each of those complainants will not be limited to post-September 1, 2009, because their damage award will not be based on
Charter-limited factors, but rather will flow from the respective dates of those complainants' termination of employment, less any discount for mitigation or failure to mitigate. The numbers thus get very large, very quickly.
The combination of these two cases, then, if both are successful for us, will likely lead Air Canada and ACPA to finally reconsider their entrenched opposition to lifting the mandatory retirement provisions in the collective agreement and pension plan.
Aside from these two Tribunal decisions, the outcome of the judicial review that will be heard by the Federal Court commencing November 22nd, may very well end Air Canada's practice of arbitrarily terminating the employment of pilots, based on age. Should the judicial review decision, which is expected to be rendered in February or March, be unsuccessful for Air Canada and ACPA, the Court will then be striking down the mandatory retirement exemption clause within the Act. If that happens, its all over. Mandatory retirement will be eliminated in the entire federal jurisdiction.
The following is from acpa. Please....have a look at the information that is being put out in the acpa bulletin, vs the information on the FP60 updates. Suggest....you compare the dollar figures. Just a suggestion. The back wages should show, (as they do on the FP60 website updates) that they were awarded by the CHRT, wages from Sept to Nov. acpa, has shown it as Sept to Mar.
V/K are group one on the FP60 coalition, there are 4 groups in total, and the numbers are increasing. Aprx 150 pilots so far.
One of the major concerns, for the FP60 pilots, is the state of the Pension Plan, the difference between the AC pilots pension plan, and the CAI pilots pension plan, and the general condition of the funding for the pension plans. They are both, underfunded, and another bankruptcy by ac, and the ensuing raping of the pension plan by the courts, has scared the hell out of many of the retiring pilots. There are many, many reasons, the FP60 group want to have the legal right, to continue employment.
from acpa AGE 60 committee
CHRT Remedy Decision
Age 60 Legal Support Committee - Newsletter #03
November 16, 2010
Fellow Pilots:
On November 8th the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) released its Remedy Decision on the Vilven & Kelly complaints. The decision applies to complainants Vilven & Kelly only and sets no precedent on subsequent complaints.
The issue of reinstatement of Vilven & Kelly had already been conceded by Air Canada and agreed to by ACPA at the time of the hearing as there was no argument available to prohibit AC from absorbing just two pilots. All pilots junior to Vilven and Kelly will be impacted, but the greatest effect will be to those on the same position. This issue and the impact on the pilot group should be of concern to all pilots and not to just the pilots who may be adversely affected.
We will be reviewing the Decision with our legal counsel and the MEC and will meet with Air Canada on a going forward process. During this process we will take the appropriate steps to ensure your contractual rights are protected.
With reinstatement out of the way the Tribunal was asked to address other remedy issues. The following table compares what the complainants sought as remedy and what the Tribunal ordered. Claims Sought by George Vilven & Kelly
Tribunal Decision
1
Cease and Desist – an Order that Air Canada and ACPA cease applying the mandatory retirement provisions of the Collective Agreement
Denied
2
Reinstatement to employment with Air Canada and may only bid their seniority for FO positions following their 65th birthday
Reinstatement as requested and not opposed by Air Canada
3
Compensation for lost wages from date of retirement to date of reinstatement
a
Vilven – August 31, 2003 to April 30, 2010 - $1,086,093 plus compensation to date of reinstatement
Vilven – September 1, 2009 to March 2010 - $45,897 plus compensation to date of reinstatement
b
Kelly – May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2010 – $1,040,128 plus compensation to date reinstatement
Kelly – September 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 - $62,711 plus compensation to date reinstatement
4
Damage for pain and suffering $20,000
Denied
5
Damages for willful, reckless, conduct $20,000
Denied