PDA

View Full Version : Equal pay for Equal work


Rollingthunder
19th Nov 2004, 17:48
This belongs in Jet Blast.
It is still going through the appeal processes. Basically flight attendants complain they are not being paid the same as pilots even though they work in the same workplace.

"This is a decision of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on a preliminary issue in a pay equity case. The fundamental issue before the Tribunal is whether the complainant flight attendants and the male comparator groups named in the complaint are in the same "establishment" within the meaning of s. 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The allegation is that the respondent airlines do not pay flight attendants, a predominantly female group, equal pay for work of equal value to that performed by pilots and technical operations personnel, who are predominantly male.

Section 11 of the Act provides that it is a discriminatory practice to have differences in wages between male and female employees in the same establishment who are performing work of equal value. The Tribunal holds that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) have failed to prove that on a balance of probabilities the three major employee groups constitute a single establishment within the meaning of s. 11. This is because they are covered by different collective agreements that govern wage and personnel policies.

At the outset, the Tribunal rejects the respondents' claim that the Equal Wage Guidelines, 1986, (EWG, 1986) adopted by the Commission, fetter the quasi-judicial decision-making powers of the Tribunal, in violation of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

If the legislative framework of the Act made the EWG,1986 binding on the Tribunal, the concept of separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary would be compromised. However, the Tribunal construes the guidelines as guiding principles that Tribunals are bound to consider but not obliged to follow. Thus the EWG, 1986, do not violate the right to a fair hearing or establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal finds that as guiding principles the EWG, 1986, are ambiguous. Although s. 10 of the guidelines defines "establishment" to include workplaces that have a common personnel and wage policy whether administered centrally or not, it does not exclude other definitions of establishment. Section 10 is ambiguous about whether consideration of collective agreements is excluded.

The Tribunal rejects a corporate definition of "establishment" as too broad. Also rejected are various tests which, in the view of the Tribunal, would entrench a corporate definition of establishment. Rather, the Tribunal finds that "employees of an establishment" for the purposes of s. 11 of the Act means employees, who on a complete analysis, can be said to be subject to common personnel and wage policies, whether or not such policies are administered centrally. While general corporate wage and personnel policies are part of the picture, the search for common wage and personnel policies must also include collective agreements negotiated in bargaining units.

The Tribunal finds that the employees referred to in the complaint are divided into three separate bargaining units. The employees negotiate separate collective agreements that contain the vast majority of the wage and personnel policies applicable to each of the functional branches of the respondent companies. These collective agreements, taken together with the branch specific manuals, prevent the creation of a single establishment comprising the pilots, flight attendants and technical operations personnel.

There may be excellent social justice reasons for allowing comparisons across bargaining units. However, it is beyond the mandate of the Tribunal to examine in general systemic discrimination against women in occupationally segregated workforces, and to rewrite the legislation to redefine the concept of establishment.

Because the Tribunal finds that the flight attendants, pilots and technical operations personnel do not form a single establishment, the complaint cannot proceed."

However this issue is still before the courts.

:confused:

con-pilot
19th Nov 2004, 18:05
Boy, if the airlines are not in enough financial trouble. Of course they could lower the pilotsí salary to that of F.A.s.

However, I will bet that there are some bean counters that have already wanted to do that.

Blackshift
19th Nov 2004, 18:20
Here's one solution,

Everyone who flies pax is trained as a pilot, flight attendant and sky marshall.

Duties are rotated as required.

Should sort out niggling CRM culture clash issues and provide a welcome boost for the flight training industry.

At last they'll be crying out for pilots again!

Cargo job for me please.

pigboat
19th Nov 2004, 20:56
That's gotta be a case from British California, right? :p

Rollingthunder
19th Nov 2004, 21:00
I think it was actually from Ontari-air- io, but now cross canada roundup. We're too laid back for such crass nonsense.

pigboat
20th Nov 2004, 00:12
We're too laid back for such crass nonsense.
There's that, there's that. :D

I keep forgetting Ont is now headed by a guy named Dalton. And the Minister of Health wants to deputize everyone to keep out the dreaded American MRI machines. :ooh:

BlueDiamond
20th Nov 2004, 00:29
Isn't the "equal work" issue is the important thing here? If everyone was doing the same job then it would make sense but the fact that one works in the same place as the other doesn't mean anything. If we adopt that criterion then the lab. assistant would need to be on the same pay as the genetics researcher, the switchboard operator the same as the CEO, or the constable the same as the Chief Inspector.

And nobody would ever have the need to strive for higher qualifications because there would be little point.

acbus1
20th Nov 2004, 06:58
Blackshift has the solution.

Lets add ______

All cabin crew to be responsible for obtaining a Commercial Pilot's License, at their own expense, before being eligible to work in the cabin.

All cabin crew to pass type technical, simulator and flying tests before being allowed to operate in the cabin on line.

Annual/six monthly medicals, base and line checks as per pilots.

Technical refreshers with exams. Failure = no job.

Failure to do job properly to result in dismissal/demotion and/or loss of pay.

Failure to do job properly to result in death/injury, according to statistical spread of such occurences.

Failure to do job properly to result in name being splashed all over newspapers.

I'm sure there's more.


Q -- How many would survive the above?

:E

OzExpat
20th Nov 2004, 10:55
Blackshift! Long time no see mate! Seems like you might be onto something here! :ok:

Now, for the sake of balance, maybe I can add a little to all that acbus1 has proposed... maybe we should also make a rule that all pilots - especially including senior captains (and all them check and training folks! :p ) must undertake an effay course! This would, of course, have to include the swim in the pool for the ditching drill but, then, who'd be interested in seeing THAT bunch in a wet T-shirt competition? :}

Who among us can envisage the checklist appropriate to pilots, when doing effay duty? :eek: :E

And, then, as an inevitable result of this "multi-skilling" exercise, how would a State regulator respond? Would all the FOIs also have to be trained as effays on all the various types of aircraft that they're endorsed to fly? ;)

Hmmm... the possibilities here are just endless... :D

SLFguy
20th Nov 2004, 11:01
I once shared an elevator with Bill Gates, (well I didn't but you get my drift), when I worked for MS...

I'm gonna be rich I tellya, RICH!

Jerricho
20th Nov 2004, 15:43
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Captain Stewart, and I'll be involved in your meal serice this evening. Chief Purser Barry Lord will be conducting the take off..................."

OzExpat
21st Nov 2004, 12:40
A little patience please Jerricho! We haven't gotten down as far as the ATCOs yet! :p

Jerricho
21st Nov 2004, 15:02
Oz, there's no way you want me at the sharp end of one of them jet thingies. I have to be slightly enibriated to get on an airyplane.