Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has become a joke. Same people under different aliases spouting the same one dimensional message. Your audience has just shrunks by one...adios.
At least the Federal Court feels that there is more to the case than the tribunal's V-K decision.
At least the Federal Court feels that there is more to the case than the tribunal's V-K decision.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes yes Lost in Saigon... I am aware of all that re: ICAO limits vs country limits and how it applies intra boarder and the reasons thereof.
My point is that the ICAO limits are no more discriminatory than what we are dealing with here. Enginefireleft said it... its about "Bona fide operational requirement". The age at which the group as a whole will be deemed to be best suited to retire Mandatorily. Whatever that age is going to be may be necessary for some and not for others (health and skill-wise etc), but its not going to be discrimination (in my opinion).
The Supreme Court will hash this out and make the proper compromise between human rights and order for the masses.
If it was so clear as many of you advocating discrimination claim, then you wouldn't have so many people against you nor would this be going to supreme court.
My point is that the ICAO limits are no more discriminatory than what we are dealing with here. Enginefireleft said it... its about "Bona fide operational requirement". The age at which the group as a whole will be deemed to be best suited to retire Mandatorily. Whatever that age is going to be may be necessary for some and not for others (health and skill-wise etc), but its not going to be discrimination (in my opinion).
The Supreme Court will hash this out and make the proper compromise between human rights and order for the masses.
If it was so clear as many of you advocating discrimination claim, then you wouldn't have so many people against you nor would this be going to supreme court.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enginefireleft said it... its about "Bona fide operational requirement". The age at which the group as a whole will be deemed to be best suited to retire Mandatorily. Whatever that age is going to be may be necessary for some and not for others (health and skill-wise etc), but its not going to be discrimination (in my opinion).
The union tried it with age 60 and were deservedly turfed on their ass for it. I'm just saying that when they finally pull their head out of each others ass they will try again with 65 and may stand a chance. But like I said they might not win that either if they fail to prove their case and the tribunal disagrees.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strategy of trying to claim BFOR for the rationale behind setting an upper limit gets challenged by the fact that all the other carriers in the country just simply add some computer code to their bid programs and just carry on with it.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:26.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that dont know, air canada, and acpa, FAILED the BFOR test that was required by ALL parties at the CHRT hearings. The other interesting note about this, is, that acpa was not allowed to submit/denied, a BFOR test, as they were an association/union, and not a business/company. So, acpa was denied any BFOR representation, even though, they tried to do it.
air canada, is NOT the principal employeer in the country as per the BFOR criteria. Therefore, they, and acpa, can not, by law, set the retirement age. The BFOR test is very narrow, and requires a great deal of information, that is obtained from each of the country's airlines, by supena, from the courts. The information is certified by the courts. Both, ac, and acpa lost the BFOR case a long time ago.
Without the BFOR, they (ac and acpa) can not continue the course of action that they are still bent on doing, at great cost to all pilots. It will end in the near future, and the lack of information to the acpa pilots that say...they are against this, will be very disappointing to say the least.
The information from acpa, and ac is nil, and what has been said in the past has been washed down so much it is next to useless. Did NOT have to be this way, but ac/acpa sided together, (ac insisted acpa sign on to the liabiltiy side of the BFOR case, which they did, no one could believe they did that), that is going to cause problems in acpa when the CHRT rules on the Remedy side of this issue. That could be one of the reasons....that ac is fighting this issue, as they are hoping to collapse acpa. Ask yourself, why would ac fight this, when they are going to save money on many issues when this finally completes?? Does that not seem strange to any of you who are against the age 60 issue?
air canada, is NOT the principal employeer in the country as per the BFOR criteria. Therefore, they, and acpa, can not, by law, set the retirement age. The BFOR test is very narrow, and requires a great deal of information, that is obtained from each of the country's airlines, by supena, from the courts. The information is certified by the courts. Both, ac, and acpa lost the BFOR case a long time ago.
Without the BFOR, they (ac and acpa) can not continue the course of action that they are still bent on doing, at great cost to all pilots. It will end in the near future, and the lack of information to the acpa pilots that say...they are against this, will be very disappointing to say the least.
The information from acpa, and ac is nil, and what has been said in the past has been washed down so much it is next to useless. Did NOT have to be this way, but ac/acpa sided together, (ac insisted acpa sign on to the liabiltiy side of the BFOR case, which they did, no one could believe they did that), that is going to cause problems in acpa when the CHRT rules on the Remedy side of this issue. That could be one of the reasons....that ac is fighting this issue, as they are hoping to collapse acpa. Ask yourself, why would ac fight this, when they are going to save money on many issues when this finally completes?? Does that not seem strange to any of you who are against the age 60 issue?
Last edited by 777longhaul; 7th Sep 2010 at 02:38.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Itsaliving66, Join Date August 2010
This thread has become a joke. Same people under different aliases spouting the same one dimensional message. Your audience has just shrunks by one.
If you want to get some real bias, why don't you sit in on one of your MEC meetings?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recent veto has highlighted the secretive behavior of the MEC, and many people are angry at what they percieve as their elected representatives doing what they want behind closed doors while ignoring what's best for the membership.
Welcome to reality.
Perhaps...just perhaps...the MEC is doing the same thing with the retirement issue hmmm?
Welcome to reality.
Perhaps...just perhaps...the MEC is doing the same thing with the retirement issue hmmm?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone will retire eventually.
Instead of the present humiliating & outdated Mandatory Retirement, might this be the answer?
>>> Phased Retirement
Where once they couldn’t wait to shove older employees out the door, many companies are now bending over backwards to keep them from retiring. Recent changes to pension laws have made it possible with employers to keep up with the new retirement dynamics. The most significant change are the so called “phased retirement” laws that allow employees to collect and accrue a pension from the same employer at the same time. Here’s a look at the new phased retirement rules and how to take advantage of them to keep older employees in the fold.
The New Retirement Dynamics
Once upon a time, when employees turned 65, they’d get their gold watch and pension and ride off, willingly or unwillingly, into retirement. But times have changed. Now that mandatory retirement has been largely abolished, employers who force employees to retire at 65—or any other pre-determined age—run the risk of age discrimination liability.
But the new dynamics are really the product of fundamental economic and demographic changes. The Canadian workforce is getting older. Skilled and experienced labour is more expensive to recruit or develop organically via training. Faced with these realities, many companies are finding it not only expedient but imperative to keep 60- and 70-something employees working, even if it means making accommodations in scheduling and compensation.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
Retaining senior employees often involves letting them transition gradually from full-time employment to retirement instead of in one fell swoop. This process of gradually decreasing work hours or workloads is referred to as “phased retirement.” Common arrangements include letting employees work fewer hours for less pay while continuing to receive pension benefits they’ve accrued from previous service. For example, the employer may let a valuable 71-year-old employee work half time for 50% of her salary plus retirement plan income.
Employers might also want to let employees keep accruing pensionable time while they work toward retirement. Legal changes had to be made to clear the way. It started when AB and QC changed their pension laws to allow for phased retirement. In 2007, the federal government blew the thing wide open by:
Where Phased Retirement Is Allowed.
Seven jurisdictions—Federal, AB, BC, MB, NS, ON and QC—specifically let employees receive a partial in-service withdrawal of benefits from a registered DB pension plan and continue to work and accrue benefits under that same plan. The 3 territories follow federal pension rules. So, as of now, phased retirement is okay in at least 10 of Canada’s 14 jurisdictions.
Where Status of Phased Retirement Is Unclear.
The pension laws of NB, NL, PE and SK don’t specifically permit phased retirement. But they don’t ban it, either. Consequently, some have argued that phased retirement is okay in these provinces, especially now that it’s allowed under federal rules. “As long as the law doesn’t say it’s prohibited, phased retirement is implicitly permitted,” according to one consultant.
Conclusion
But most experts disagree with this assessment and counsel caution. “If the law doesn’t say phased retirement is allowed, it probably isn’t,” according to an Alberta lawyer. “Legislation is needed to clarify if phased retirement is permissible in these other provinces,” he cautions.
Instead of the present humiliating & outdated Mandatory Retirement, might this be the answer?
>>> Phased Retirement
Where once they couldn’t wait to shove older employees out the door, many companies are now bending over backwards to keep them from retiring. Recent changes to pension laws have made it possible with employers to keep up with the new retirement dynamics. The most significant change are the so called “phased retirement” laws that allow employees to collect and accrue a pension from the same employer at the same time. Here’s a look at the new phased retirement rules and how to take advantage of them to keep older employees in the fold.
The New Retirement Dynamics
Once upon a time, when employees turned 65, they’d get their gold watch and pension and ride off, willingly or unwillingly, into retirement. But times have changed. Now that mandatory retirement has been largely abolished, employers who force employees to retire at 65—or any other pre-determined age—run the risk of age discrimination liability.
But the new dynamics are really the product of fundamental economic and demographic changes. The Canadian workforce is getting older. Skilled and experienced labour is more expensive to recruit or develop organically via training. Faced with these realities, many companies are finding it not only expedient but imperative to keep 60- and 70-something employees working, even if it means making accommodations in scheduling and compensation.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
Retaining senior employees often involves letting them transition gradually from full-time employment to retirement instead of in one fell swoop. This process of gradually decreasing work hours or workloads is referred to as “phased retirement.” Common arrangements include letting employees work fewer hours for less pay while continuing to receive pension benefits they’ve accrued from previous service. For example, the employer may let a valuable 71-year-old employee work half time for 50% of her salary plus retirement plan income.
Employers might also want to let employees keep accruing pensionable time while they work toward retirement. Legal changes had to be made to clear the way. It started when AB and QC changed their pension laws to allow for phased retirement. In 2007, the federal government blew the thing wide open by:
- Eliminating the Section 8503(e)(b) ban on employees’ receiving and accruing DB benefits from the same employer; and
- Adding a new provision (Section 16.1) to the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act allowing pension plans to implement phased retirement arrangements with members (and former members).
Where Phased Retirement Is Allowed.
Seven jurisdictions—Federal, AB, BC, MB, NS, ON and QC—specifically let employees receive a partial in-service withdrawal of benefits from a registered DB pension plan and continue to work and accrue benefits under that same plan. The 3 territories follow federal pension rules. So, as of now, phased retirement is okay in at least 10 of Canada’s 14 jurisdictions.
Where Status of Phased Retirement Is Unclear.
The pension laws of NB, NL, PE and SK don’t specifically permit phased retirement. But they don’t ban it, either. Consequently, some have argued that phased retirement is okay in these provinces, especially now that it’s allowed under federal rules. “As long as the law doesn’t say it’s prohibited, phased retirement is implicitly permitted,” according to one consultant.
Conclusion
But most experts disagree with this assessment and counsel caution. “If the law doesn’t say phased retirement is allowed, it probably isn’t,” according to an Alberta lawyer. “Legislation is needed to clarify if phased retirement is permissible in these other provinces,” he cautions.
Last edited by MackTheKnife; 8th Sep 2010 at 19:25.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just received my copy of today's joint MEC Chair / President Newsletter. I just love the line near the end that says..
"Of course, the constitutional requirement for a membership vote on any tentative agreement that changes our CA remains and will apply..."
Now, lets talk about that amendment to the collective agreement to reinstate wrongfully terminated pilots out of seniority to the entry-level EMJ F/O position with no bidding rights. When will we see the membership vote on that?
"Of course, the constitutional requirement for a membership vote on any tentative agreement that changes our CA remains and will apply..."
Now, lets talk about that amendment to the collective agreement to reinstate wrongfully terminated pilots out of seniority to the entry-level EMJ F/O position with no bidding rights. When will we see the membership vote on that?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would we vote on that? Unless the vote were to eliminate seniority bidding rights to every member and not just returning pilots it would be arbitrary and discriminatory which, as everyone except ACPA and some of our members knows, is against the law.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would we vote on that? Unless the vote were to eliminate seniority bidding rights to every member and not just returning pilots it would be arbitrary and discriminatory which, as everyone except ACPA and some of our members knows, is against the law.
As mentioned above, AC did get ACPA to agree to 50 percent of the liability issue?
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:29.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how "retired" has acquiesced into "wrongfully terminated"
You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.
I do know a guy who told me one day..."only four years 3 months and 21 days..."
Now he wants to come back! Or at least get his name on the list for possible cash settlements to point the nose toward the sunset again.
Pathetic!
You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.
I do know a guy who told me one day..."only four years 3 months and 21 days..."
Now he wants to come back! Or at least get his name on the list for possible cash settlements to point the nose toward the sunset again.
Pathetic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunckhog, interesting post, reminds me of those who had so little life outside the airline that they could be seen hanging around the Toronto ramp after retirment loging push back/gate times to report if pilots were cheating, {Which we were!} I wonder what portion (a) Really feel they are being fired unjustly. (b) Are trying for the jackpot. (c) Just cant leave the big corporate "womb" and like wearing a cheap uniform, I know of at least one of these.(d) Have made very bad decisions and really do need the money. Having met the spouse of one pilot recently I can well understand why he wants to stay working, his I think is the most valid reason of the whole lot! To each his own but a quick look at pilot longevity might be in order for some.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bunkhog
You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CUPE's Latest news release !!LATEST NEWS
Issue 51 September 22, 2010
“Mandatory Retirement Update”
In our last bulletin regarding mandatory retirement, we let you know that given recent court decisions, it was our expectation that Air Canada would be reviewing its mandatory retirement policy.
We also committed to seeking legal counsel to determine the effect that these court decisions would have on us. Given the importance of this issue to the Membership, legal opinions were sought from three different lawyers. All three lawyers were unanimous in their opinion that given the recent court decisions, the Union now has an obligation to represent Members who may wish to grieve the Company’s refusal to allow them to work past the age of 65. Further, any refusal on the Union’s part to grieve on a Member’s behalf could result in complaints being filed against the Union at the Human Rights Commission, or the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
In a recent case involving four Air Canada Flight Attendants, the Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the mandatory retirement provision of the Canadian Human Rights Charter is not applicable where an application of this provision would be discriminatory. This means that we must now challenge Air Canada’s policy of mandatory retirement in order to protect the Membership from future liability. Accordingly, the Union will fulfill its obligation to file and pursue grievances as members who request to continue their employment with Air Canada beyond the age of 65 are refused by the Company.
In Unity,
“Mandatory Retirement Update”
In our last bulletin regarding mandatory retirement, we let you know that given recent court decisions, it was our expectation that Air Canada would be reviewing its mandatory retirement policy.
We also committed to seeking legal counsel to determine the effect that these court decisions would have on us. Given the importance of this issue to the Membership, legal opinions were sought from three different lawyers. All three lawyers were unanimous in their opinion that given the recent court decisions, the Union now has an obligation to represent Members who may wish to grieve the Company’s refusal to allow them to work past the age of 65. Further, any refusal on the Union’s part to grieve on a Member’s behalf could result in complaints being filed against the Union at the Human Rights Commission, or the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
In a recent case involving four Air Canada Flight Attendants, the Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the mandatory retirement provision of the Canadian Human Rights Charter is not applicable where an application of this provision would be discriminatory. This means that we must now challenge Air Canada’s policy of mandatory retirement in order to protect the Membership from future liability. Accordingly, the Union will fulfill its obligation to file and pursue grievances as members who request to continue their employment with Air Canada beyond the age of 65 are refused by the Company.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the message regarding their view of the union's duty is clear (three separate legal opinions say that they must fairly represent their members who may launch challenges to mandatory retirement) I don't believe that their following statements are correct. However, the errors are most likely unintentional; it would interesting to see the union clarify the statements.
First, the exemption clause allowing mandatory retirement is in the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or as the Bulletin states, the "Canadian Human Rights Charter." In the V-K hearing, the Tribunal was asked whether the exemption was justified under Section 1 of the Charter, and it found that it was not. That decision is going to judicial review by the Federal Court this November.
Second, on the CHR Tribunal web site there is no decision of the Tribunal dealing with four flight attendants. Perhaps the decision was rendered, but by a different body? In any event, if it had been, we should have heard about it by now. There was a hearing scheduled by the Tribunal this past week in Montreal regarding mandatory retirement of a sales agent, but it was apparently adjourned indefinitely, awaiting the V-K Tribunal decision.
Finally, there actually are cases now before the Canada Industrial Relations Board by Air Canada employees alleging breach of duty of fair representation re their union's alleged failure to represent them regarding their mandatory retirement. The first one, apparently, was launched by a Toronto airport sales agent over a year ago. The biggest one, though, is the complaint filed by 75 Air Canada pilots against ACPA in the first week of August.
In other words, the issue of duty of fair representation will be dealt with by the Board before very long, and we will know where the Board stands on the issue. By the looks of it, the CIRB moves at lightning speed in comparison to the glacial pace of the CHRT.
First, the exemption clause allowing mandatory retirement is in the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or as the Bulletin states, the "Canadian Human Rights Charter." In the V-K hearing, the Tribunal was asked whether the exemption was justified under Section 1 of the Charter, and it found that it was not. That decision is going to judicial review by the Federal Court this November.
Second, on the CHR Tribunal web site there is no decision of the Tribunal dealing with four flight attendants. Perhaps the decision was rendered, but by a different body? In any event, if it had been, we should have heard about it by now. There was a hearing scheduled by the Tribunal this past week in Montreal regarding mandatory retirement of a sales agent, but it was apparently adjourned indefinitely, awaiting the V-K Tribunal decision.
Finally, there actually are cases now before the Canada Industrial Relations Board by Air Canada employees alleging breach of duty of fair representation re their union's alleged failure to represent them regarding their mandatory retirement. The first one, apparently, was launched by a Toronto airport sales agent over a year ago. The biggest one, though, is the complaint filed by 75 Air Canada pilots against ACPA in the first week of August.
In other words, the issue of duty of fair representation will be dealt with by the Board before very long, and we will know where the Board stands on the issue. By the looks of it, the CIRB moves at lightning speed in comparison to the glacial pace of the CHRT.
Last edited by OverUnder; 26th Sep 2010 at 17:13.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of this was completely predictable from the beginning for anybody not blinded by their own extremely narrow perspective and immediate desires. Does anybody at ACPA or the pilots supporting them on this issue see the fat lady standing at the microphone yet?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an unbelievable number of posts on such a non starter.
Age discrimination is against the law in Canada. It's that simple. What aspect of that fact do ACPA members not respect? What aspect of that law do the lawyers representing Air Canada or ACPA not understand?
Isn't this simply about (selfish greed) money? Some junior crewmember thinks he/she is missing out on the extra bucks he/she'd be earning sitting in the left seat. Calling it career planning or entitlement (there's that word again). The lawyers on both sides are raking in the bucks arguing something they know they can't win and the union members are depleting their war chest 'fighting' a ruling that simply won't be overturned despite the assurances of their non-lawyer MEC types. I think they're confusing wishful thinking with reality but, I'd also like to point out I'M no lawyer either.
If I were in either party I'd be looking for a law firm that understood the laws of the land and a law firm that didn't salivate over the money it costs to fight this AND who wasn't interested in breaking the financial back of my union. Our labour laws changed to reflect that reality years ago and the idea of negotiating any labour agreement that used age to draw lines in the sand disappeared years ago as laws against age discrimination came into being and with them labour contracts were required to reflect that fact. Apparently not at CALPA, or ACPA.
The suggestion that an age 60 pilot can retire and go off to foreign lands to find employment begs the question that, as a 60 year old I have to ask. Why should I have my entire life tossed upside down and have to leave Canada over such a ridiculous suggestion that purly and simply is against the law?
Surely, any union agreement, not just AC-ACPA, that discriminates anything based on age is worthless and needs to be invalidated.
What was wrong in the past should be put right today, and the ACPA members should be leading the charge not trying to derail it. They should be making their bed for when they reach that arbitrary number and find themselves mentally alert and physically fit. Able to work beyond that 'magic' number (if they want to, that is)
Unless the present membership doesn't intend to reach age 60.
that old f**ker,
Willie
Age discrimination is against the law in Canada. It's that simple. What aspect of that fact do ACPA members not respect? What aspect of that law do the lawyers representing Air Canada or ACPA not understand?
Isn't this simply about (selfish greed) money? Some junior crewmember thinks he/she is missing out on the extra bucks he/she'd be earning sitting in the left seat. Calling it career planning or entitlement (there's that word again). The lawyers on both sides are raking in the bucks arguing something they know they can't win and the union members are depleting their war chest 'fighting' a ruling that simply won't be overturned despite the assurances of their non-lawyer MEC types. I think they're confusing wishful thinking with reality but, I'd also like to point out I'M no lawyer either.
If I were in either party I'd be looking for a law firm that understood the laws of the land and a law firm that didn't salivate over the money it costs to fight this AND who wasn't interested in breaking the financial back of my union. Our labour laws changed to reflect that reality years ago and the idea of negotiating any labour agreement that used age to draw lines in the sand disappeared years ago as laws against age discrimination came into being and with them labour contracts were required to reflect that fact. Apparently not at CALPA, or ACPA.
The suggestion that an age 60 pilot can retire and go off to foreign lands to find employment begs the question that, as a 60 year old I have to ask. Why should I have my entire life tossed upside down and have to leave Canada over such a ridiculous suggestion that purly and simply is against the law?
Surely, any union agreement, not just AC-ACPA, that discriminates anything based on age is worthless and needs to be invalidated.
What was wrong in the past should be put right today, and the ACPA members should be leading the charge not trying to derail it. They should be making their bed for when they reach that arbitrary number and find themselves mentally alert and physically fit. Able to work beyond that 'magic' number (if they want to, that is)
Unless the present membership doesn't intend to reach age 60.
that old f**ker,
Willie
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting cases out of the CHRT today (all related to family status):
CHRT - Tribunal Decisions
Richards v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1356_8608de.pdf
Seely v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1355_8508de.pdf
White v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1354_8408de.pdf
Reinstatement, full back pay (only 30% discount for failure to mitigate), full seniority, and up to $40,000 per complainant for pain and suffering and willful/reckless conduct of the employer, plus interest and expenses.
CHRT - Tribunal Decisions
Richards v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1356_8608de.pdf
Seely v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1355_8508de.pdf
White v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1354_8408de.pdf
Reinstatement, full back pay (only 30% discount for failure to mitigate), full seniority, and up to $40,000 per complainant for pain and suffering and willful/reckless conduct of the employer, plus interest and expenses.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tribunal speaks: CHRT - Tribunal Decisions
No, today's three decisions are not about Air Canada pilots, at least not directly.
But the principles are clear: reinstatement, full back-pay (less 30% for failure to mitigate, in one case), full seniority, and $40,000 for pain and suffering and for wilfull or flagrant discrimination on the part of the employer, and more and more and more.
Oh, yes. Reinstatement not to an entry-level job in the same department, but to where they would have been, had they not been wrongfully terminated!
Now, what kind of number would I get if I were to apply these factors to the Air Canada pilot wrongful termination scenario, then multiply that by 150?
Didn't Air Canada put evidence into the hearing admitting that it owed over $10,000 per month from August, 2009 to the date of reinstatement? That's an admitted $130,000, and counting, so far, per pilot, not even counting any damages being awarded for the four and six years respectively for each pilot's termination prior to the 2009 Tribunal decision finding liability, and separate from the potential $40,000 special compensation awarded today.
$200,000 times 150 = ?????
Is anybody listening yet?
No, today's three decisions are not about Air Canada pilots, at least not directly.
But the principles are clear: reinstatement, full back-pay (less 30% for failure to mitigate, in one case), full seniority, and $40,000 for pain and suffering and for wilfull or flagrant discrimination on the part of the employer, and more and more and more.
Oh, yes. Reinstatement not to an entry-level job in the same department, but to where they would have been, had they not been wrongfully terminated!
Now, what kind of number would I get if I were to apply these factors to the Air Canada pilot wrongful termination scenario, then multiply that by 150?
Didn't Air Canada put evidence into the hearing admitting that it owed over $10,000 per month from August, 2009 to the date of reinstatement? That's an admitted $130,000, and counting, so far, per pilot, not even counting any damages being awarded for the four and six years respectively for each pilot's termination prior to the 2009 Tribunal decision finding liability, and separate from the potential $40,000 special compensation awarded today.
$200,000 times 150 = ?????
Is anybody listening yet?