Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no slam dunk in this ruling...actually, it basically refined the offer that ACPA/Air Canada made earlier this year....
the lack of a cease and desist order is a huge defeat to the "greedy" gang...the way Ray was telling us, they were going to win big big big...and the Judicial Review hasn't even happened yet...
So don't start planning the renos or the new car or new boat yet...
Maybe the group can go out and buy bulk group therapy sessions to calm their shattered dignity of having to retire.
the lack of a cease and desist order is a huge defeat to the "greedy" gang...the way Ray was telling us, they were going to win big big big...and the Judicial Review hasn't even happened yet...
So don't start planning the renos or the new car or new boat yet...
Maybe the group can go out and buy bulk group therapy sessions to calm their shattered dignity of having to retire.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this mean that the next group of 120 Pilots will be paid 81 hrs. 1/2 day 1/2 night etc. from Sept 01/09 etc. And it will be paid 50% by AC and 50% by ACPA? Remember the definition of insanity?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this mean that the next group of 120 Pilots will be paid 81 hrs. 1/2 day 1/2 night etc. from Sept 01/09 etc. And it will be paid 50% by AC and 50% by ACPA? Remember the definition of insanity?
Each case has to be decided individually, and only when(if) the ruling is made in their favour does the compensation clock start...
So nice try...too bad....maybe the weak-kneed complainants will fold and go back to their retirement lodges...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[92] With respect to Vilven and Kelly claims for pain and suffering, in my opinion these claims should not be allowed. They both ask for the maximum of $20,000 without explaining why they are entitled to the maximum. The Tribunal jurisprudence clearly indicates that the maximum award is reserved for the most egregious discriminatory practice. The facts presented by the complainants do not meet this standard.
[93] Rather the facts of this case militate against any award for pain and suffering. From the time Vilven and Kelly joined Air Canada they were well aware of the mandatory retirement age of 60. Yet they did nothing to challenge this as being discriminatory until after they were retired from Air Canada at age 60.
[94] On the contrary, they benefitted from this discriminatory practice by being able to move up more quickly in terms of seniority, higher paid positions, preferred monthly schedules and vacation schedules. This was because the pilots ahead of and more senior to them were obliged to retire at age 60.
[93] Rather the facts of this case militate against any award for pain and suffering. From the time Vilven and Kelly joined Air Canada they were well aware of the mandatory retirement age of 60. Yet they did nothing to challenge this as being discriminatory until after they were retired from Air Canada at age 60.
[94] On the contrary, they benefitted from this discriminatory practice by being able to move up more quickly in terms of seniority, higher paid positions, preferred monthly schedules and vacation schedules. This was because the pilots ahead of and more senior to them were obliged to retire at age 60.
I guess all the kool-aid drinkers are out partying tonight.
where is the slam-dunk here?
Bueller? Bueller?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason, you are reading about this, is due to your union, acpa, insisting, against all reason, that they fight this issue.
West Jet settled the issue with their management in less than a month.
If you want to be pissed off, direct it to acpa.
West Jet settled the issue with their management in less than a month.
If you want to be pissed off, direct it to acpa.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pain & Suffering
A. Vilven
[88] Vilven claims $20,000 as compensation for pain and suffering, the maximum under s.53(2)(e) of the CHRA. In terms of how his forced retirement affected him personally, he said flying has always been a significant part of his life. Most of his friends are pilots who continue to fly but he was not able to do so.
[89] Vilven said that the impact on his personal life is that he paid a terrible price for instituting and pursuing his complaint. His wife is extremely disappointed and saddened the way he's been treated. He has lost family friends. He was told that at the Winnipeg retirement dinner for Air Canada pilots on June 16, 2006, there was a mannequin portraying him in a very unflattering way. He said his wife would have been very upset if she had been there and so would he but he did not attend that dinner.
B. Kelly
[90] Kelly is claiming $20,000 for pain and suffering. He said that the impact of the termination of employment at Air Canada on his personal life has been very difficult. He has lost the comradeship of a lot of friends. He has lost the ability to visit regularly with his son who was resident in Hong Kong and which was a regular destination when he was flying.
[91] Kelly says that he's been employed continuously since the age of 16 and this is the first time in his life that he hasn't been employed. He finds it's very damaging to his dignity and sense of self worth, particularly the fact that he still has two younger children, one in university and one still in high school. He has to rely on his wife to earn the additional income required to maintain their lifestyle when he is perfectly fit and able to continue employment. He said relationships with friends have been strained.
[88] Vilven claims $20,000 as compensation for pain and suffering, the maximum under s.53(2)(e) of the CHRA. In terms of how his forced retirement affected him personally, he said flying has always been a significant part of his life. Most of his friends are pilots who continue to fly but he was not able to do so.
[89] Vilven said that the impact on his personal life is that he paid a terrible price for instituting and pursuing his complaint. His wife is extremely disappointed and saddened the way he's been treated. He has lost family friends. He was told that at the Winnipeg retirement dinner for Air Canada pilots on June 16, 2006, there was a mannequin portraying him in a very unflattering way. He said his wife would have been very upset if she had been there and so would he but he did not attend that dinner.
B. Kelly
[90] Kelly is claiming $20,000 for pain and suffering. He said that the impact of the termination of employment at Air Canada on his personal life has been very difficult. He has lost the comradeship of a lot of friends. He has lost the ability to visit regularly with his son who was resident in Hong Kong and which was a regular destination when he was flying.
[91] Kelly says that he's been employed continuously since the age of 16 and this is the first time in his life that he hasn't been employed. He finds it's very damaging to his dignity and sense of self worth, particularly the fact that he still has two younger children, one in university and one still in high school. He has to rely on his wife to earn the additional income required to maintain their lifestyle when he is perfectly fit and able to continue employment. He said relationships with friends have been strained.
Their wife is disappointed??? WTF???
What prevented them from visiting their son in Hong Kong when they were retired???
they think they have suffered a terrible price so far...sounds like it was 100% self-inflicted
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you and others devote 100% of your energy into a nonstop river of vitriol aimed at the people who challenged this, something rather significant happened right under your noses.
Mandatory retirement at age 60 in this country died and Air Canada pilots have done NOTHING to prepare for it either mentally or in more tangible terms.
Mandatory retirement at age 60 in this country died and Air Canada pilots have done NOTHING to prepare for it either mentally or in more tangible terms.
Last edited by engfireleft; 10th Nov 2010 at 13:02.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my key interests in this quasi-judicial decision is the organizational dynamic resulting from it. How will the decision be received by both the union and the employer? From what I can see of the entrenched positions of the parties, they are far from a final resolution.
Massive changes resulting from judicial re-interpretations of legislative provisions rarely occur all at once. Usually there are clear pre-cursors, followed by a few steps forward combined with a step or two backwards. The lack of a full stand by the Tribunal on the most controversial issue in the case (its refusal to issue the cease order, despite the fact that it found the collective agreement provision, not the facts surrounding the individuals themselves, to violate the provisions of the Act) means that those defending the status quo will likely be even more reluctant to accept the general thrust of the change, probably leading to more polarized viewpoints and more legal expenses.
I believe that the next two major developments, namely the release of the second case decision by the Tribunal, which I understand to be imminent, and the planned judicial review hearing by the Federal Court, will put Air Canada in a position where it will have no choice but to reverse its opposition to mandatory retirement. If it loses the second case on the merits of the mandatory retirement exemption provision in the statute, that outcome will be virtually impossible to overturn at appeal, given that the determination at the Tribunal level is based on evidence (fact), not law, which the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to change (Tribunals are allowed to err in their decisions, so long as those errors do not exceed the Tribunals exclusive jurisdiction).
Although the legal determinations will play a huge role in the final outcome, in the end it will almost certainly come down to money. How much is Air Canada willing to spend fighting the wrong side of a huge public policy issue before it says enough is enough? That will be basically a business decision, not an emotional one.
For unions, the exact opposite is usually the case, from my experience. But given what appears to be the precedent-setting decision by the Tribunal to hold the union 50% accountable for the lost compensation resulting from the wrongful termination of employment of these two individuals, there is arguably a strong business decision to be made by the union, as well. If I were a member of that union following this decision I would be demanding some very pointed answers from my elected representatives about what the potential liability really is in that regard, given the number of similar complainants in the queue behind these two.
Massive changes resulting from judicial re-interpretations of legislative provisions rarely occur all at once. Usually there are clear pre-cursors, followed by a few steps forward combined with a step or two backwards. The lack of a full stand by the Tribunal on the most controversial issue in the case (its refusal to issue the cease order, despite the fact that it found the collective agreement provision, not the facts surrounding the individuals themselves, to violate the provisions of the Act) means that those defending the status quo will likely be even more reluctant to accept the general thrust of the change, probably leading to more polarized viewpoints and more legal expenses.
I believe that the next two major developments, namely the release of the second case decision by the Tribunal, which I understand to be imminent, and the planned judicial review hearing by the Federal Court, will put Air Canada in a position where it will have no choice but to reverse its opposition to mandatory retirement. If it loses the second case on the merits of the mandatory retirement exemption provision in the statute, that outcome will be virtually impossible to overturn at appeal, given that the determination at the Tribunal level is based on evidence (fact), not law, which the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to change (Tribunals are allowed to err in their decisions, so long as those errors do not exceed the Tribunals exclusive jurisdiction).
Although the legal determinations will play a huge role in the final outcome, in the end it will almost certainly come down to money. How much is Air Canada willing to spend fighting the wrong side of a huge public policy issue before it says enough is enough? That will be basically a business decision, not an emotional one.
For unions, the exact opposite is usually the case, from my experience. But given what appears to be the precedent-setting decision by the Tribunal to hold the union 50% accountable for the lost compensation resulting from the wrongful termination of employment of these two individuals, there is arguably a strong business decision to be made by the union, as well. If I were a member of that union following this decision I would be demanding some very pointed answers from my elected representatives about what the potential liability really is in that regard, given the number of similar complainants in the queue behind these two.
Last edited by Mechanic787; 10th Nov 2010 at 15:02.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/09/c2525.html
Quote:
Air Canada confirmed today that the European Commission issued a decision finding that 12 air cargo carriers (including groups of related carriers) had infringed European Union competition law in the setting of certain cargo charges and rates for various periods between 1999 and 2006. Air Canada is among the carriers subject to the decision and a fine of 21,037,500 Euros (approximately C$29.4 million at an exchange rate of $1.3970) has been imposed on it.
Quote:
Air Canada confirmed today that the European Commission issued a decision finding that 12 air cargo carriers (including groups of related carriers) had infringed European Union competition law in the setting of certain cargo charges and rates for various periods between 1999 and 2006. Air Canada is among the carriers subject to the decision and a fine of 21,037,500 Euros (approximately C$29.4 million at an exchange rate of $1.3970) has been imposed on it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIR CANADA | AIR CANADA NOTIFIED OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION DECISION IN CARGO RATES AND CHARGES COMPETITION MATTER (1999-2006)
Quote:
Air Canada confirmed today that the European Commission issued a decision finding that 12 air cargo carriers (including groups of related carriers) had infringed European Union competition law in the setting of certain cargo charges and rates for various periods between 1999 and 2006. Air Canada is among the carriers subject to the decision and a fine of 21,037,500 Euros (approximately C$29.4 million at an exchange rate of $1.3970) has been imposed on it.
Quote:
Air Canada confirmed today that the European Commission issued a decision finding that 12 air cargo carriers (including groups of related carriers) had infringed European Union competition law in the setting of certain cargo charges and rates for various periods between 1999 and 2006. Air Canada is among the carriers subject to the decision and a fine of 21,037,500 Euros (approximately C$29.4 million at an exchange rate of $1.3970) has been imposed on it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the planned judicial review hearing by the Federal Court, will put Air Canada in a position where it will have no choice but to reverse its opposition to mandatory retirement.
I think you should give up your day job and start charging for psychic readings....how do you know what the Federal Court is going to rule, and regardless, how is the Supreme Court going to rule on this?
Given the slam-dunk ruling that was promised by one of the "fly 'til ya die" lawyers, I don't think I would be too sure of where this is going, except to say that there are many more chapters to be written...and many more lawyers to get rich, all to appease a few dozen greedy pilots.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 767-300ER
Hey 737 Mechanic I think you should give up your day job and start charging for psychic readings....
Now, being one who has absolutely nothing to gain or lose by the impending changes in your work environment, may I ask you to please tell me, have you ever mistaken cumulogranite for altocumulous? A few of my long-departed friends have, both figuratively (in the boardroom) and literally (in the stratosphere) and I promised myself as a consequence that I would never repeat their mistakes.
Keep on your path. Don't look at any of the obvious indications around you that your reality is about to undergo a profound change. Criticize the well-founded, reasoned prognostications of those who have perhaps decades more knowledge and analytical experience than you in this hardball game, and enjoy your obliviously smug viewpoint while it lasts before you run full-speed into the huge rocks hiding in the clouds that you are approaching.
Last edited by Mechanic787; 11th Nov 2010 at 15:47.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...The 787 signifies a totally different generation of research, design and analytics in comparison to the 737, as you know, and moves us forever away from the traditional moribund thinking, problem-solving analysis and operational methodology of the previous century when the age-60 rule was the norm. ..."
Wow, that is some impressive writing! The writer demonstrates quite the command of the written word, and hints at an intellect unsurpassed for some time around here. A magnificent metaphorical marvel, no less!
What I would like to understand further though, is how, in this generation of research, design and analytics (the era that is moving us forever away from the traditional moribund thinking, problem-solving analysis and operational methodology of the previous century when the age-60 rule was the norm) that Alto Cu may have ever managed to manifest itself in the Stratosphere. Now THAT would be some interesting stuff to deviate around on a dark and dirty moonless night on min fuel while the suits held hands and whimpered in the back...
Wow, that is some impressive writing! The writer demonstrates quite the command of the written word, and hints at an intellect unsurpassed for some time around here. A magnificent metaphorical marvel, no less!
What I would like to understand further though, is how, in this generation of research, design and analytics (the era that is moving us forever away from the traditional moribund thinking, problem-solving analysis and operational methodology of the previous century when the age-60 rule was the norm) that Alto Cu may have ever managed to manifest itself in the Stratosphere. Now THAT would be some interesting stuff to deviate around on a dark and dirty moonless night on min fuel while the suits held hands and whimpered in the back...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now THAT would be some interesting stuff to deviate around on a dark and dirty moonless night on min fuel while the suits held hands and whimpered in the back...
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ”767-300ER”
I think you should give up your day job and start charging for psychic readings....how do you know what the Federal Court is going to rule, and regardless, how is the Supreme Court going to rule on this?
May I suggest your next verses:
When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you
If your heart is in your dreams, no request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star as dreamers do
(Fate is kind, she brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of their secret longing)
Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you thru
When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true
(Writer: Leigh Harline; Lyrics: Ned Washington)
So, let’s do an inventory of the Tribunal's first (of many) damage awards...
Full reinstatement, full seniority, and no maximum age limit whatsoever. Compensation of over $100,000 each. No notice period required to eventually leave employment, no blended salary (pension and wage) and no restriction to junior aircraft or position. Damages payable to be shared equally by Air Canada and the Association.
Mandatory retirement at Air Canada has been successfully overturned, at least partially, despite Air Canada's and ACPA's monumental effort to prevent this from happening. More importantly, the dam has been cracked. Two down, 148 or more to go, so far. Liability accruing at the rate of in excess of $1.5 million per month (using Air Canada's numbers, times the number of pilots awaiting their day in court).
True, the Tribunal said that this week's decision applied to those two only pilots, not to the others in the queue. What does that mean? Does it imply that the others may not also be successful in their demands for reinstatement and compensation? Not likely.
It means only that the remaining complainants have to go through the same hearing process to get what the Tribunal finds to be approporiate in their circumstances before they receive a similar outcome. The Tribunal gave no suggestion that the remaining complainants would not receive the same or even larger awards. Hence, the total potential payout is shaping up to be quite problematic, especially for the union.
So what is the probability that any of the remaining pilots in the queue will get a less generous award than what these two received? Does it make any sense that Vilven and Kelly, who have been away for over seven years and five years respectively, would get full seniority and full rights without bidding restrictions, but that someone whose employment was terminated later would not? Not likely. Will they be awarded less monetary compensation? Not likely.
Why? Because this damage award was limited by the fact that the damages started after the Charter decision was rendered. The remaining complainants will not be limited by that factor because their arguments are not (yet) based upon the Charter. If they lose their case on the numbers (normal age of retirement), they can still be awarded the Charter damages outcome that Vilven and Kelly were awarded, because that argument has not yet been made in their hearings.
If the Federal Court or a higher court overturns the Vilven-Kelly Charter decision and consequent damage award, the remaining pilots can still reasonably expect the same outcome or better than what was awarded this week by the Tribunal in the Vilven-Kelly case.
Why? Because the other complainants can still be awarded even more damages on the basis of the normal age of retirement argument (the impending Thwaites decision). That outcome will be almost impossible to successfully appeal, because it will be based on evidence, not on esoteric legal argument about Charter principles. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide evidentiary-based outcomes, and appeal courts do not generally interfere with factual findings of Tribunals. Their role, in judicial review, is to review the legality of the process used by the Tribunal, not the findings of fact.
One does not need to use Tarot cards, nor does one need to be a next-generation technologist to see the stars aligning on this one. Of course, you can always avail yourself of the two alternative options used by ACPA for the past five years: denial and wishful thinking.
Last edited by Understated; 13th Nov 2010 at 15:41.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a way out for the AC Pilots? Can the AC Pilots "get out" of ACPA and join ALPA? Can ACPA sell it's assets and distribute these back to the Pilots? Then ACPA would be penniless and disappear. Is this course of action legal? Is it possible? Would AC rather negotiate with ALPA or with their ACPA bedfellows?
The ruling gives AC a stranglehold over ACPA. ACPA has been rendered totally impotent.
The ruling gives AC a stranglehold over ACPA. ACPA has been rendered totally impotent.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Late Great Planet Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understated wrote, "Mandatory retirement at Air Canada has been successfully overturned, at least partially...
Partially correct, very partially. The CHRT denied the cease-and-desist order. Further they made it quite clear that Vilven/Kelly was not precedent-setting so therefore none of the future litigants can appeal to VK as precedental. Because Canadian jurisprudence is based on Stare Decisis, precedental law, that is a huge setback for future litigants.
VK is a one-off. Age 60 retirement stays...for now.
Partially correct, very partially. The CHRT denied the cease-and-desist order. Further they made it quite clear that Vilven/Kelly was not precedent-setting so therefore none of the future litigants can appeal to VK as precedental. Because Canadian jurisprudence is based on Stare Decisis, precedental law, that is a huge setback for future litigants.
VK is a one-off. Age 60 retirement stays...for now.