They have nothing to hide. What you suggest is simply not legally permissible, at this time. Their solicitor received a copy of the agreement within the context of a legal proceeding. That's where that copy resides right now, with the lawyers. It is a privileged document not subject to publication, at least until it is put into evidence before the Board during the public hearing, next year.

So we are all still speculating as to its content. The most we know about it is what the MEC Chair told us about it in his newsletter announcing it. Evidently, you know more than we do about it.

This issue is in front of the CHRT because standards have changed in Canada and it is no longer acceptable for a group to decide when an individual must retire. The fact that the Federal Government hasn't gotten around to changing their rules yet is a short term reprieve at best because it is happening as we speak. You think Air Canada can just duck their heads and evade that reality forever? You want to blame an entire shift in Canadian Society's standards and law on a few Air Canada pilots?

This issue is in front of the CIRB because ACPA forgot they are a trade union and have legal obligations. They wear that one...no one else. And you can be thankful someone has undertaken to remind them of that fact because YOU might have been the next person they decided to cast off.

Finally, yes we can take lessons from CUPE and should. In fact we should take lessons from anybody who does anything better and smarter than we do. The old saying "you wouldn't recognize a good idea if it ran you over in a cement truck" applies here, as it does in far too many instances at Air Canada and ACPA.

This is over the heads of the CHRT and will ultimately be decided by the courts.

There are many Professions in Canada (including the Law Profession) that mandates Retirement age. Whether by Collective Agreement (as in our case) or simply Corporate policy.

The thought the every single Pilot, that has ever retired from Air Canada, can simply come waltzing back is ridiculous.

Pinning this on ACPA is absurd. Leave it to the Courts and see what happens. They are the big picture department and the decision will impact every working person in Canada.

Unlike the Socialist Clowns down at the CHRT.

In the intervening time, welcome back boys....better stay awake!

No it won't. Currently New Brunswick is the only province or territory that permits mandatory retirement, and legislation is working its way through parliament to eliminate it federally. Every other jurisdiction has already abolished it which means mandatory retirement for the vast majority of working people in Canada is history, and nothing the Supreme Court says is going to change that. Even if ACPA persists in taking Vilven and Kelly to the SC and win, the law is changing and it will all have been for nothing. One big unbelievably useless and self-destructive waste of time.

ACPA fights to keep age-60 rule

Air Canada's pilots union fights to keep age-60 rule

Air Canada's pilots union fights to keep age-60 rule
By Mary Kirby

Air Canada's pilots union has appealed to the country's Federal Court to maintain a mandatory age-60 retirement rule at the carrier.

The Federal Court is conducting hearings into the matter this week, after a rights tribunal determined that two Air Canada pilots were unfairly forced to retire after reaching age 60, and called for their reinstatement.

"We are asking the Federal Court to reaffirm that the law and previous Supreme Court decisions recognize our members' democratic right to determine their age of retirement through collective bargaining," says Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) president Captain Paul Strachan.

Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the Air Canada pilots' contract and pension plan. The ACPA warns that the Federal Court's decision "could potentially impact the wages and benefits of thousands of federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement".

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently decided to reinstate two retired Air Canada pilots, although it did not extend the reinstatement to all Air Canada pilots. The reinstatement comes on condition that each pilot hold a valid pilot license, a medical certificate showing that he is fit to fly, and current instrument flight rating.

Counsel for ACPA will argue that the tribunal erred at law by ignoring Supreme Court decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to negotiate a normal age of retirement.

A recent survey of more than 1,800 Air Canada pilots showed that 82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger, according to the ACPA.

W5.

It is very important to note, that it is a survey, not a specific poll, re the fly past 60 issue.

Less than 50% of the pilots responded to the poll, when you get the real numbers. There are 3300 pilots at ac. Only, 1800 responded, and of that amount, only 82% were in favour of not going past 60. Less than 50% of the pilots.

If, acpa, wanted to get real with their numbers, they would do a specific poll, and ask how many pilots wanted to be able, to fly past 60, at their choice. The retirement age can stay at 60, if a pilot wants to retire then, but it would not be mandatory.

acpa has never, had more than 50% of the pilots wanting to keep the age of 60, as the mandatory retirement age.

I see a problem here.

Vilven and Kelly, or Thwaites et al, returning to work or working past 60 does not restrict anyone from retiring at age "60 or younger".

So then the next question is, "What is the problem if you can still retire at 60?"

The answer is..... "We won't make as much money if we let them have their human right to continue working past 60".


Who looks greedy now?

Your posts would be much more effective if you had even the slightest clue about what you are talking. Lawyers have mandatory retirement? With which law firm?

Every single pilot that ever retired from Air Canada can come back? Is the rock that you are living under the big one in Australia?

This intentionally misleading statement reminds of the words of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Note very carefully the wording: "82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger." Not 82% supported retirement mandatory retirement at age 60 or younger.

Who doesn't support the option to retire at age 60 or younger. That is not the proper question. The issue before the Tribunal and the courts is whether the retirement at age 60 should be mandatory.

According to the survey, what percentage of pilots supported mandatory retirement at age 60? Instead of couching the media message in the form of a statistic that is expressly intended to mislead the public and the union membership, why not state the truth?

Give me a break. Now you are going to nitpick the wording of the question? Everyone who answered it knew they were talking about MANDATORY retirement at age 60. Thats the way it is now and thats what the question was refering to.

You can twist it anyway you like.. The vast majority of pilots who participated in the wawcon survey supported retirement exactly the way it is now.

BCFLYER

You would be well advised to re read the acpa poll, and the acpa survey, that I posted ealier on this forum.

acpa, is not giving you and the membership, real numbers. They are providing watered down, disinformation to all of us.

I have posted the following "poll" and "survey" from acpa. The only 2 acpa accounts of any actual membership numbers.

Note:

there is no "vast majority".

Never, was.

Less than 50% of the total pilots at ac have indicated that they want mandatory retirement at 60. Please, read the poll numbers, and the survey numbers. They both show less than 50% of the total amount of ac pilots want this.

It is acpa's numbers, just read the poll, and the survey numbers. They are availables on the acpa site, if you are an acpa member?

The acpa mec posted their wawcon numbers. See acpa mec bulletin #27 on the acpa site, dated July 01 2010.

Your suggestion does not even suggest acpa has the correct data. Please...look at the numbers, of those who responed to the entire surrvey, and the total number of pilots who could have responded. This is to the entire survey, not just the age 60 issue(s).

This is from the acpa bulletin sent out to all the pilots.


forward over the summer

end++++++++++++

It would serve all those who are opposed to the age 60 issue, to get real, honest information from acpa, and from their Age 60 Committee. When you get it, please, post it here, so we can all see the light of day.

Of the 58 percent who bothered to reply, only 80% of them were in favor of fighting the age 60 issue. So, 80% of 58% (of the total pilots) is the actual number, that expressed as personal desire to continue the fight, at the risk of loosing WAWCON gains, what a joke. This is less numbers, than the IVR vote in May of 2006. acpa, is screwing you over, and using your dues to do it with, does that not cause any of you to be concerned that you are not getting proper representation, and that the majority of the pilots do not want to trade bargining power, for the age 60 issue.

AC is doing exacatly what they planned, they have the pilots fighing each other, so that they will blow off contract gains, to get some pie in the sky result, that the laws of the land will shoot down very soon.

Over a decade of downhill sliding due to seniority fighting, pension fighing, and now the age 60 issue. Ever wonder why ac is so against the age 60 issue??? It will save them money if it was changed. They know they have lost, yet they spoon feed acpa and the pilots in general. What a loss for ALL the pilots.

There is NO CURRENT IVR VOTE POLL showing that 80% of ALL ac pilots favor fighting the age 60 issue(s). THAT is a lie.

If you really believe that bs, from acpa, why dont you man up, and show us the certified results?

THE LAST IVR VOTE WAS IN 2006. LESS than 50% of the pilots voted to fight the issues. The age 60 IVR vote that was used in the current news release by acpa.

The vote was taken in 2006. Not 2010. The rules, were different then.

For those of you, who like to see that 80% of the pilots supported the mandatory retirement of 60. Do the math, less than 50% of the ac pilots supported the age 60 issue.

IVR # 72
May 8 2006

Certified, Audited results:

3083 eligible voters

1840 voted

1382 yes

0458 no

so only 1382 of 3082 voted yes. LESS than 1/2 the members voted to fight this. acpa is not, representing its members.

A new poll, which acpa would never do, would show even less yes votes.

The world has changed, and so should acpa,ac, and the individuals who only see the world in the rearview mirror.

If....acpa, wanted to, they could have another IVR vote, They dont want to, as they clearly know that less than 1/2 of the pilots wanted to fight this issue. And that was way back in 2006. All the rules have changed.

The special interest group(s) that are running acpa, and ran acpa in the past, are closed to any type of change, except the specific ones that they are after.

Have any of you seen a briefing from the Age 60 Committee in recent times?

Has acpa clearly told any of you what they think is going to happen?
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ser_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...c/progress.gif

The JR hearings closed 1.5 days early. Ruling possible,......in 3 to 4 months.

Thoughts while trying to fall asleep on the wrong side of my body clock: Why are certain posters still hammering away here? If it all is such a slam dunk, why do they not just sit quietly and rub their hands in joyful anticipation of the sound of the Brinks truck backing up? (Oooops, sorry, I meant to say in joyful anticipation of the restoration of the dignity that was snatched so ignobly from them when they fell victim to such horrible discrimination...) If ACPA are as inept as they say, and the issue is as clear cut as some would have us believe (not sure how many on here actually...so many sound like the same person...) then they have nothing at all to worry about, do they?

IMHO, I think they are actually getting a little worried....hmmmm

p.s. Anyone want to hazard a guess on how Mssrs. V and K would have voted on contractual retirement age as they rose through the ranks at AC in their respective pursuits of lifestyle and equipment status?

I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?

ACPA has never told the members how much money they have spent so far defending age 60.

ACPA has never told the members how much liability they are exposing them to.

ACPA has never told the members the realistic odds of winning the VK case.

ACPA has never told the members the realistic odds of winning, or anything for that matter, about the Thwaites case due for an imminent ruling.

ACPA has never told the members anything at all about the next approximately 70 cases after that, or the open ended number sure to keep on coming.

ACPA has never told the membership what legal advice they received regarding this issue, unlike CUPE who was completely open and honest with their membership.

ACPA has never given the members an objective analysis of mandatory retirement in Canada, how the issue is evolving, and what it means for Air Canada pilots.

ACPA has never presented to the membership anything but the most dire scenario of career destruction if mandatory retirement is abolished. They have never investigated or even considered any options to mitigate the inevitable end of mandatory retirement, and they for sure have never encouraged the membership to think along those lines.

What ACPA has done is conveniently ignore the fundamental losses while touting the small victories as proof that their take on the issue will prevail. Much of our membership seems willing to accept this fantasy at face value without asking any questions, and is inexplicably disinterested in knowing the answers they should be demanding from our union.


ACPA can hold as many surveys and votes as they want, but until they give the membership the information they need to make an informed choice it is as legitimate as an election in Zimbabwe.

ACPA can hold as many surveys and votes as they want, but until they give the membership the information they need to make an informed choice it is as legitimate as an election in Zimbabwe.

One also may wonder if Zimbabwean 'Campaign Managers' would post under multiple usernames while accusing the 'Government' of dishonesty and ineptness....

It's no problem to make the odd post whilst one rubs their hands. In fact I suspect your post is just made out of boredom and frustration as this story is all but over.It's a free Country you can think what you want. Why not think about how much your UNION is costing you and if they have their own agenda as they did during the last negotiations, or are you one of them?You're babbling, what difference does it make? That was then, this is now. What is your UNION doing to you, er I mean for you, now?

I like to make informed decisions Trop_rider as I'm sure you do under any circumstances other than this one. If you are aware of the union providing any of the things mentioned in my post above please tell me where I can find it.

Your list could be the start of a long thread in and of itself. How about:

ACPA has never complied with its duty to fairly represent all of its members.

At the last Toronto general council meeting, the Base Chair stated, "We don't represent those people..." meaning, not just the retired pilots who have filed complaints, but the pilots who object to their impending mandatory retirement.

Like, it can pick and choose the select groups of its members that it represents and doesn't represent (the "in" crowd) with impugnity, despite its legal obligation under the Canada Labour Code to fairly represent all of its members, and despite the fact that those members pay the same proportion of union dues as the ones that it says that it does represent.

What other union in Canada has joined in legal proceedings in support of the employer's termination of employment of their own members? Talk about precedent!

Can't wait for the chickens to come home to roost.

A fair question Understated, and I have a feeling that the day is coming soon when ACPA must accept that mandatory retirement is a thing of the past. But one must also ask if any other union has had a group of its own members dining on the fruit from the poisonous tree (i.e. advancing as others retired at 60), only to complain that the fruit was poisonous when it came their turn to step away from the table. That, IMHO, is what is leaving so many people with a bad feeling about this issue. I understand that it may be irrelevant to the legal discussions, but it's completely relevant to the human beings that are being affected by it going forward.

It wouldn't matter if they were the most popular pilots in the company, whomever chose to take on this fight first was destined to be faced with the bad feelings that are now occurring.

I wouldn't have put it that way, but yes there has been right here at Air Canada...CUPE. Their response could not have been more different than ACPA's, and it is for the express reason that they have a duty to fairly represent all members as stated in their newsletter regarding this issue.

Other unions in this country also have dealt with the same issue (ACPA is not the centre of the universe afterall) and they too have seniority systems.

Please explain why it is OK for ACPA, and ACPA alone to ignore their legal obligations?

J.O.

Good question. Why the court action now.

This has been attempted in the 70's, 80' and 90's. There were different USA rules, ICAO RULES etc. The cost to do this is enourmous. The court time, legal time, personal time etc is not possible on a small group bases.

Remember, Transport Canada has NO maximum, age restriction on a pilots licence. That was done a couple of decades ago.

The current V/K issue has been going since 2003-2005. It is not something new.

There are many pilots who are on the silent list for this issue. That is to say, they are not vocal to the acpa types that are bent on fighting this issue. Many pilots need to go longer to get a better pension, assuming there is a pension to get in the future. The pensions, are under funded, both the AC pilots pension, and the CAI pilots pension. If....there is a change to the contract, to allow pilots to go past the mandatory 60, then the pension plans will be in better shape, due to less initial draw down on them. The indexing was stolen out of the plan, by the courts after ac went bankrupt. However, senior management still has all their benefits and indexing in the management fund. Nice eh.

There are not thousands of pilots trying to get this issue changed. So the impact is not massive. It does affect progression, no doubt, but it is not on a large scale. The pilots at ac, have taken many pay cuts, reduced hours, etc etc, to avoid layoffs of the junior pilots. That is a good thing, and the right thing to do. It saves them and it save the company money in reductions, and training etc. It also, allows the co to ramp up quickly when times improve.

I know of several pilots, who are hoping that this issue changes, to allow a pilot to fly past 60. They are in their mid 50's, and they want to work longer to obtain max pension. There are many varied reasons why a pilot might want to work longer, and to force him/her to retire at 60 is not right. If the anti 60 group want to retire at 60, fine, make the option to retire at 60, an option. They can still go if they want to. They wont though. This whole refusal by acpa is to get rid of as many senior pilots as possible, and then as the younger pilots approach 60, they will insist that the law be changed. Nothing surprising about that, it is just the way life is. Look at the age, and seniority, of the acpa structure. It is all about choices. So, now the courts will decide this, and the opportunity, that acpa had, to mitigate this issue, will be out of their hands, and into the mindset of the judges. Sad, that the line pilots are not given real life information by acpa.

777;

Thanks for a very reasoned and thoughtful response. I should say, if it's not clear, that I am not a pilot at AC so I don't have a specific axe to grind. In fact, I honestly see and can sympathize with both sides of the argument. It's also quite likely that my financial situation will mean that my career will need to go past 60, so it would be hypocritical to come down hard on the side of mandatory retirement at that, or any other age specifically.

Obviously it would have been better if an amicable solution could have been reached, but having been somewhat of a monkey in the middle in the union / company ebb and flow in the past, I can see how it became polarized. The tipping point for me was when the V & K case included a demand for punitive compensation. They lost some of my sympathy right then and there.

Have a good weekend! :cool:

J.O. and others

If....you want other POV's, (points of view) please have a look at the other active forum on this topic. Click the link below.

Scroll down to AIRLINES and then AIR CANADA

Also the Fly Past 60 (FP 60) website:

Thanks

AVCANADA • Index page

FlyPast60 Index Page

Censorship Is Alive and Well
 

AvCanada moderators did it again. Good discussion re the Federal Court hearing. Almost no slander. Nothing very contentious. Then, ZAP! Nothing. The whole thread is deleted.

Update: See below. The thread has been reinstated. Thanks to them.

Not meant to be a thread hijack but, the above post compels me to ask if everyone is aware of the Obama Administration's attempts to put controls on the Internet? The Days of Freedom of speech are coming to an end. Obviously the Internet is censured in China, will controls and regulation and censorship become the norm in every jurisdiction? A major threat to Obama's control of "thought" by the MSM is the free speech emanating from the internet. It is about to be silenced. It's one thing when moderators control the discussion on a private forum but when the Government censures the Internet, Freedom is curtailed.

The House of Commons this morning unanimously passed Second Reading of Bill C-481, the bill that will repeal the mandatory retirement exemption under Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Bill was supported by all parties, including the government. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, in debate, stated that the government, with two qualifications, unequivocally supports passage of the Bill. The qualifications are to be dealt with in Committee, via amendment.

From here the Bill goes to a Parliamentary Committee for review and amendment. The two amendments contemplated are as follows. The first one is a transition provision that will allow a short time period, likely six months, from the date of the enactment of the legislation until the date that the legislation comes into force. The second one has to do with the Canadian military.

When the law takes effect, likely in the summer of 2011, the repeal of the mandatory retirement provision will affect approximately 12,000 organizations in the federal sector that employ over 840,000 employees in the transportation, telecommunications and finance industries.

Parliamentary Committee hearings are being scheduled for mid-January.

Let's pretend for a few minutes that no Air Canada pilots were challenging mandatory retirement or ever will.

What we are left with are the other employee groups at Air Canada filing their own complaints that ACPA has no control over. We are left with the approximately 840,000 other federally regulated employees in thousands of organizations, many of whom have filed or will file their own complaints into the indefinitely foreseeable future, which ACPA also has no control over. We have pensions under extreme pressure in this country because of greatly increased lifespans and a growing elderly demographic that must be supported by fewer workers. We have mandatory retirement already abolished in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada. And we have a federal government well along the process of doing the same with the unanimous support of every single Member of Parliament regardless of their political affiliation.

Hmmm.

Since no Air Canada pilots are challenging mandatory retirement in this fictitious world there is no one in our group for the others to hate and spend all their time and energy vilifying. So what would they be doing then?

One would hope they would look at the situation going on outside their little realm and recognize that things are about to change and they had better f*****g well prepare for it. However I'm not so sure that would be happening even in this fantasy world because afterall, we are Air Canada pilots and we don't have to do what the rest of Canada is doing.

But alas, there are Air Canada pilots challenging mandatory retirement which does give us someone to hate and vilify. So we are spending all our time, energy and vast quantities of money fighting those dirty bastards we despise so much, and pretending instead that it is the rest of it that isn't happening.

Great job!:ok:

How ironic....In France they went on strike because the Government is increasing the retirement age. Most of French citizen are against it.

Furthermore, fresh graduates are jobless or working as cleaners or other no qualification jobs and even then they have a hard time to find one.

What about all those pilots waiting for openings that will not come soon? And those pilots are almost working for nothing. Oh yea, I forgot about that absurd "you have to pay your dues" coming from the simple minded greedy who are coming back with a full pension...

Can you please tell me Breguet, how your post and the thousands of identical ones from like-minded individuals are helping Air Canada pilots prepare for the change that is happening, and would have happened if the flypast60 group never existed in the first place?

Smokescreen. Straw man!

How so?

I think the question of what ACPA would do if this wasn't challenged by Air Canada pilots is very relevant. Everybody seems to want to blame those pilots who issued this challenge, but nobody including ACPA has stopped for a minute to think that this would be happening anyway. That was the point of my previous post and is why our current strategy makes absolutely no sense. If Air Canada pilots were not challenging this I would hope ACPA would look at the situation and prepare for the coming change as their responsibility as our representatives would dictate. But that's not what they're doing now is it?

So, what do you think would have happened given everything else that's going on? Can you seriously say no other Air Canada employee group would have made their own challenge. How about any of the other 800,000+ other federally regulated employees? Would the federal government not be moving to eliminate mandatory retirement?

CIRB Dismisses All Complaints Against Air Canada Pilots Association
 

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - May 6, 2011) - The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has completely dismissed all complaints filed by 67 pilots opposed to retirement at age 60 who alleged that they had not been fairly represented by the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA).

Full article here.

CIRB Dismisses All Complaints Against Air Canada Pilots Association

Please, read the entire ruling. Then look at the context. It was done prior to the Aug 2009 CHRT ruling, and the Feb 2011 Federal court ruling.

It is also done with the Charter as the focal point, and not the HRA. Different issues.

The spin, by acpa is very misleading.

There is a very good debate on AVCANADA.CA re this issue, and information from Raymond Hall, from the FP60 coalition.

=================

The title of the ACPA Press Release is not accurate. The Board has not dismissed all of the complaints before it. It dismissed only the complaint filed last August on behalf of originally 67 pilots, later increased to 75 pilots.

The Board has not yet ruled on the complaint filed in March of this year regarding ACPA's refusal to file a grievance on behalf of the three pilot complainants whose termination of employment was pending in April and May.


===============

rudder wrote:
Perhaps Ray or somebody in the know would care to explain why the CHRT has not provided decisions in cases where proceedings have been completed? There is no reason for the CHRT to take pause as the matter is not being dealt with at the bargaining table and the CIRB has now made its view on the representational issue quite clear. Please don't tell me that the CHRT is waiting for the new government to enact new legislation http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/image...s/icon_eek.gif


The CHRT is a quasi-judicial body. It does not provide reasons or justifications for any delay in rendering its decisions. Nor can anyone "call up the judge" to ask why the decision has not been yet rendered. Similarly, there is no basis for any speculation whatsoever as to any purported reason for a delay in rendering the decision. It will come when it will come. The only person who truly knows why the decision has not yet been rendered is the person writing the decision.

The Tribunal is charged with the responsibility of rendering its decisions on the basis of the evidence and law before it at the hearing. Any consideration of extraneous outside matters by the Tribunal in the result would be reviewable by a court, and is therefore not likely to play a factor in the timing of the release of the decision.



====================