Update

July 2nd, 2006

On June 29th, ACPA provided its response to the Tribunal concerning our Notice of Motion seeking status as an Interested Party. In that response it states, "

"Should ACPA be granted status as an interested party in these proceedings, it will object to this 'Coalition' of present and former ACPA members being granted standing before the Tribunal.  It will be ACPA's position that there is no basis on which other Air Canada pilots or their would-be spokespersons can legitimately intervene in Mr. Vilven's complaint.

"ACPA has accommodated those of its members who, before their retirement, approached ACPA expressing a wish to challenge 'age 60'.  Those pilots' grievances will be heard at arbitration, in which they well be represented by independent counsel.  Any pilots who are still employed and are concerned about 'age 60' have the option of approaching ACPA to have their issue settled through the grievance/arbitration route."

This is interesting, in our view, because by ACPA is essentially suggesting that we should not be granted status because there exists an alternate mechanism available to some (not all) of the members of our group. This position is taken, in spite of the fact that the decision of this Tribunal in this matter will almost certainly be binding upon any arbitrator appointed to resolve the grievances in the alternate process. Although not stated in this response, ACPA is expected to argue later, based on submissions made to a separate complaint, that this proceeding itself should not exist--rather the CHRT should demur and allow these complaints to be handled similarly through the grievance / arbitration process, even though many of those complaints would not be entertained because grievances on the issue were not filed by many of the individuals within the strict time limits of the Canada Labour Code.

June 28th, 2006

No major updates to the web site are planned this week. Planned editiorials should be available by early next week.

We do not yet have the web management manpower available to initiate the Forum.

We are awaiting a response from both Air Canada and ACPA as to whether or not they will consent to our Notice of Motion, requesting status before the Tribunal. Until those responses are received by the Tribunal, the decision as to our appearance can not be made.

Captain Neil Kelly filed a separate complaint, similar to the Vilven complaint, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission several months ago, naming both Air Canada and ACPA as respondents, alleging that his forced retirement last year contravened the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That complaint is currently in the Investigation stage, with both Air Canada and ACPA having provided the Commission with their responses to the complaint. Those responses make for interesting reading, especially the one from ACPA. ACPA's response goes into several areas not pleaded by Air Canada (including the area of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) and also raises some legal issues with respect to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal's, as opposed to an arbitrator's, jurisdiction to hear the complaint.