August 22, 2016 at 3:45 PM
Arbitrator Tom Hodges has issued his reasons behind the decisions he made regarding the Air Canada/Jazz c base arbitration. Mr. Hodges based his decisions on the awards that the late Martin Teplitsky made prior to his sudden death.
The c base issue has struck a raw cord within our local and with good reason. In a union, one job lost is one job too many. Fortunately, no member affected by Air Canada’s withdrawal from the small bases is left without choices. Any member that wants to retain their work in their home base will, those that want and are eligible to retire can and those that chose to retain employment with Air Canada by transfering to another base are able.
Throughout the entire process which included multiple grievances filed on behalf of our members, Unifor sought to find a solution that respected the spirit and intention of the past shared base agreements that have governed these unique circumstances for over a decade.
A brief history of the c bases
In February 2005, Air Canada decided to terminate service to and close the small bases in Moncton, Saint John NB, St. John's Nfld., Charlottetown, Quebec City, Thunder Bay, Whitehorse, Regina and Saskatoon. The transition of the small bases to Jazz was triggered by the reformulation of the airline's business due to the company’s insolvency in 2003. In response to the announcement, CAW-Canada filed a grievance, which was heard by Arbitrator Martin Teplitsky the supervisory arbitrator/mediator appointed by the court during CCAA.
On April 4 2005, Mr. Teplitsky issued a mediation arbitration reaffirming that Air Canada employees were to follow the terms of the Jazz collective agreement unless the April award or MOU specified otherwise. And, he was to remain seized with any issues concerning the implementation, application, administration, or alleged violation of his award.
Mr. Teplitsky, in a January 2010 award pertaining to Jazz members in YYT stated that “I would not, as far as practicable, cause harm to employees in the small bases,” and further that the award would “continue in effect until either changed by agreement of the parties or in a further award by me in the event of a material change of circumstances.”
Air Canada bargaining
Air Canada members were adamant that they wanted to make significant gains in the 2015 negotiations. A tentative agreement was reached and members came out in full force to meetings held across the country to hear the details of the agreement.
The new collective agreement included significant monetary gains, which bridged the pay gap between newly hired and senior workers, benefit enhancements, the protection of scope work and job security for approximately 400 members who assist our special needs passengers. But as in every round of bargaining, there were also difficult decisions to make. As part of the agreement the company and the union concluded a memorandum calling for the cessation of Air Canada employees’ employment with Air Canada at the small bases as of June 30, 2016. (Air Canada's decision to sever its connection to the small bases represented a "change in material circumstance" as referred to in the January 2010 award of Mr. Teplitsky.)
In June 2015, Local 2002 members ratified the agreement by 65 per cent.
On February 8, 2016 Jazz advised the union that it would offer existing Air Canada small base employees a starting rate of $11.23, one pay grade above start level. In addition, their seniority dates would be the new date of hire from Jazz.
These terms of “continued” employment from Jazz were completely unsatisfactory and the union filed a grievance. It was put before Mr. Teplitsky who ruled that he had jurisdiction over the matter.
Unifor filed a further grievance challenging the validity of the June 2015 MOU on the grounds that only two of the four parties (Air Canada, Jazz, Unifor-Air Canada and Unifor-Jazz) who were bound by the award of January 2010 had signed and agreed to the MOU. There had been no discussions with Jazz about the terms that Jazz would compensate the Air Canada employees whose day to day employment in their bases continued uninterrupted and unchanged.
Mr. Teplitsky declared on June 9, 2016 that the June 2015 MOU was “ineffective” and instructed the four parties to provide submissions on how the outcome could be structured.
Air Canada sent out a letter to its employees on June 27, 2016, at the c bases stating: “Air Canada and Unifor did not have the right to agree to the terms set out in the letter.” Therefore the terms and conditions that were bargained in the letter were “ineffective” and all elections for retirement, paid relocations, and VSP’s would no longer be honoured. In releasing that bulletin they created an expectation amongst the affected members that
none of terms in the June 2015 MOA would go ahead, including the ending of the secondment of the employees. On July 14, Jazz informed Unifor that they would no longer be providing schedules to Air Canada workers. Grievances were filed against both Air Canada and Jazz over their refusal to provide work schedules.
Sadly, Martin Teplitsky was battling health issues and so the next meeting with the arbitrator was held on June 29 by teleconference. Mr.Teplitsky told those on the call that “ineffective” didn’t mean the original deal would not go ahead.” He said that the 2015 Air Canada/Unifor MOA could survive with “variations.” He instructed the parties to bring forward their proposals regarding appropriate wages and seniority for Air Canada workers who wish to remain in their home bases.
Martin Teplitsky unexpected death on July 14, 2016 left many questions unanswered and another arbitrator had to be decided upon.
In the meantime, to ensure that no agent lost pay while waiting to have this matter before another arbitrator, Unifor filed a Section 92 complaint with the CIRB, asking them to declare that an unlawful lockout had taken place.
On August 9, an arbitration hearing took place in Toronto with the newly appointed arbitrator, Tom Hodges. He was provided with all of the awards that Mr. Teplitsky had made to date on this issue, including the June 29 teleconference call when he stated
the June 2015 MOA would go ahead with variations he determined to be appropriate.
On August 14, Arbitrator Hodges delivered his decision on C base grievances. He said he was without authority to stop the Air Canada decision to close the affected bases or amend the agreement of June 2015.
In accordance with the 2016 decisions of Arbitrator Teplitsky on June 9 and June 29 and the June 2015 agreement, the variances to be implemented by Arbitrator Hodges are as follows:
For Air Canada employees that remain in their current bases working for Jazz:
- Seniority
their seniority date is the date they sever with Air Canada and begin to work with Jazz. The Jazz seniority date will govern the bidding of schedules, vacation, awarding of vacancies, etc. Service for the purposes of determining vacation accrual will begin in 2005.
- Status
Air Canada employees will maintain the status they held as of June 1, 2016, in the base only.
- Wages
The union was successful in securing a more equitable wage than was originally offered by Jazz for those Air Canada members who chose to remain in their home bases. They will be placed on step 11 of the scale for new employees which is $16.83 per hour.
Voluntary separation packages (VSP)
- Members who have opted for the VSP will receive 69 weeks pay ($75,000 severance)
- Two Air Canada passes for eligible dependents for each year of service at the date of separation for those with less than 25 years of service or factor 80
- Option to use portion of severance package to bridge age to a pension milestone
Transfers to other Air Canada bases
Those members choosing to transfer to another Air Canada base are eligible for $32,000 moving expenses
Of the 62 members that are affected by the closure of the c bases 11 are Retirement Phase In, 22 have selected Voluntary Severance Packages (of which 12 are most likely to retire) and 29 members have elected to transfer to other Air Canada bases
This has not been an optimal situation for some members and difficult choices have had to be made. However, your union has worked diligently on behalf of our members, throughout this process to have their choices optimized.
Important links: