The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Predictably, More Strife at Air Canada

by David Doorey April 13, 2012
written by David Doorey April 13, 2012

More Air Canada flights were cancelled today as some pilots apparently called in sick. This is just another brick in the dismissal wall of labour relations  that is Air Canada.  I’ve already walked through some of the issues that arise in the case of pilots calling in sick here (is calling ‘sick’ a strike?) and here (can it be illegal to call in fatigued when law prohibits flying when fatigued?).
I also discussed and posted the pleadings in a Charter challenge filed by the Air Canada pilots against the Feds’ ‘stay-at-work’ legislation.
Yesterday, the Air Canada pilots union released this document showing a break down of Air Canada operating costs, and comparisons of Air Canada pilot salaries and raises compared to: (1) pilots at other Canadian airlines and (2) Air Canada executives.  The claim is that Air Canada’s economic problems are not a result of pilot salaries.  The pilots are angry at the employer, who it feels disrespects them, and at the government, for repeatedly intervening on the side of the employer.
Whether you agree with the pilots’ tactics or not, it seems clear that the government’s interventions are not stopping labour unrest or work stoppages at Air Canada.  This isn’t surprising if you know anything about labour history.  Workers will resist when they feel an unfair system is being thrust upon them, especially workers that have some power.  Like pilots.  The unfair system is the Tory government’s Stay-at-Work legislation which, rather than imposing a system of neutral arbitration, imposes an arbitration system stacked in favour of the employer.  That is the greatest mystery in this story to me.
If the government were truly concerned that a work stoppage at Air Canada would wreak havoc on the economy, why would it not just refer the matter to arms-length arbitration, allow the parties to select an agreeable arbitrator, and then let the arbitrator listen to the arguments and make a decision?  What would be so terrible about that?   The pilots might still have been angry about losing the right to strike, but at least they might have perceived the alternative mechanism as neutral and fair.  That alone might have prevented the current disputes.
Yet that is not what Minister Raitt and PM Harper did.  They insisted on giving the Minister the right to select the arbitrator rather than leaving it to the parties to agree on someone, on limiting the arbitrator’s discretion to selecting either the unions or the employers’ proposal, and then directing the arbitrator to give special emphasis in making that selection to the employer’s competitive concerns rather than the pilots various concerns. As I’ve said before, either the state is trying to side with the employer, or it isn’t, in which case it should not be involved in trying to influence the arbitrator’s discretion in a private business dispute.
I’ve also wondered aloud why Air Canada doesn’t propose or agree with the pilots’ union to bypass the government’s unnecessarily provocative arbitration model and design their own neutral model chaired by a leading and respected arbitrator.  That would seem to be one sensible way forward to ease tensions and get on with rebuilding a healthy relationship.  But I’m not in the bargaining room, so I can’t say what is being discussed.  Maybe the Pilots don’t want arbitration in any form.    Or perhaps Air Canada prefers the government’s model, for obvious reasons.  If that is the case, it shows how government intervention in labour disputes can actually worsen relations.  Since the government’s skewed model is the default model, there is less incentive for the employer to move back to a fairer and more neutral position.  This leaves the workers with no other mechanism to resist the government’s model but to engage in actions that are disruptive to the employer.

What do you think?  Do you think that the Federal government’s form of intervention in the Air Canada dispute has benefited or harmed Air Canada?
Do you think the government’s intervention is fair to the pilots?
What do you think of the pilots’ efforts to resist the model?

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
York TAs to Take Ratification Vote Next Monday
next post
An Evening with Professor Paul Secunda Discussing the Wisconsin Attack on Public Sector Unions, and its Backlash

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
13h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
17h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.