April 26, 2002

Sid Ryan

President
Ontario Division

Dear Sid:

Re:   Airline Seniority Integration

We have carefully reviewed your letter of April 12.  It is based on a
number of false allegations.

First, the National Executive Committee and National Executive Board have in fact dealt extensively with the issue, much more than the "five minutes" you refer to in your letter.  Briefings and updates were provided at each NEB meeting and several NEC meetings since the initial mergers were announced over a year and a half ago.  We went through a National Convention in 2001 where a former CAIL flight attendant ran for National President.  Your letter of April 12, 2002 is the first time you express your concerns about CUPE National's so-called "shameful" role in this process.  It really does beg the question, where have you been for the past year and a half?

We suggest that you review all of the information previously provided to you, including the five-page Briefing Note and the actual Burkett Award given to you in February 2002.

The second false allegation you make is that the former CAIL members have been disenfranchised of their seniority rights by the position taken by our National Union.  This is not the case.  The facts are as follows.

Once the AC/CAIL merger was announced CUPE National worked with the Air Canada and CAIL components to attempt to resolve the differences over how seniority integration would be achieved.  the components subsequently agreed to submit their differences to arbitration.  Brother Ryan, you well know that this is a commonly used method of resolving issues in the union movement.  And, you also are well aware that not everyone likes the results.

The decision of the arbitrator is final and binding, unless there is an aspect of the decision which might be the subject of judicial review.
You can be assured that the counsel of each former Component will be reviewing that carefully.

You falsely claim that CUPE National - even though it has been stated to the NEB and in writing several times that that is not the case - funded
the arbitration.  The costs of the arbitrator's fees and disbursements are paid for by Air Canada.  the Components are paying their own costs.

Finally, you suggest the CUPE National has a policy on seniority integration and that should override Local Autonomy.

CUPE National does not in fact have a "national policy" on seniority integration.  It has been accepted practice of CUPE to deal with seniority
integration on a case-by-case basis.  This approach has been reconfirmed over and over again in the many difficult integration cases, as you know full well, since many of these difficult situations have arisen in Ontario.

As you will recall, in Ontario, when health care restructuring occurred, the CUPE Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU) gave very

clear direction to CUPE National.  That direction was that it was the decision of the Locals as to how seniority integration should proceed,

and that the National should not dictate to them.  You voiced no disagreement at that time.

And we're sure you haven't forgotten the turmoil around seniority integration when Ontario welfare workers were transferred into CUPE
bargaining units.   The Locals had a range of positions, none of which were to recognize date of hire for seniority.  Over a period of several years, some Locals reached agreements, and some referred their dispute to arbitration.  None of them would have wanted CUPE National to dictate the outcome.  You voiced no disagreement at that time.

Surely, you can't now be suggesting that we should not respects Locals' or Components' autonomy to make these decisions themselves.

In this case, we are certainly not putting forward an "excuse" for not taking one side against the other.  Rather, we are upholding the respect
due to Components and Locals to make these decisions.

You quote excerpts from Michael Church, but do not provide the context for his remarks.  Mr. Church was responding to questions from the

Canada Industrial Relations Board, in 1998, before the AC/CAIL merger.  This was a ”sale of business" application that dealt with First Air

and NWT Air. The questions was "if you become the bargaining agent for the intermingled unit of Flight Attendants. how will you deal with the

integration in the said bargaining unit of the employees who you do not currently represent?"

In his answer, Mr. Church described the policy and process that had been adopted at that time by the Components of the Airline Division. His
submission made it clear that seniority integration is a process of "negotiation" between the bargaining units involved, not a hard and fast
rule.  He states "in all cases CUPE was able to successfully not only work out merged seniority integration lists but also able to come to agreements with the employers in question vis-a-vis new collective bargaining language to take into account unique issues as a result of the merger in question, etc.".  As we have made clear to everyone, in the case of the former AC and CAIL Components, they could not come to an agreement, and so they decided to use the arbitration process.

Given the fact that the elected officers of the former CAIL Component agreed to the arbitration, and given that they participated fully in the process, and that the arbitration decision is final and binding, I am unsure what could possibly be achieved by revisiting their decisions at an emergency NEB meeting.

As we told you at the February 2002 NEB meeting, we have a serious problem at the Air Canada Component.  We have a minority group of former CAIL members who are actively organizing against CUPE and want to decertify.  Key to their strategy is making CUPE look bad.  our letter of April 12 plays right into the hands of those who have publicly stated they want to join the Teamsters.

Surely the better approach would be to focus on the good work CUPE is doing for flight attendants, including attempting to negotiate a good collective agreement in the face of a hostile employer and government.  We would think that as a National Executive Board member you would be more interested in understanding and defending CUPE National's position rather than fuelling the flames of discontent.

In
solidarity,

Judy Darcy's signature                            Claude Genereux's
signature
National President                                  National
Secretary-Treasurer