The following unsigned briefing document was distributed by the CUPE
National office to the members of the CUPE National Executive Board in late
February.

THE REAL STORY IS TOLD IN RED!!!!

AN ANALYSIS

Briefing Note on Situation at Air Canada



Judy Darcy and members of the National Executive Board have received a couple of hundred emails, letters and phone calls in the last six to eight weeks from flight attendants. Most are letters of complaints about the integration of seniority lists as a result of the Air Canada and Canadian Airlines merger.

THE 2000 ODD LETTERS ARE MORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT CUPE NATIONAL HAS STOOD BY AND ALLOWED THE FORMER AIR CANADA COMPONENT TO WALK AWAY FROM THE LONG STANDING AIRLINE DIVISION DATE OF HIRE MERGER POLICY.

Why all the letters? What are we doing about the situation?



As has been reported to the National Executive Board several times, labour relations have been a nightmare at Air Canada since the take-over of Canadian Airlines.



CUPE, unlike the CAW, opposed the integration of the two airlines. But it happened. And ever since Air Canada purchased Canadian Airlines (CAIL), the company has been trying to integrate the work force at both airlines.

AT THE TIME OF THE MERGER, CANADIAN WAS IN POOR FINANCIAL SHAPE, AND WAS RUNNING OUT OF OPTIONS. WHAT POSSIBLE BENEFIT COULD CUPE'S OPPOSITION TO THE MERGER HAVE HAD FOR THE CAIL GROUP?

This is not an easy task in the airline industry. The two airlines operated very differently. The airlines flew different aircraft, and some different routes. The provisions of the collective agreements covering flight attendants at the two airlines were different to reflect differences in operation.

THESE ARE BLATANTLY MISLEADING AND IRRELEVANT STATEMENTS. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SIMPLEST OF TASKS, SINCE THERE HAS BEEN A MERGER POLICY IN PLACE IN THE AIRLINE DIVISION SINCE 1990. THE POLICY STATES THAT CUPE WILL KEEP A
MASTER LIST OF ALL THE AIRLINES ,SO THAT AT ANY GIVEN TIME THE MEMBERS OF ANY GIVEN GROUPS CAN BE DOVE-TAILED. WHAT COULD BE "EASIER"? IF ANYTHING, AC AND CAIL ARE THE TWO MOST SIMILAR CUPE AIRLINES TO MERGE SINCE
DEREGULATION IN 1985. CAIL ITSELF CONSISTED OF ONE INTERNATIONAL SCHEDULED CARRIER (CP), ONE PREDOMINANTLY CHARTER AIRLINE (WARDAIR), AND THREE REGIONALS (EPA, NORDAIR, AND PWA). ALL THESE AIRLINES MERGED BY DATE OF
HIRE SENIORITY. BY CONTRAST, CANADIAN AND AIR CANADA WERE BOTH FULL-SERVICE AIRLINES BOTH SERVING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS. REFERENCES TO DIFFERENT COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORY OF DATE OF HIRE MERGERS IN THE AIRLINE DIVISION OF CUPE, DON'T EVEN WARRANT A RESPONSE.

Labour board rules Air Canada is common employer



After the Air Canada take-over, our CUPE component at Canadian applied to the federal labour board for a common employer ruling. Our component at
Air Canada opposed the application. The labour board ruled in favour of the application on August 3, 2000.



As a result of the common employer decision, a number of things had to happen, including the integration of seniority lists. Also, everyone knew that a new common collective agreement would have to be negotiated at some point. What happened was that Air Canada entered into separate negotiations with our Canadian component. A collective agreement was signed. The agreement gave the Canadian flight attendants substantial wage increases and job security until 2004. In exchange, the Canadian flight attendants agreed to most of the other provisions of the agreement already in place covering the Air Canada flight attendants. There was a lot of unhappiness about this on the part of Canadian flight attendants. They didn't like having to work under new rules.


WITH THE COMPANY'S STOCK AT A HISTORIC HIGH, AND A GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENT DESIRE FOR LONG TERM LABOUR PEACE FROM THE COMPANY, THE EXECUTIVE FROM CANADIAN IMPLORED THE EXECUTIVE FROM AC TO JOIN IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT THE LATTER REFUSED. AS A RESULT THEY ARE NOW THE ONLY UNIONIZED GROUP FROM EITHER FORMER COMPONENT WITHOUT JOB PROTECTION. IN ADDITION THEY ARE MAKING 2.5% LESS THAN THEIR COUNTERPARTS FROM THE FORMER CAIL. AS FAR AS NOT LIKING WORKING UNDER NEW RULES,..THREE NEAR BANKRUPTCIES AND FOUR MERGERSHAVE MADE THE FORMER CAIL A FAIRLY ADAPTABLE LOT. THE CONTRACT DOES LEAVE A BIT TO BE DESIRED BUT WE ARE EDUCATED ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT THE PLACE TO ACHIEVE THOSE CHANGES IS THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND NOT BY WRITING A FEW THOUSAND LETTERS. IN SHORT, ANOTHER IRRELEVANT JAB.




Integration of seniority



As is common practice in these situations, the two CUPE groups sat down to figure out how to handle seniority integration. The components could not agree on an approach. The CUPE Airline Division had adopted a policy guideline some years supporting the position that integrated seniority lists should be based on date of hire. The Canadian component favoured such an approach because many of their members had relatively more years of seniority. Air Canada on the other hand had done a lot of hiring just prior to the take-over. The demographics of the two groups were very different. The CUPE Air Canada component refused the date of hire principle.

INTERESTING CHOICE OF WORDS...POLICY "GUIDELINE". THE POLICY HAD SUCCESSFULLY MERGED 19 AIRLINES AND WAS TOUTED QUITE PROUDLY BY LAWYER MICHAEL CHURCH (RETAINED BY CUPE)IN HIS LETTER TO THE CIRB, WHEN CUPE WAS SEEKING TO BECOME THE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE GROUP RESULTING FROM THE FIRST AIR/NWT MERGER ( August 1998). THE CANADIAN GROUP FAVOURED SUCH AN APPROACH QUITE SIMPLY BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE RULES OF THE GAME AS THEY HAD ALWAYS PLAYED IT. MANY CAIL MEMBERS HAD EXPERIENCED LOSSES IN PREVIOUS MERGERS AND WERE GOING TO FINALLY SEE SOME OF THE GAINS THAT COME WITH TIME.

IN ADDITION, AT THE TIME THE POLICY ITSELF WAS PASSED, THE DEMOGRAPHICS WOULD HAVE FAVOURED THE AC GROUP HEAVILY, YET THE CANADIAN GROUP, EAGER TO AVOID THE ACRIMONY AND DIVISIVENESS EXPERIENCED IN PREVIOUS MERGERS,
GLADLY HELPED TO PASS THE POLICY. THE PRESIDENT OF THE AIRLINE DIVISION AT THE TIME WAS NONE OTHER THAN RICHARD NOLAN, THE CURRENT VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AC COMPONENT WHO STATED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MERGE THAT IF THEY AGREED TO DATE OF HIRE, HE WOULD "NEVER GET ELECTED AGAIN"! DENISE HILL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE AIRLINE DIVISION AT THE TIME OF THE MERGE, WROTE THAT THE LARGER AC COMPONENT WAS THREATENING TO LEAVE THE DIVISION. IN ESSENCE, A LARGE CUPE GROUP WAS ALLOWED TO BULLY A SMALLER CUPE GROUP OUT OF THEIR SENIORITY WITHOUT ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE NATIONAL.

TO THIS DAY WE ARE STILL WONDERING WHY THE AC COMPONENENT WAS ALLOWED TOREFUSE THE DATE OF HIRE "PRINCIPLE"...(SHOULD HAVE READ "POLICY!)



Internal protocol is signed



CUPE National's general approach to these situations is to let the local unions (in this case, airline division components) decide. We have generally stayed away from pushing one formula for resolving seniority problems in cases of amalgamations and mergers. The two components eventually agreed to decide the matter by referring it to an outside arbitrator. This was the same approach taken by all the other unions at the two airlines: CAW, the pilots (who were represented at each airline by a different union), and IAM. A protocol agreement setting out the terms of reference for the arbitrator drafted by two layers representing each of our two components. It was also signed by the company, CUPE National and the Airline Division President (who at the time was Sister Denise Hill). Kevin Burkett was named arbitrator. The protocol agreement specified that only the components would be parties to the arbitration. CUPE National had agreed to stay out of it and not take sides with either one component or the other. Each of our two components hired legal counsel to represent them during the arbitration proceedings.

CUPE'S "GENERAL APPROACH" OF "LETTING LOCAL UNIONS DECIDE", WAS LIKE A POLICE OFFICER SAYING HE CAN'T GET INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC DISPUTE WHILE A MAN BEATS HIS WIFE. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO FIND A "FORMULA" AS A POLICY HAD BEEN IN PLACE ( AND HAD BEEN USED IN EVERY MERGER) FOR TEN YEARS. CAIL AGREED TO THE PROTOCOL ONLY AFTER BEING GIVEN NO SUPPORT AND NO OPTION BY THE NATIONAL. THE OTHER UNION GROUPS DIDN'T HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE SO ARBITRATIONS WERE MORE EXPECTED. UNLIKE CUPE HOWEVER, THE LEADERS OF OTHER GROUPS WHICH HAD COMMON UNIONS SPOKE OUT PUBLICLY IN FAVOUR OF DATE OF HIRE . TO THIS DAY, JUDY DARCY REFUSES TO SAY WHERE SHE STANDS ON THE TOPIC OF SENIORITY.

DESPITE CUPE NATIONAL'S AGREEMENT TO "STAY OUT OF IT" AND "NOT TAKE SIDES", THE FORMER AC EXECUTIVE USED MONEY IT HAD RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HIRING A LAWYER TO DEAL WITH OLD GRIEVANCES, AND HIRED
A LAWYER WHO APPEARED BEFORE ARBITRATOR BURKETT IN THE SENIORITY INTEGRATION HEARINGS. JUDY DARCY MADE REFERENCE TO THIS ISSUE IN A JUNE 6, 2001 LETTER TO AC COMPONENT PRESIDENT PAM SACHS, BUT THE LETTER THAT
ORIGINALLY ACCOMPANIED THE REPORT BEING REFUTED HERE, ATTEMPTS TO PORTRAY COMPLAINTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE AS UNFOUNDED.

CUPE NATIONAL REP EGON KEIST ALSO REPRESENTED THE FORMER AC GROUP BEFORE ARBITRATOR BURKETT. IN AUGUST 2001, THE LABOUR BOARD RULED THE TWO GROUPS AS A SINGLE BARGAINING UNIT, WHICH NECESSITATED AN ELECTION. THE VOTE, STRAIGHT DOWN "COLOUR' LINES, DECLARED EX-AC PAM SACHS AND RICHARD NOLAN A PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. THEY IMMEDIATELY COMMISSIONED A "CONFIDENTIAL" BARGAINING SURVEY, THE FIRST QUESTION OF WHICH ASKED THE DISTURBING QUESTION "FORMER COMPONENT"?.. THE RESULTS OF PART OF THE SURVEY WERE ANALYZED BY THE CUPE NATIONAL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (REMEMBER...ONE OF THE BODIES THAT WAS GOING TO STAY OUT OF IT?), AND THE RESULTS WERE PRESENTED BEFORE ARBITRATOR BURKETT IN THE SENIORITY ARBITRATION HEARINGS IN SUPPORT OF AC COMPONENT'S POSITION AGAINST CAIL COMPONENT REGARDING THE MERGING OF THE IN-CHARGE LIST.


ON A SIDE-NOTE. IN A RECENT LETTER TO BROTHER SID RYAN, JUDY DARCY'S ASSISTANT SUSAN RUFFO, CRITICIZES BROTHER SID FOR HAVING STATED THAT CUPE HAD FUNDED AN AFFILIATE TO GO TO ARBITRATION ON AN ISSUE OF SUCH GREAT IMPORTANCE AS "DATE OF HIRE SENIORITY RIGHTS". SHE CYNICALLY MENTIONS THAT THE ARBITRATOR'S FEES WERE IN FACT PAID BY THE COMPANY. HERE WE SEE HOWEVER, THAT THE ASTRONOMICAL LEGAL FEES INVOLVED IN WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNNECESSARY ARBITRATION, ARE BEING PAID BY CUPE.

THIS COULD SET PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE PRECEDENT!

Tensions increase



Needless to say, relations between our two components were very strained. Tensions became worse when Air Canada announced major cuts and layoffs. The
Canadian Component agreement with Air Canada negotiated the previous summer gave the flight attendants job protection. Just under 1000 flight Air Canada component flight attendants were laid off last summer, about half eventually getting recalled. These junior flight attendants blamed their layoffs on the merger with Canadian Airlines. All of this contributed to worsened relations between the two groups.

REVISIONIST HISTORY AT ITS FINEST!!! THE AUTHOR NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT THE LAID OFF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WERE HIRED AFTER THE JAN 4, 2000 MERGE DATE AND WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE BOTTOM OF A COMBINED LIST IN ANY EVENT. ANY
ANGER ON THEIR PART CAN BE ENTIRELY ATTRIBUTED TO FALSE INFORMATION/HOPES THEY RECEIVED FROM THEIR COMPONENT EXECUTIVE, PAM SACHS AND RICHARD NOLAN.



Tensions also mounted when CUPE's Air Canada component started preparing for its round of bargaining. All the other Air Canada employee groups had
been given a big loyalty bonus by the company at the time of the take-over in exchange for concessions.

ALL OTHER AC GROUPS WENT TO THE TABLE AND CAME AWAY WITH RAISES, BONUSES, AND JOB SECURITY TO THE YEAR 2004.

Our component refused the bonus saying that it preferred to negotiate changes through the collective bargaining process. But when the CUPE Air Canada component indicated it wanted to bargain a separate collective agreement as the Canadian component had done, the company applied to the federal labour board for a consolidated bargaining unit,

THE EX-AC COMPONENT EXECUTIVE WHO NOW REPRESENT ALL MEMBERS FROM BOTH FORMER GROUPS, HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THEY WILL NEGOTIATE A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WHICH WILL INCLUDE A BONUS FOR THE FORMER AC COMPONENT ONLY....WE DON'T NEED THE COMPANY TO DIVIDE US, OUR EXEC ARE DOING A FINE JOB.


Board rules consolidated bargaining unit


Both our components opposed this application, as did CUPE National. But the Board ruled in the Company's favour. Exactly one year after declaring common employer, the Board ruled on August 3, 2001 that our two bargaining units at Air Canada would be consolidated immediately and that the Company could give notice to bargain a single collective agreement on October,31, 2001. The labour board gave CUPE national only a few months to consolidate our two components, to elect new officers and a new bargaining committee, an to get ready for bargaining. CUPE National and our Airline Division gotto work. We established new consolidated local unions at each base and put all the former local unions under administration so that we could make sure all assets and files were transferred to the new locals. We held elections for officers of the new Component and of each of the new local unions. There was a lot of unhappiness about this from all sides. A lot of elected officers lost their positions. And many of these elections are still under appeal.

VOTING ANOMALIES (THE EXACT DETAILS OF WHICH WERE NEVER RELEASED TO THE MEMBERSHIP), NECESSITATED A RE-ELECTION OF VP'S AT ALL BASES.

IN TORONTO, THE EX-AC PRESIDENT BRUNO DI GIULIO, HAS REFUSED TO,ACKNOWLEDGE,THE NEWLY ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENTS FROM THE FORMER CANADIAN AND HAS BEEN,USING NON-ELECTED EMPLOYEES TO CONDUCT THE OFFICE'S BUSINESS.

THE MAIN COMPLAINT FROM THE FORMER CANADIAN MEMBERS IS; THAT ALTHOUGH THE,PROTOCOL STATED THAT THE SIDES WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN REPRESENTATION THROUGH TO THE END OF THE ARBITRATION AND UNTIL A COMMON COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WAS ACHIEVED, THAT REPRESENTATION WAS IN EFFECT LOST IN THE PARTISAN VOTE. FOR EXAMPLE, OUR OLD CAIL EXEC NOW DEPENDED UPON A LESS THAN ACCOMMODATING EXECUTIVE TO REQUEST PAID FLIGHT RELEASES ETC.


Seniority arbitration decision


In the meantime, the seniority arbitration was proceeding. CUPE National made it clear to all flight attendants that regardless of the component election results. and regardless of the consolidation of the two components, the two former components would continue to represent their separate interests at the arbitration hearing.



The former Canadian component officers continue to direct their legal counsel. And the legal fees of the former component related to the seniority arbitration are being paid by the new component at Air Canada.

SO WHAT? THEY ARE CAIL DUES JUST AS MUCH AS THEY ARE AC DUES. THE AC COMPONENT OFFICERS ALSO "CONTINUE TO DIRECT THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL. AND THE LEGAL FEES OF THE FORMER COMPONENT RELATED TO THE SENIORITY ARBITRATION
ARE BEING PAID BY THE NEW COMPONENT AT AIR CANADA".....FOR ALL IT'S WORTH!



Arbitrator Kevin Burkett submitted his first award on November 28, 2001. (Copies of this award are available to Board members in English only at this time.)



It is this award that has made a lot of already unhappy Canadian flight attendants a lot angrier. It is this award that has also made Air Canada flight attendants angry. Because the award didn't give either side its way.



ACCORDING TO A PRELIMINARY LIST, A FLIGHT ATTENDANT HIRED IN JUNE 1988 AT CANADIAN IS NOW #6800 ( NEXT TO A 1997 AC HIRED MEMBER) ON THE COMBINED LIST. A FLIGHT ATTENDANT HIRED ONE MONTH LATER AT AIR CANADA IS # 4200 (NEXT TO A 1981 CAIL HIRED MEMBER)... 2600 NUMBERS AND SIXTEEN YEARS WORTH OF SENIORITY NOW SEPARATE THESE CONTEMPORARIES....WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY?. YOU BE THE JUDGE.




THE FOLLOWING SECTION, IN KEEPING IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT, IS A CLEVER EXAMPLE OF SELECTIVE AND MISLEADING OMISSION. MR BURKETT'S RULING HAD 5 POINTS, NOT 3 AS SHOWN BELOW.

THE FIRST POINT DOES HOWEVER, REINFORCE THE OBSERVATION MADE EARLIER ABOUT THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE
ORIGINATING COMPONENT OF THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS LAID OFF IN 2001.


Burkett rules in favour of relative seniority

What the award does is:



1. Put all flight attendants hired after January 4, 2000 at the bottom of the list in order of date of hire. These flight attendants were all members of the former Air Canada component.

2. State that all former CAIL flight attendants retain their date of hire for purposes of seniority and that they will appear in the integrated list in date of hire sequence.

3. State that all members of the former Air Canada component hired before December 31, 1978 are to be integrated into the CAIL list on the basis of date of hire.

For the rest of the flight attendants (i.e. those hired after December 31, 1978 and before January 4, 2000), Burkett's award says that they should maintain their relative seniority on the new list. Essentially Burkett argues that it's not the flight attendants fault that their companies merged. Therefore no one should end up worse or better off as a result. He argues that if a new seniority list was put together based solely on dateof hire, some flight attendants would end up much better off, and some would end up much worse off.

THIS PROBLEM WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING NEW. IN THE CP AIR/ PWA MERGE, ARBITRATOR MUNROE RULED "DATE OF HIRE" WITH "FENCES" TO ENSURE "NO LOSS NO GAIN". BURKETT REJECTED THAT PRECEDENT.

PERHAPS THE MOST PRECEDENT-SETTING ASPECT OF THE BURKETT AWARD IS HIS USE OF THE TERM "SENIORITY AS A CONCEPT", AND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE SHOULD REALLY TAKE NOTE. HE ARGUES THAT "AN EMPLOYEE'S DATE OF HIRE,
STANDING ALONE HAS NO INTRINSIC VALUE."

THE APPLICATION OF THIS LOGIC, AS WITNESSED IN THE EXAMPLES GIVEN ABOVE CREATES CLEAR WINNERS AND LOSERS OUT OF CUPE BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE RULES OF THE GAME FOR OVER A DECADE.

THE FACT THAT YOUNGER EMPLOYEES WILL NOW MOVE ABOVE OLDER ONES, AND WILL STILL BE THERE LONG AFTER THE LATTER RETIRE, WILL DESTROY THE PROSPECTS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF AN ENTIRE GENERATION OF FORMER CAIL CUPE MEMBERS, WHILE
HANDING THE FORMER AC MEMBERS ALL THE BENEFITS THAT COME WITH SENIORITY,
ON A PLATTER.

THE UNIQUE WORKING CONDITIONS AND CORRESPONDING IMPORTANCE OF SENIORITY IN THE AVIATION FIELD WILL MAKE THIS A CAREER ENDING DECISION FOR MANY.

IN THE AIRLINES, SENIORITY IS EVERYTHING;IT DETERMINES WHETHER YOU FLY A PRE-DETERMINED SCHEDULE WITH SOME PREDICTABILITY, OR YOU ARE ON CALL 6 DAYS

A WEEK FOR 24 HOURS A DAY. IT DETERMINES YOUR ROUTES, TIME-OFF, WEEK-ENDS AND HOLIDAYS WITH FAMILY, YOUR BREAKS ON LONGER FLIGHTS, YOUR CHOICE OF HOLIDAYS, CHOICE OF ON-BOARD MEALS, ABILITY TO BID TO FLY AS AN "IN-CHARGE" (AND THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS THAT BRINGS), YOUR PENSIONABLE EARNINGS, AND ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF AIRLINE LIFE AND LIFESTYLE. IT IS FULLY EXPECTED TO "PUT IN ONE'S TIME", AS THE REWARDS EVENTUALLY DO ARRIVE.
THOSE REWARDS, SUCH AS CHRISTMAS AT HOME, OR VACATION DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS, WILL BE NO MORE THAN A DREAM FOR THE FORMER CANADIAN AIRLINES VICTIMS OF THE BURKETT AWARD. THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT FROM THE FORMER AC
HIRED IN 1988 CAN FULLY EXPECT TO ATTAIN THE TOP 10- 15 PERCENTILE OF THE COMBINED GROUP IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS. THE ONE FROM THE FORMER CANADIAN WILL MORE THAN LIKELY RETIRE WITHOUT BREAKING THE TOP 35 PERCENTILE.



So, the obvious question is if the award doesn't have winners or losers why are so many flight attendants angry. In part it is because no one has really figured out what Burkett's award is going to mean in practice and everyone is understandably fearing the worse. In part it's because Burkett clearly rejected the view of the Canadian flight attendants that the only thing that should count is date of hire. In part it's because where date of hire only is being applied (i.e. for employees hired prior to December 31, 1978) some flight attendants who were at the top of their former seniority lists are now further down.

PORTRAYING THE DECADE-OLD AIRLINE DIVISION OF CUPE DATE OF HIRE MERGER POLICY AS "THE CANADIAN FLIGHT ATTENDANTS VIEW" THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT, IS YET ANOTHER CLEAR INDICATION OF THE BIAS OF THE AUTHOR. TRYING TO PRETEND THAT THERE ARE NO WINNERS OR LOSERS, IN LIGHT OF SO MUCH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, REALLY DETRACTS FROM THE INTEGRITY OF THE CUPE NATIONAL MEMBER WHO CIRCULATED THE DOCUMENT, SUSAN RUFFO.



Burkett is still hearing further submissions from the two components before a final list is issued. To put the list together in a way that maintains flight attendants' relative seniority, he is going to be "adding" years of service in some cases. (None of this actually has any negative impact on flight attendants benefit entitlements which will continue to be based on years of service from date of hire.) We can expect the anger about this situation to continue for a while yet. But the reality is that it is really out of our hands.

"BENEFIT ENTITLEMENTS"...READ "HOURLY WAGE RATE".... ABSOLUTELY EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE POST 1989 FORMER CAIL MEMBERS' CAREERS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED. WHY IS IT "OUT OF OUR HANDS", AND HOW DID IT GET THAT WAY ? IF A DIVISION OF CUPE BEHAVES IN A WAY WHICH IS ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL OF TRADE UNION PRINCIPLES, IS IT CUPE'S POSITION TO CITE AUTONOMY TO APPEASE THE LARGEST GROUP? IS CUPE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE COUNTLESS SENIORITY BATTLES THAT THIS PRECEDENT WILL INSTIGATE.

WHEN THE AUTHOR STATES, "WE CAN EXPECT THE ANGER ABOUT THIS SITUATION TO LAST FOR A WHILE YET", HE OR SHE ATTAINS THE PINNACLE OF UNDERSTATEMENT. THIS PROBLEM WILL NOT GO AWAY.

What next

There is little doubt that Burkett's arbitration board is going to be challenged. The first step will be a challenge to the federal labour board. However, it is important to note that the CUPE protocol agreement (unlike that signed by the pilots' unions) does not explicitly make the award subject to review by the Board. And we can probably expect challenges right up to the Supreme Court. It is important to know that while CUPE National has guaranteed the former Canadian Component continued representation at the seniority arbitration, there will be no guarantees for appeals. We must do everything we can to get the members to accept the arbitrator's decision as binding. Already thousands and thousands of dollars of members' dues have been spent on this case. And there will never be a solution that
satisfies everyone.

TO SAY THAT "WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET THE MEMBERS TO ACCEPT THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION" IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE DEPARTURE FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF DATE OF HIRE SENIORITY, BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO PRESERVE THAT MOST BASIC OF RIGHTS OF EVERY
UNIONIZED WORKER IN THIS COUNTRY.. THE NATIONAL SHOULD BE FIRST IN LINE TO BEAT THE DOOR DOWN AND GET IN TO STOP THIS ARBITRATION AND ALL THAT IT STANDS FOR, FROM BEING HANDED DOWN. THAT SOMEONE WITHIN OUR UNION WOULD BE TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE MEMBERS OF THE NEB INTO SUPPORTING THIS ASSAULT ON UNION PRINCIPLES, CLEARLY SHOWS
THAT IT IS TIME FOR CUPE TO CLEAN HOUSE.



We are doing our best to respond to all the letters of complaint. The problem is this is a well organized and aggressive campaign against CUPS. It is very closely tied to an attempt by former Canadian flight attendants to decertify from CUPE.

THE FORMER CANADIAN MEMBERS HAVE BEEN TO THE BRINK OFTEN ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE IN FACT BEEN VERY WELL REPRESENTED BY CUPE. IN TIMES OF DEMANDS OF CONCESSIONS FROM THE COMPANY, CUPE HAS ALWAYS DONE A GOOD JOB OF ENSURING THAT WE GIVE UP LESS THAN MOST OTHER GROUPS. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN STEADY GAINS IN WORKING CONDITIONS IN EVERY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT SINCE JOINING CUPE.

TALK OF DECERTIFICATION, THEREFORE, IS PERHAPS A FANTASY OF THE AUTHOR WHO IS STARTING TO REALIZE THE INCONVENIENCE OF A VETERAN, INFORMED MEMBERSHIP, UNWILLING TO SUCCUMB TO THE BULLYING TACTICS OF A NEVER BEFORE CHALLENGED AC COMPONENT EXECUTIVE, WHICH HAS ESSENTIALLY OPERATED WITH IMPUNITY FORTHE BETTER PART OF THE LAST 20 YEARS.



What we are doing

Our strategy has been to work with the elected officers of the new component at Air Canada to show the good work that CUPS can do. We have also been working hard to negotiate a good collective agreement knowing that this will go a long way to turn people around. Unfortunately we are not getting much cooperation from the company on this front. After one meeting, Air Canada applied for conciliation. The Company is also attempting to use new provisions in the federal labour code to get 25 per cent of our members designated essential. The latest move by the Company is to push binding arbitration. We are fearful that Air Canada will seek, and may very well get, the government's cooperation and legislated binding arbitration.

AC COMPONENT'S UNWILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO BARGAINING WITH THEIR CAIL COLLEAGUES IN SPRING 2000, CREATED A SITUATION IN WHICH CURRENTLY, ONEGROUP HAS A CONTRACT TO 2004, AND THE OTHER HAS AN EXPIRED CONTRACT.
ONE REALLY HAS TO WONDER HOW THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.


It will be important for all National Executive Members, regional offices and regional staff to assist in countering the campaign against CUPE.

ALTHOUGH UNDOUBTEDLY A FEW MEMBERS WILL HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO LEAVE THE UNION (QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES), THOSE MEMBERS OF THE NEB WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO HEAR THE FORMER CANADIAN SIDE OF THE STORY WILL NOW BE ABLE TO ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT, ON THE WHOLE, DECERTIFICATION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. MEMBERS SIMPLY WANT WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS; THE SENIORITY THEY HAVE EARNED.


We have attempted to keep Board Members briefed on the situation at meetings. We have now prepared this briefing note in writing to provide
you with the background on the situation.

FOR CORRECT "BACKGROUND INFORMATION", YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE EXECUTIVE FROM BOTH FORMER COMPONENTS, AND OFFER THEM A FULL AND FAIR CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUES, BEFORE THE WHOLE NEB.



Our Air Canada component is hopeful that with a bit of time things will get better. They want to do a good job representing all the members of the component-the former Canadian component members as well as the former Air Canada component members. They are putting in place improved systems to handle grievances. They are also improving their internal communications. But it isn't easy. Every day they are faced with a barrage of complaints. All of these take time to address. And they are also dealing with a very hostile and arrogant employer.

AS YOU READ THIS, THE NEW AIR CANADA COMPONENT OFFICERS ARE NEGOTIATING A BONUS FOR THE FORMER AC MEMBERS ONLY.