Dear Members,

There continues to be a lot of discussion and concern about the Master Seniority List (MSL). Many Members have asked that we explain this concisely in a communication, this note is to explain the decisions made to develop the list as presented. We also want to let you know what our options were, and the reasons for the choices we made.


How we got here

Over the past 25 years, we've worked with ever changing and confusing rules about service and seniority. At different times, these rules included: 

1. The option to leave the department for different lengths of time (ranging from 6 to 12 months) while maintaining or accruing years of service 

2. Being able to leave the Company for periods of time while maintaining or accruing years of service 

3. "One off" emails and conversations with managers, allowing some employees the option of leave while maintaining or accruing years of service 

4. Giving previous Inflight Leadership the option to approve lapse in qualifications with unbroken years of service. This was the situation under the old WCCA agreement.

Employees made career and life decisions under confusing, changing and sometimes inconsistent guidelines.

It gets even more difficult: some individuals had to re-train after an absence. Company records are (as a result of these inconsistent rules) not always accurate.

The position of the union, as expressed by Members in surveys and discussions, is simple. Seniority and service start with training. Breaks in service to work elsewhere sever a member's rank on the list.

Going forward, that training date will be the date used. But for service to this date, the issue boiled down to using the first training date, or using the most recent training date. *It is also important to note that Company records do not accurately reflect a consistent set of rules, approvals or parameters applied to any one CCM at any given time.


The role of the bargaining committee and the executive

The local bylaws state that a Bargaining Committee disbands once a collective agreement is signed. In this case, the executive asked the committee to stay on and build the Master Seniority List.

The parameters in which the Master Seniority List would be created was presented to the Executive. The Executive identified the issue of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in employee records. We noted that a large number of Members would be disadvantaged using the most recent IAT. Members who have never left the department would lose a significant amount of time as reflected in their years of service.


Collective Agreement Language

The contract reads:

15-4.01 Cabin Personnel seniority shall begin to accrue at the date of successful completion of in-class initial training. If the seniority date of two (2) or more Cabin Personnel is the same, the Cabin Personnel with the lower employee number shall have more seniority.

We are limited by this language. We cannot add language where there isn’t any in the Collective Agreement. We received legal advice that the decision has to be applied to all Members or none. We have no option to start using cumulative years of inflight service. The contract only speaks to how cabin personnel are attributed on the list. Namely, “successful completion of in-class initial training.” The contract doesn’t say which completion of in-class initial training (for Members who had multiple training).


The Options 

*Option 1 included language that is not in compliance with the CA.

To review an initial draft of Option 1 MSL parameters and to gain more insight on where Option 2 came from, click here.

The Executive discussed leaving the list as the Bargaining Committee created it. This still left many Members losing many years of service in the inflight department. The Executive deliberated and voted to create the Master Seniority List using the first IAT date. This option creates a situation where a handful of Members who intentionally left the company or department gain rank. But it also ensures that the rest of the membership sees a fair reflection of their time in inflight.

Upon further review of “Option 1”, we discovered many other administrative issues with placement on the list that are also not reflected in employment records. In the absence of reliable and complete employee files, the Executive came to the conclusion that the only responsible way to build the MSL was to move forward with first IAT and not retroactively apply language.

If Employee records accurately reflected changes in parameters for accrual of time served, there would be more options available. The Executive determined the least amount of harm would be to grant Members who had never left inflight department their years of service when creating the very first Master Seniority List, even if it meant that a handful of Members be given years of service for intentionally leaving the department or company.


Seniority from other parts of WestJet

There are Members who would like to carry service from other departments, WestJet Encore or Swoop into this contract. Attempts were made to align bargaining committees from all 3 units. But these efforts were unsuccessful. Until we go through another round of bargaining, this is not an option available to us.


Conclusion 

We understand the frustration about the handful of Members who ‘unfairly’ benefit from using the first IAT date. But the alternatives result in many more losing significant years of inflight service.

This was not an easy decision, but it is based on union principles of solidarity. 

In Solidarity,
Your CUPE 4070 Executive Team