Originally Posted by
The Lev
Could that be because both parties actually liked most of the clauses in the 2004 agreement - in a negotiation both parties have the opportunity to propose changes.
From what I understand, in 2004 the pilot union at the time conceded "a lot" (not 100% clear on details) due to the nature around AC's bankruptcy in 2003.
Looking back around the 2012-2014 era, it seems that Bill C-33 was passed at the time (back to work bill) to effectively remove the ability for AC from locking out its unions, and from the union from striking:
https://financialpost.com/transporta...k-to-work-bill
In July 2012, Air Canada won a contract dispute with the ACPA (then pilot union). The dispute went to final offer (union and company presents a contract, government arbitrator selects one to apply):
https://financialpost.com/news/air-c...in-arbitration
And in 2014, AC ratified a new contract with the ACPA:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle21401537/.
That's to say, AC's history with its pilot union has been... messy. The votes in 2014 may have said "84% ratified, with 92% total members voting", what the article leaves out is what the alternative would have been if they didn't vote in favour for that contract. I wouldn't count that as conclusive evidence the pilots at the time "were happy with what they were presented".
Originally Posted by
shinyshoes
My understanding is that the union is emphasizing the fact that the previous contract is ten years old to highlight the fact that they have not negotiated increases during the last few years where inflationary pressures have been significant and many Canadian bargaining units have received higher than average increases. I can't imagine that they are suggesting that it is an issue that there are provisions in the current agreement that have been brought forward from previous contracts.
Much better phrased than what I could otherwise come up with.