what does it take for an Air Canada employee to be fired?
Jun 11, 2010, 7:04 pm
#16
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: yyz
Programs: Non-Rev Lifetime
Posts: 1,925
Correct. And depending on the issue, it doesn't have to be progressive.
Jun 11, 2010, 8:03 pm
#17
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YVR
Programs: Aeroplan ,Starwood,Priority Club,Amex Platinum,Airmiles,CIBC Gold
Posts: 619
How to get an AC Employee fired
Go to the airport, shout insults at them, throw eggs and kick them in the groin. When they retaliate and kill you, mission accomplished!
What a weird thread!
What a weird thread!
Jun 11, 2010, 10:12 pm
#19
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
Jun 11, 2010, 10:14 pm
#20
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
Jun 11, 2010, 11:47 pm
#21
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YVR
Programs: Aeroplan ,Starwood,Priority Club,Amex Platinum,Airmiles,CIBC Gold
Posts: 619
Well why would someone start a thread on getting someone fired. If you don't like a company, go to another one. Air Canada is the airline that everyone loves to hate! Fly Westjet or Porter, Air Transat, or hire your own plane. Canadians are such whiners.Take a bus if you hate the airlines so much.
I never see this kind of nonsense about the Bay, Sears, Safeway or Loblaws.
This really is silly, so I responded with an appropriate scenario.
I never see this kind of nonsense about the Bay, Sears, Safeway or Loblaws.
This really is silly, so I responded with an appropriate scenario.
Jun 12, 2010, 8:01 am
#22
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: YYZ/DLC
Programs: AP, HHonours Diamond
Posts: 3,722
Well why would someone start a thread on getting someone fired. If you don't like a company, go to another one. Air Canada is the airline that everyone loves to hate! Fly Westjet or Porter, Air Transat, or hire your own plane. Canadians are such whiners.Take a bus if you hate the airlines so much.
I never see this kind of nonsense about the Bay, Sears, Safeway or Loblaws.
This really is silly, so I responded with an appropriate scenario.
I never see this kind of nonsense about the Bay, Sears, Safeway or Loblaws.
This really is silly, so I responded with an appropriate scenario.
Jun 12, 2010, 8:12 am
#23
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
Well why would someone start a thread on getting someone fired. If you don't like a company, go to another one. Air Canada is the airline that everyone loves to hate! Fly Westjet or Porter, Air Transat, or hire your own plane. Canadians are such whiners.Take a bus if you hate the airlines so much.
I never see this kind of nonsense about the Bay, Sears, Safeway or Loblaws.
This really is silly, so I responded with an appropriate scenario.
I never see this kind of nonsense about the Bay, Sears, Safeway or Loblaws.
This really is silly, so I responded with an appropriate scenario.
Jun 12, 2010, 12:24 pm
#24
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: YYZ
Programs: Hilton Gold Mariott Gold Aeroplan E25K SAS Gold NEXUS
Posts: 1,308
You don't hear as many complaints about Safeway / Loblaws because they're not selling many big ticket items and people can't be bothered.
People complain about airline treatment because it's bad relative to some other industries (perhaps telecom/wireless is equally as bad?) and its a bigger ticket purchase for many. Air Canada has a large market share, and will have proportionally more complaints. Every major corporation has incompetent people working on the front line. We all happen to participate in a forum where you hear about it all the time.
Also, I don't buy this "if you don't like it go somewhere else". Companies that provide services which are infrastructure critical and are generally, in one form or another, types of oligopolies, have a responsiblity to do so in a professional and courteous manner. That's why there's regulation around these things, because it isn't as simple as "go somewhere else".
Having said all that, I agree the best solution is vote with your wallet. It seems that has worked though, with Westjet taking a signifcant share of Air Canada's market over the last number of years intra Canada. And, lo and behold, Air Canada makes effots to improve their customer service, which many people around here at least seem to think it's making some difference.
Jun 12, 2010, 2:09 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
I am glad some of us got some humor to us..... forgot to say u need a big cheese to lure the AC employee into the cannon first..... reminds me of the Royal Canadian Air Farce show.....
i agree "if you dont like it go elsewhere" is not the right attitude, but at the same time, there are instances where a customer refuses to understand the position of a service provider. then portrays another story of the service provider and its employee elsewhere... in light of that i agree with some saying there's 2 sides to a story plus the truth.
i think its natural for people to be more protective with their big ticket purchases as compared to smaller items.... like you wont complain about a rotten grape in an entire bag of grapes but you would complain a Plasma TV that has found with scratches. however the value of money and purchase is individual sensitive... i see many complaints about buses as well!
it is normal that with higher number of staff and customer that interactions may differ more significantly and user experiences may hence vary. while a corporation tries to standardize through manuals, policies, procedures, training etc.... they cannot control human emotions and address all unique scenarios....
for one to get in trouble or fired, he/she must be doing a great job at screwing things up.. sufficiently at one area or several areas of great concern to the employer.....
i agree "if you dont like it go elsewhere" is not the right attitude, but at the same time, there are instances where a customer refuses to understand the position of a service provider. then portrays another story of the service provider and its employee elsewhere... in light of that i agree with some saying there's 2 sides to a story plus the truth.
i think its natural for people to be more protective with their big ticket purchases as compared to smaller items.... like you wont complain about a rotten grape in an entire bag of grapes but you would complain a Plasma TV that has found with scratches. however the value of money and purchase is individual sensitive... i see many complaints about buses as well!
it is normal that with higher number of staff and customer that interactions may differ more significantly and user experiences may hence vary. while a corporation tries to standardize through manuals, policies, procedures, training etc.... they cannot control human emotions and address all unique scenarios....
for one to get in trouble or fired, he/she must be doing a great job at screwing things up.. sufficiently at one area or several areas of great concern to the employer.....
Jun 13, 2010, 2:11 am
#26
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Usually on a ship looking for oil and gas; Uruguay, Malaysia, Turkey, Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, Norway, Scotland, India, Congo & Angola, next project who knows? Agreed to CC rules
Programs: AC Altitude E75K/*G, AS MVP, AF/KLM Petroleum Club, BA Blue
Posts: 1,184
This is not specific to Air Canada, but in any highly unionized work environment, the process to terminate an employee is quite rigorous and requires two critical things:
One, the employee must repeatedly and consistently fail to comply with clear work expectations, especially after the employer has escalated the individual through the various levels of verbal warning, written warnings and formal disciplinary processes that are agreed to within the contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Two, the employer, especially the employee's direct supervisors. must consistently document the alleged failings and breaches of those clear work expectations, while following the strict written disciplinary process agreed to within the contract.
The employer must also deal with any grievance allegations made by that same employee, which could include grievances which end up being escalated to a federally appointed labour arbitrator (AC, like many transportation companies is a federally regulated employer).
In my experience, many employees who are being processed through a contractual disciplinary process, a process which can take several years, will submit written grievances for any perceived contractual fault by the employer.
An employee in a highly unionized workplace can be fired, but only if those two critical components are in play. If the employer doesn't consistently follow the written process and document everything, the employee will continue to be gainfully employed. If the employee, complies with the clear work expectations, especially during the periods immediately following any formal discipline or warnings, they will continue to be gainfully employed.
In many written disciplinary processes, warnings, suspensions and other disciplinary actions are cleared from personnel files after a fixed period, if there are no further disciplinary occurrences. If the employee fully complies with the clear work expectations for a set period of time following a disciplinary action, they can regain a 'clean sheet'. If an employee's supervisors don't fully and properly document any further breaches following a disciplinary action, the employee's personnel record could be 'reset' and the employer must start from the first steps.
It's a long process, been there, done that.
One, the employee must repeatedly and consistently fail to comply with clear work expectations, especially after the employer has escalated the individual through the various levels of verbal warning, written warnings and formal disciplinary processes that are agreed to within the contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Two, the employer, especially the employee's direct supervisors. must consistently document the alleged failings and breaches of those clear work expectations, while following the strict written disciplinary process agreed to within the contract.
The employer must also deal with any grievance allegations made by that same employee, which could include grievances which end up being escalated to a federally appointed labour arbitrator (AC, like many transportation companies is a federally regulated employer).
In my experience, many employees who are being processed through a contractual disciplinary process, a process which can take several years, will submit written grievances for any perceived contractual fault by the employer.
An employee in a highly unionized workplace can be fired, but only if those two critical components are in play. If the employer doesn't consistently follow the written process and document everything, the employee will continue to be gainfully employed. If the employee, complies with the clear work expectations, especially during the periods immediately following any formal discipline or warnings, they will continue to be gainfully employed.
In many written disciplinary processes, warnings, suspensions and other disciplinary actions are cleared from personnel files after a fixed period, if there are no further disciplinary occurrences. If the employee fully complies with the clear work expectations for a set period of time following a disciplinary action, they can regain a 'clean sheet'. If an employee's supervisors don't fully and properly document any further breaches following a disciplinary action, the employee's personnel record could be 'reset' and the employer must start from the first steps.
It's a long process, been there, done that.
Last edited by mpc1; Jun 13, 2010 at 2:16 am Reason: fix minor typo
Jun 13, 2010, 8:05 am
#27
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 271
I worked for AC for over 30 years and can tell you it is very seldom you will see an employee get fired. It's not because they don't deserve to but due to the onerous processes in place required to do so. I have seen cases where employees have lost their jobs for breaking the law and gotten them back from an arbitrator. Most supervisors do not want to go through the hassle. Unfortunately this is one of the reasons you run into some of those less then appealing customer service staff although frequently it's not the employee who is the problem. I have seen enough instances of employee abuse to know there are usually 2 sides to every problem.Unfortunately what you see is a bi product of unionism. I was a union employee and had a hard time stomaching some of the stuff I saw fellow employees get away with that although were not customer related non the less was an insult to both the Company and the employees who eventually had to pick up the slack.
Jun 13, 2010, 11:08 pm
#28
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YVR
Programs: Erstwhile Accidental AC E35K
Posts: 2,912
I think to properly answer the question one must look at it in the context of how the legal system has evolved over the years with respect to employment law. One must recognize that in Canada the legal system is designed and operated for one purpose and one purpose only: to make more work for more lawyers. Nowhere is this more evident than in the employment law regime.
Leaving the union factor aside for a moment, the jurisprudence that has evolved over termination of employment leaves it highly uncertain as to what an employee must do (short of blatently and seriously illegal activity that compromises the employer's business) to be terminated with cause, and what the employer must do to terminate an under-performing employee. The result: an extreme amount of extremely expensive litigation over wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, adequacy of notice, duty to accommodate disabilities (such as alcoholism and drug abuse, no less!), etc.
When you add in the union factor and introduce the grievance concept and all its cumbersome and highly legal processes, you complicate it by a factor of ten: grievances, jurisdictional disputes, mediations, arbitrations, appeals, appeals of appeals, etc. Again, the singular objective is more work for more lawyers.
The irrefutable evidence of this lies within the jurisprudence. I defy anyone to read a judgement pertaining to employment law and pick out a definitive and straight answer to a simple question: what does it take for an airline employee to be fired? The decisions, as are all decisions in our civil legal system, are specifically crafted to avoid giving definitive and clear answers that can be appied to another case. To do so would reduce employment among lawyers and thereby negatively affect the economic growth of the country.
An acquaintance of mine who is a lawyer once told me that employment law is one of his hobbies, for two reasons: 1) You can learn everything you need to know in the law library in less than 10 hours; 2) the employer always loses.
I think I chose the wrong career.
Leaving the union factor aside for a moment, the jurisprudence that has evolved over termination of employment leaves it highly uncertain as to what an employee must do (short of blatently and seriously illegal activity that compromises the employer's business) to be terminated with cause, and what the employer must do to terminate an under-performing employee. The result: an extreme amount of extremely expensive litigation over wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, adequacy of notice, duty to accommodate disabilities (such as alcoholism and drug abuse, no less!), etc.
When you add in the union factor and introduce the grievance concept and all its cumbersome and highly legal processes, you complicate it by a factor of ten: grievances, jurisdictional disputes, mediations, arbitrations, appeals, appeals of appeals, etc. Again, the singular objective is more work for more lawyers.
The irrefutable evidence of this lies within the jurisprudence. I defy anyone to read a judgement pertaining to employment law and pick out a definitive and straight answer to a simple question: what does it take for an airline employee to be fired? The decisions, as are all decisions in our civil legal system, are specifically crafted to avoid giving definitive and clear answers that can be appied to another case. To do so would reduce employment among lawyers and thereby negatively affect the economic growth of the country.
An acquaintance of mine who is a lawyer once told me that employment law is one of his hobbies, for two reasons: 1) You can learn everything you need to know in the law library in less than 10 hours; 2) the employer always loses.
I think I chose the wrong career.
Jun 14, 2010, 6:27 am
#29
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Closer to YTZ
Programs: Fairmont Platinum | AC Gate Lice Status | VIPorter
Posts: 2,554
This is not specific to Air Canada, but in any highly unionized work environment, the process to terminate an employee is quite rigorous and requires two critical things:
One, the employee must repeatedly and consistently fail to comply with clear work expectations, especially after the employer has escalated the individual through the various levels of verbal warning, written warnings and formal disciplinary processes that are agreed to within the contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Two, the employer, especially the employee's direct supervisors. must consistently document the alleged failings and breaches of those clear work expectations, while following the strict written disciplinary process agreed to within the contract.
The employer must also deal with any grievance allegations made by that same employee, which could include grievances which end up being escalated to a federally appointed labour arbitrator (AC, like many transportation companies is a federally regulated employer).
In my experience, many employees who are being processed through a contractual disciplinary process, a process which can take several years, will submit written grievances for any perceived contractual fault by the employer.
An employee in a highly unionized workplace can be fired, but only if those two critical components are in play. If the employer doesn't consistently follow the written process and document everything, the employee will continue to be gainfully employed. If the employee, complies with the clear work expectations, especially during the periods immediately following any formal discipline or warnings, they will continue to be gainfully employed.
In many written disciplinary processes, warnings, suspensions and other disciplinary actions are cleared from personnel files after a fixed period, if there are no further disciplinary occurrences. If the employee fully complies with the clear work expectations for a set period of time following a disciplinary action, they can regain a 'clean sheet'. If an employee's supervisors don't fully and properly document any further breaches following a disciplinary action, the employee's personnel record could be 'reset' and the employer must start from the first steps.
It's a long process, been there, done that.
One, the employee must repeatedly and consistently fail to comply with clear work expectations, especially after the employer has escalated the individual through the various levels of verbal warning, written warnings and formal disciplinary processes that are agreed to within the contractual agreement between the employer and the union.
Two, the employer, especially the employee's direct supervisors. must consistently document the alleged failings and breaches of those clear work expectations, while following the strict written disciplinary process agreed to within the contract.
The employer must also deal with any grievance allegations made by that same employee, which could include grievances which end up being escalated to a federally appointed labour arbitrator (AC, like many transportation companies is a federally regulated employer).
In my experience, many employees who are being processed through a contractual disciplinary process, a process which can take several years, will submit written grievances for any perceived contractual fault by the employer.
An employee in a highly unionized workplace can be fired, but only if those two critical components are in play. If the employer doesn't consistently follow the written process and document everything, the employee will continue to be gainfully employed. If the employee, complies with the clear work expectations, especially during the periods immediately following any formal discipline or warnings, they will continue to be gainfully employed.
In many written disciplinary processes, warnings, suspensions and other disciplinary actions are cleared from personnel files after a fixed period, if there are no further disciplinary occurrences. If the employee fully complies with the clear work expectations for a set period of time following a disciplinary action, they can regain a 'clean sheet'. If an employee's supervisors don't fully and properly document any further breaches following a disciplinary action, the employee's personnel record could be 'reset' and the employer must start from the first steps.
It's a long process, been there, done that.
I guess the customers do not matter here?
Jun 14, 2010, 6:30 am
#30
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Closer to YTZ
Programs: Fairmont Platinum | AC Gate Lice Status | VIPorter
Posts: 2,554
I worked for AC for over 30 years and can tell you it is very seldom you will see an employee get fired. It's not because they don't deserve to but due to the onerous processes in place required to do so. I have seen cases where employees have lost their jobs for breaking the law and gotten them back from an arbitrator. Most supervisors do not want to go through the hassle. Unfortunately this is one of the reasons you run into some of those less then appealing customer service staff although frequently it's not the employee who is the problem. I have seen enough instances of employee abuse to know there are usually 2 sides to every problem.Unfortunately what you see is a bi product of unionism. I was a union employee and had a hard time stomaching some of the stuff I saw fellow employees get away with that although were not customer related non the less was an insult to both the Company and the employees who eventually had to pick up the slack.
