Huh? Appeal to whom? I understood this ruling was binding upon both parties.

I thought this passage of the linked article worth noting:

“An objective comparison of the two tentative agreements reveals that the union bargaining committee did a superb job of extracting additional concessions from Air Canada during the bargaining that took place following the rejection” of the first deal, Ms. MacPherson said. “While the parties may have been bargaining under the threat of government intervention, the usual economic pressures present in every set of airline negotiations were also operating.”

Which makes Mr. Moist's rhetoric profoundly disappointing.

lol, when is union rhetoric not profoundly disappointing?

Sounds like Mr Moist is still a little wet behind the ears :p:D

If anything the ruling makes it clear that AC negotiated in good faith and offered the maximum it could under the circumstances. Their pension fund is still waaaaay underfunded.

A move to a hybrid pension fund just prolongs the time that the pension fund will be underfunded and at risk.It does however offer a way out of the mess AC found itself managing.

It will be interesting to see how fast the new low cost carrier rolls out and under what banner.
I would not be surprised to see a return of 'Tango" as a distinct airline with Tango fares being offered only at the new Tango airline. A no frills, no points, low cost airline will give AC an edge to compete in the low end of the market with a lower cost structure rather than try to compete for that market with a higher cost structure.
High cost= higher fares and more bells and whistles (staus miles +points, low or no baggage fees, etc)
Low cost= low fares, no frills, no status miles, reduced points.

It makes good business sense to me.

The appeal would be to the Court of Appeals Court of Queens Bench..

Every arbitration can be appealed.. the benchmark for overturning a decision is so high, that nearly all appeals fail..

In this case the appeal would likely be in the Federal Court system. While I'm not overly familiar with the labour code, I expect their appeal options would be similar to when AC tried to appeal the CSR ruling a couple weeks back (you can appeal the process the arbitrator used, as opposed to the outcome).

and probably limited to admistrative versus factual determinations.

in any case, sometimes you win and sometimes you loose.

Your statements are incorrect on several levels.

Not "every arbitration can be appealed".

The ruling by the CIRB arbitrator in this case (AC & CUPE) may not be appealed.

However, the MacPherson ruling may be subject to judicial review, if the standards for JR are met.

It is not a question of simple semantics to differentiate an "appeal" from an application for "JR"; they're not the same thing at all.

A provincial court such as the "Court of Appeals Court of Queens Bench" (sic) is not competent to hear an "appeal" in this case.

BTW, each province and territory has a specific name for its courts of common law and only 4 of 10 provinces now use the term "Queen's Bench".

As this is a matter of federal jurisdiction, the CIRB's decision could, in the right circumstances, be submitted for judicial review to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 28 of the Federal Courts Act.

"Benchmarks" for both appeals and judicial reviews are indeed relatively "high".

However, it is incorrect to say that "nearly all appeals fail"... it is more complicated than that, especially if you break your analysis down into the several categories that would help make such an analysis meaningful: appeals vs. JRs, final decisions vs. interlocutory rulings, civil vs. criminal matters, federal vs. provincial matters, administrative tribunal decisions vs. law court judgments, and so on.

It's very risky to attempt to practice law on the Internet.....

Correction I guess.. It is federal court jurisdiction, and the the process of all arbitrations can be appealed..

I apologize about laymen terms, partly because I'm not a lawyer.. and really don't know much about the law.. I have participated in several arbitrations myself, and have looked up case law.. but in terms of knowledge, I must admit as hard as I try.. I need to depend on the 6 or 7 lawyers we work with on regular basis to make the best legal decisions..

Actually, as demonstrated in this forum and elsewhere, it's relatively risk-free.

Relying on "internet lawyers" on the other hand...

Agreed. That's why I stick with what I know, marketing of high-quality maple syrup taps and maple syrup tap accessories. :D