Message to Membership – Seniority Survey Results & Next Steps
Dear Members,
We want to thank everyone who participated in the Seniority Survey. Seniority is tied to our lived experiences, our careers, our growth, and our identity in this profession. Your engagement reflects just how much you care about fairness and the future of this workgroup.
We also want to acknowledge that over the past several weeks, your Bargaining Committee has been intensely focused inside the bargaining room. When we are engaged in negotiations, communication can understandably slow down. That said, we know how important transparency and trust are, and when concerns are raised or something does not feel clear, it is our responsibility to pause, clarify, and adjust. We hear you, and we appreciate your patience and welcome the honesty.
On that note, the Committee acknowledges that we misstepped in the communication that accompanied the survey. We did not provide enough context around how the results would be evaluated or how they would fit into the broader bargaining process. Our explanation of the survey methodology was oversimplified. While the survey itself was measured as we described, we did not clearly explain that survey results are only one part of a layered process that also considers stability over time, internal equity, and alignment with CUPE’s bargaining principles.
We are committed to providing that clarity now and through the upcoming Learning Series town halls (details below), recognizing that bargaining is a complex process and transparency matters at every step and to ensure our members can continue to trust the process.
It is also important to reinforce that these items are to be bargained, and not everything raised in bargaining can or will be achieved. Bargaining involves another party, and agreement must be reached on both sides. As we saw in the recent round of bargaining at Air Canada, there are times when certain items remain unresolved at the end of the process. The same may occur here, and we believe it is important to be transparent about that from the outset.
Background to Decision Making Tools
The Seniority Survey was designed to inform bargaining, not to make decisions on its own. To understand how the results are used, it is important to distinguish between the different tools the Local relies on to guide direction. We have heard from members that there are questions about how these processes work and why different approaches apply in different circumstances. Each union has its own governance and decision-making structure, and below we outline the processes used by CUPE and Local 8125, which may differ from those our members may be used to previously in L4055 or L4070.
Elections, Ratification Votes, Motions at Membership meetings and Strike Votes
Elections (Choosing Representatives): Elections determine who represents the membership. Elections are governed by the CUPE Local 8125 Bylaws and the CUPE Constitution and are decided by plurality, meaning the candidate with the most votes wins.
Ratification vote (Bylaws / Tentative Agreements / Non-Monetary Amendments to the Agreement): A yes or no decision on a proposed collective agreement or amendments to an existing agreement or bylaw changes. If more participating members vote yes than no, the agreement is accepted, and the result is binding.
Strike vote: A yes or no vote held to determine whether the membership authorizes the Union to call a strike if bargaining reaches an impasse. This vote provides the Union with the legal authority to initiate strike action, but it does not mean a strike will occur automatically.
Motions at Membership Meetings: Motions may be brought forward during Membership Meetings to propose or confirm direction. When a motion is presented, discussed, and voted on, the outcome becomes a formal directive of the Local. These motions follow the Rules of Order outlined in the Local’s Bylaws.
Surveys (Information Gathering)
Surveys are used to understand the range and shape of member perspectives.
They tell us:
Where there is alignment,
Where opinions differ,
And where more discussion, education, or insight (possibly more surveying) is needed.
A survey result does not automatically become a bargaining position. Instead, it helps the Committee understand whether a clear and stable direction exists. There are different styles of surveys that are all part of the overall guidance for our direction in the room.
Mandates in Bargaining (Determining Direction):
A bargaining mandate is not the same as a survey result. A survey reflects the views of the members who completed it at a specific point in time. It is an important source of information, but it is not enough on its own to justify moving a bargaining position forward.
A mandate is formed when there is clear, consistent, and stable alignment across the membership. This means we look for patterns that repeat over time and across multiple forms of membership input, rather than relying on one survey result or one moment of sentiment. This approach is standard practice in Canadian labour relations and is grounded in both CUPE policy and responsible bargaining.
To establish a mandate, we look for:
Consistency — the same direction showing up more than once
Stability — not a reaction to short-term frustration or recent events
Equity — the direction must uphold CUPE principles/Bargaining Policy, particularly avoiding two-tier or uneven outcomes
A mandate is used when the Union speaks or negotiates on behalf of everyone, which is why it must reflect collective support, not simply the largest response in a single survey.
The first survey (Bargaining Priorities Survey) conducted early in the process established the overall hierarchy of issues by asking members to rank bargaining subjects against one another. This has set the foundation for bargaining direction.
Subsequent topic-specific surveys (including the Seniority Survey) will provide deeper insight into how members think about specific issues within those broader priority areas. These surveys help clarify and inform understanding, but they do not override the ranking established by the Priorities Survey which saw a high number of comments regarding seniority and its application.
A mandate therefore emerges when the same direction appears consistently across these layered inputs. The goal of bargaining is to bring forward a Tentative Agreement for the membership to vote on. The Committee facilitates the process, but the final authority always rests with the members. Nothing moves forward unless you vote to accept it.
The Complex Issue: Cabin Manager Seniority
Responses to the questions regarding Cabin Manager seniority for both the existing 787 structure and for the potential future designated Cabin Manager role on the 737 did not reflect a clear, unified direction.
This issue is inherently complex, because:
It cannot be bargained separately between aircraft types. Treating seniority differently for Cabin Managers on different aircraft would create two-tiered conditions. CUPE does not support two-tiering, and CUPE’s Bargaining Policy prohibits creating inequities within the same classification.
The Overall Priorities Survey from earlier this year showed the membership is almost evenly divided on this issue. This indicates not a lack of importance but a lack of consensus.
Because of this, the Committee cannot responsibly move forward with a bargaining proposal in this area at this time.
Continuing the Conversation
We strongly encourage members to continue reaching out with questions, concerns, or reflections.
Hearing from you is central to us all learning as we navigate CA2 together.
We are committed to:
Transparent decision-making,
Fair and principled bargaining,
And strengthening unity across the entire membership.
We will continue to communicate openly, and we will continue to bargain for the benefit of membership as a whole.
Questions and Answers
We have compiled a list of questions and answers based on the feedback we have received which can be found here.
CLICK HERE FOR A PDF OF THE Q&A DOCUMENT
What Happens Next
We heard clearly that members want more clarity about how bargaining decisions are made. In response, the next session in our Learning Series will be:
How Bargaining Decisions Are Made: Majority, Mandate, and Collective Equity
How priorities are set
Why there are different survey types
How mandates are determined
How the Committee makes decisions
And to address the underlying question: “How do I know the Union is actually representing us?”
More details on these sessions will be sent out in the coming weeks.
In Unity,
WestJet Bargaining Committee
Alia Hussain - President
Bryan Hansraj - WestJet Unit VP
Jean-Francois Laframboise - YVR/YEG Rep
Shane Campbell - YYC Rep
Justin Patterson - YYZ Rep
Cailey Millard - YWG/YUL Rep
Alex Grigoriev - Local Executive (Alternate)
Cameron Jones - Local Executive (Alternate)