Seniority Survey Results
Dear Members,
The Seniority Survey demonstrated our membership’s engagement and commitment to the bargaining process. We want to sincerely thank every member who took the time to complete the survey.
Survey Summary:
4,194 surveys distributed
3,193 responses received (76.13% participation)
1,454 open comments submitted
This represents our highest survey participation rate to date and reflects our Members’ continued dedication and involvement, which will remain central to our success in the weeks and months ahead as we move through bargaining.
Many of the concerns reflected in this survey have been raised over the years. Your Local Executive and Bargaining Committee continues to take them seriously as we work to represent the membership interests at the bargaining table.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
As part of our ongoing commitment to transparency, your Bargaining Committee is sharing the results of the Seniority Survey. The goal of this survey was to capture current membership perspectives in today’s environment and not to repeat the work done during the first Collective Agreement survey more than five years ago.
The goal of this survey was to capture principle-based feedback that will help guide the Committee’s positions in bargaining.
Whenever we share survey results, we carefully balance our commitment to transparency with the need to protect the overall interests of the Membership. We recognize that other Unions may take different approaches to sharing results, but it’s important for our Members to understand that our industry, our demands, and our priorities require a more strategic approach.
We are negotiating in a unique environment with a privately held company operating within the federal sector. This means protecting certain information is necessary to maintain our strength and leverage at the bargaining table.
These results will help shape our bargaining positions and ensure decisions reflect the collective voice of the Membership. When a majority of members (over 50%) indicate a position, it may be considered a mandate for the Committee to bring forward at the bargaining table.
RESULTS:
Question 1: Should time worked as Cabin Crew at Encore or Swoop be recognized on the Mainline Cabin Personnel seniority list, retroactively and going forward?
52.08% - Recognize all time at Encore or Swoop retroactively and moving forward for Encore only (as Swoop ceased to exist).
39.56% - Do not recognize time from Encore or Swoop retroactively and moving forward from Encore (as Swoop ceased to exist).
8.30% - I am indifferent.
0.06% - No answer
** This response reflects a mandate for change, which will be advanced by your Bargaining Committee during negotiations with the Company.
Question 2: When a member leaves the Company and later returns, which date should be used to calculate their seniority?
8.05% - Use the original date of their first successful completion of initial training (before their employment ended).
89.73% - Use the date of their most recent successful completion of initial training following rehire.
2.22% - I am indifferent
** This response reflects a mandate for change, which will be advanced by your Bargaining Committee during negotiations with the Company.
Question 3: How should previous service in other WestJet Group departments count toward Cabin Personnel seniority?
18.67% - Count service from any WestJet Group department – retroactively and moving forward for all WestJet Group transfers.
76.92% - Do not count previous service from any WestJet Group department.
4.42% - I am indifferent.
** This response does not reflect a mandate for change, and as such, the Bargaining Committee will not be advancing this item during negotiations with the Company.
Question 4: Would you support the Union negotiating reciprocal seniority rights between WestJet Mainline Cabin Personnel and other groups within the WestJet Group of Companies, applied both retroactively (for employees who have already transferred) and going forward (for employees who may transfer in the future)?
24.9% - I support the Union seeking to negotiate reciprocal seniority, both retroactively and going forward.
64.39% - I do not support the Union seeking to negotiate reciprocal seniority.
10.71% - I am indifferent.
** This response does not reflect a mandate for change, and as such, the Bargaining Committee will not be advancing this item during negotiations with the Company.
Question 5: How should seniority factor into Cabin Manager recruitment?
After careful consideration and internal discussion, your Bargaining Committee has decided not to release the results of this question. We thoroughly weighed the pros and cons of doing so and determined that, in the best interest of the overall membership, protecting our bargaining strategy must take priority.
The responses to this question are closely tied to our approach on key strategic issues, including potential discussions around a 737 Cabin Manager program and related recruitment considerations. Maintaining confidentiality at this stage ensures that we enter bargaining from a position of strength and unity.
Question 6: How should seniority for Cabin Manager roles be determined?
40.24% - Use the existing Master Seniority List (current practice).
48.70% - Create a separate Cabin Manager list (based on time in CM classification).
11.06% - I am indifferent.
**There is not a majority interest from the membership (over 50%) for the committee to move forward with this- the result lacks the decisiveness required to form a mandate and as such, the Bargaining Committee will not be advancing this item during negotiations with the Company.
Question 7: How should travel privileges be prioritized?
13.72% - Use seniority (most senior person and/or their designates have the highest priority).
84.84% - Keep the current system (check-in time determines priority).
1.44% - I am indifferent.
THANK YOU
Your committee can’t emphasize enough how invaluable your participation is throughout this process. As we move throughout bargaining, your continued engagement and support will be instrumental. Your input will be continually sought through surveys like this one, and we encourage you to follow along for updates via e-mail, our social media platforms (Facebook and Instagram), and to see updates of agreed upon articles via our Article Tracker: www.wjcomponent.ca/negotiation-tracker
FINAL NOTE
We want to remind all members that seniority is a sensitive topic, and discussions surrounding it should always remain respectful and professional. The results of this survey represent a membership mandate, they do not reflect final outcomes. These matters will still need to be formally negotiated with the Company at the bargaining table.
As conversations continue, please remember to follow the Social Media Policy and WestJet’s Code of Business Conduct. Online and in-person discussions should reflect the professionalism and respect that define our membership. We encourage thoughtful dialogue, patience, and unity as we move forward throughout the bargaining journey.
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)