As intended, Article 23 provides for someone who has a legitimate ongoing medical/disability problem who is seeking return to work but can't. Once the doctor releases the pilot to return to work and the pilot is actively attempting to regain a medical certificate, his base position should be protected. It's not the pilots fault he was injured or had a serious enough medical issue to be denied work.
If the pilot is just sitting around milking it, it's insurance fraud for starters, and the pilot is in default of Art. 23. Fire that pilot at that point, as provided in the CBA.
But, it was a give away of a pilot's due's paying rights from 3 to 1 years. That is simply fact.
If a temp pilot works the position and the pilot can't return, its the temp pilot's first dibs right. Makes sense. But, it isn't fair at 1 year because for many illnesses, it takes that long for the pilot who is actively trying to get reinstated by CAMI. That's easily documented that the pilot is trying in good faith to achieve that. If not, fire the pilot.
And, it's best for others on the seniority list if that is true. Why? Because someone at a base who might wish to bid on a legitimately open position might not bid on it if the pilot on a LOA might be coming back. But, that is a way for a very junior pilot to cut line on that position by bidding a short term temp opening only to have the pilot on LOA return. If the senior pilot bid on it, he's out his other position already.
And, that's what pool pilot position were created for, to fill the LOA position with a pilot who is being funded for travel, hotel, and expenses to fill the position. A pilot who bids an open temp position is on his own rolling the dice for those expenses.
Simply enforce the need to show being on a legitimate medical LOA better!
|
