Have you seen the Union Post?

A link to a release by CUPE involving RFC has made its rounds.  Yes, we've seen it.

Some things to make clear.  The unionization process is something that probably not a lot of you are intimately familiar with.  So it will come as no surprise that the volunteer Board, nor most of RFC, is not expert at the process either.   This is why Labour Lawyers exist, which RFC have retained, at our expense.

During a unionization effort, there are strict rules around what an employer can and cannot say.  The overriding value built into these rules are that the government (and union) want to avoid what is called a "chilling" process.   The operating principle being that if employees want to unionize, they should be able to unionize, free of concerns that their employer will punish or, even in some abstract way, penalize someone from wanting to join a union.

This is a big part of why, as members, you have heard very little about it since we first became aware of the effort in December 2025, and why it is extremely difficult for us to publish our thoughts, concerns, or support.   We have invested in the counsel and support from our lawyers, and are following every step and process they advise for us to follow.  There has been no delay by RFC.

Although there is a lot to say, let's stick to the facts.  The CUPE post says:

"Workers had significant concerns in three broad areas: aircraft serviceability, safety culture, and compliance with procedures and manuals".

As you have read in our emails, and you can review in our backgrounder information, Transport Canada had two site visits, including a formal inspection at RFC, over multiple days.  Their visits reviewed our deferral and defects processes, and a physical inspection of each of our planes.   The results were, on the TC escalation ladder, of low to moderate severity.   We have disclosed the results of the procedural reviews, which were deemed satisfactory, and published the "Form 19s" (in part via email, and at dispatch) for anyone to review.

On the matter of safety culture, we agree!  Needs to be worked on.  We have asked for those on temporary layoff to return to have this discussion, and are in early beginnings of the process with those that are.  It won't be an overnight thing, but all parties are interested in the same goal:  positive, productive, healthy safety partnerships across RFC.  That's it.

"many of the workers who responded to the recall were told that their acceptance somehow counted as refusal because management objected to the conditions they raised".

I mentioned legal processes.  We are following the advice of our lawyers here.  After a temporary layoff, an employer can recall employees.  They are returned to the same employment terms as they had prior to the temporary layoff.   The recall is not when renegotiations can occur.   

The union post cites that the conditions were around safety.   Agreeing to return to work does not force anyone into a plane.  If anyone does not feel safe, for any reason, they do not fly.  That is our obligation as pilots, and it is true of workplace safety more generally.    Let's agree that we need to work on culture, trust, and that includes safety dialogue.  Let's also agree that neither RFC, nor its Board, would accept unsafe conditions.

I realize that some reading this would have the perspective of "but we felt unsafe previously".  Acknowledged.  There are many perspectives, and the concerns about safety have been complex at RFC, because they have involved human resources matters.  It is also important to note that although we are hearing a lot from one side (and now in the media), other sides have some shared feelings about safety and culture, but also some very different ones as well.   The difficulty and effort now, comes in doing our best to reconcile and mutually support one another.

"Rather than working openly with staff to address those concerns, the employer chose to retaliate against the workers who raised the concerns."

It is really easy to get into different perspectives here, and as repeated many many times, there are a lot of things that we either cannot say, or should not say for obvious confidentiality reasons.   What we will say is that efforts had been made prior to all of this, but clearly, came up short.  As an RFC member, you have also read the Accountable Executives detailing of the events leading up to the temporary suspension of operations.   There were already concerns, on the part of the AE and the Board.     

The AE and the Board held generalized concerns about communication and culture, as they could affect safety.  When the CFI team indicated serious, and acute concerns, there was no other choice at that point other than to stop operations.   How could flights occur the next day?  In our estimation, they could not.

A temporary layoff is a painful and unwanted scenario, but it was necessary.   We have spent a lot more money this year on legal and related fees than in the past.  The budget surplus we had last year and the year prior, does not exist.   The Board decision-making was aligned with its obligations as Directors - to ensure preservation of the organization and avoid unnecessary financial risk.   

Many will recall that this current board took over while the club was in the midst of a severe and existential financial crisis.    This crisis was the result of several things, including a failure to take assertive action in response to a poor cash position.   Given we were, for safety reasons, pausing our largest source of revenue for the organization - we needed to also pause related expenses.   RFC retained the AMO so that the fleet could be inspected, and core airport operations to keep the airport open and available.