Flight Attendants’ Remuneration Act

Summary#

The proposed Flight Attendants’ Remuneration Act would amend the Canada Labour Code by adding rules for calculating and paying flight attendants’ work time. Its stated goal is to require employers to count specified duties and time at the employer’s disposal, and to pay at least the employee’s regular wage rate for that work.

• Employers would have to include time spent on all pre-flight and post-flight duties related to aircraft security and passenger service, including boarding and disembarking assistance and cabin and passenger safety checks before flight.
• Employers would have to count time flight attendants spend completing mandatory training programs.
• Employers would have to count time a flight attendant is at the workplace, at the employer’s call and disposal. This includes time during a flight delay, whether or not the employer caused the delay.
• Employers would have to pay at least the flight attendant’s regular rate of wages for the work and time described above.

What it means for you#

• Flight attendants: If enacted, the bill would require employers to count the specified time when calculating paid work time under the Code. It would also require at least the employee’s regular wage rate for that work.
• Employers of flight attendants: They would have to count and pay for the specified duties, training, and workplace time at the employer’s disposal. The bill does not set a separate wage rate.
• Other workers: The proposed rules apply to employees who are flight attendants; the bill does not directly change pay rules for other workers.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the supplied material.

• Employers would have to pay for the specified work and time at no less than the flight attendant’s regular wage rate. The total added payroll cost, if any, is not stated.
• The bill does not set a fee, fine, public spending amount, or funding program.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include the current Canada Labour Code, so the existing rules and how these additions would interact with them could not be verified.
• The bill does not define “flight attendant,” “regular rate of wages,” or the boundaries of duties related to aircraft security and passenger service.
• The bill refers to the Code’s definition of “work place,” but that definition was not supplied, so the full scope of workplace time covered could not be checked.
• The text does not specify a start date or explain how the new rules would be enforced.
• It does not set out how time must be recorded or how disagreements about time or wages would be handled.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to ensure that flight attendants are paid for required duties and training, not only for time spent in the air.
• Counting time when an employee is at the workplace and at the employer’s disposal could address unpaid waiting time, including flight delays.
• Requiring at least the regular wage rate gives employers a clear minimum for the specified work.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill does not define key terms or explain how to measure some of the covered time, which could lead to disagreements.
• It is unclear how much employers’ payroll costs would change; the bill provides no estimate.
• The bill adds payment rules but does not set out record-keeping, dispute, or enforcement details in the supplied text.