AFA IS A FRAUD

[Bear96]

So which takes precedence? A "code" or an "Act" as in act of congress, right? Seems clear to me, the act of congress wins.

Seems clear to you, huh? You must have received your law degree the same place Bob Owens did.

They are both the same "rank" in that regard. Both are federal statutes. They are just referred to popularly as the "Bankruptcy Code" and the "Railway Labor Act." You can call it the Bankruptcy Act if you wish; same thing.

 

[700UW]

Just for you bear

Check out this change to the Bankruptcy laws, section 1167, funny how the courts just neglect this part of the law:

Section 1167

HOUSE REPORT NO. 95-595 Section 1167 is derived from present section 77(n) (section 205(n) of former title 11). It provides that notwithstanding the general section governing the rejection of executory contracts (section 365), neither the court nor the trustee may change the wages or working conditions of employees of the debtor established by a collective bargaining agreement that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), except in accordance with section 6 of that Act (45 U.S.C. 156).

 

[Bear96]

Just for you bear

Check out this change to the Bankruptcy laws, section 1167, funny how the courts just neglect this part of the law:

Section 1167

That would be relevant -- IF we were talking about railroads here, since that section is only applicable to railroads, as about ten seconds of research revealed.

I see you went to Bob Owens' law school too.

 

[jenny@nw]

about the matter of CHAOS,

Has anyone heard about the recent threatening emails?

The war has started! :down:

 

[groundcontrol]

about the matter of CHAOS,

Has anyone heard about the recent threatening emails?

The war has started! :down:

Haven't heard of threatening emails....
do tell............

 

[MNBluestater]

As someone who has practiced law, could you please explain where the conflict between the laws exists?

And before everyone else starts to flame, that was not said in sarcasm, I am asking this honestly, and straight forward.

I have been back and forth on another thread thats starting to read almost like this one. Yet I have yet to find the answer to what should be a very simple question. Yes, I've heard they contradict, yes I've heard they overlap, my question is where? What sectional refrence stands in dispute? Which law contradicts the other?

No I am not a lawyer. I am highly educated and I am well versed in both the RLA and Title 11. I found neither of these articles difficult to read or understand. And from this admitted non legal type, I have yet to find anything that stands in dispute, I have yet to read where someone points and says "thats the wording, thats the clause, thats the paragraph that contradicts the other"

JMHO

NWA used Title 11 to abrogate the FAs contract, all perfectly legal. However, in doing so, they violated the RLA and as such the FAs should be free to strike.

There is nothing in the RLA granting special dispensation to parties in bankruptcy, nor is there anything in Title 11 which speaks to enjoining strikes.
So wheres the "RUB"?

I'm open to being educated, but telling me I'm wrong or don't understand because I'm not a lawyer, or continualy posting theres a contradiction/overlap without some sort of refrence isn't going to cut it.

So if you're in the know, please share.

Read the judges decision, it's long, but in essence, he is saying that the RLA states that since the airlines serve the public interest, that all effort should be made for both sides to negotiate in "good faith." He stated that AFA, by announcing "Chaos" (self-help) before trying to go back to the bargaining table, as a response to NWA imposing the t/a 1, (which fulfilled the requirements of the Bankruptcy court directive to come up with cost savings) had abrogated its duty to negotiate first, and strike only after NMB mediation and a "cooling off" period had been announced.

The mediation process is stated in full in the RLA.

Hackman,

All of that may be true and if it is what do you suggest AFA do?

I have long favored a "Dirty War" type of campaign. Ask yourself

How many F/A's would have to call off sick on a given day or route(s) to damage NWA? This would of course require deniability on AFA's part.

What about filing Grievences over every little thing? Does that make life more difficult for NWA?

What about my suggestion regarding hiring Private investigators to find out which NWA execs are having affairs and leak that all over the news?

It would seem to me that there are many avenues open that are not covered by the TRO for a union to explore as long as said union is willing to as treacherous as it's foe.

:blink: From my experience, "treachery" is not what AFA is about. It's an association run by flight attendants for flight attendants , not a union run by corrupt hacks infiltrated by members of the Mob :down: . Think about it. Is that what you'd want your dues money going to ? Tacky. The labor movement, unfortunately, has had similar 'bad apple' unions in it that gave the whole concept of unions a bad name (eg. Teamsters and Mob connections, Jimmy Hoffa, the New York dockworkers union that Giuliani had to clean up , etc.).

Leave the treachery to NWA management, they are the ones who have to sleep with themselves at night, and will answer for their actions at some point in their existence. (What goes around comes around).

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

A little late MNBlue, note the date my question was asked.

I have already read(many times over) Title 11, The NLGA, and the RLA. And yes, the judges ruling as well.

 

[767 mechanic]

When the PFAA was the bargaining agent,northworst would not take dues out of the F/A checks because the contract was negotiated with another union. Now that the AFA is the BA is Northworst witholding dues or are they doing the same as they doing to PFAA. I don't know if this question was asked before. If so I must have not read it.

 

[Bob Owens]

Read the judges decision, it's long, but in essence, he is saying that the RLA states that since the airlines serve the public interest, that all effort should be made for both sides to negotiate in "good faith." He stated that AFA, by announcing "Chaos" (self-help) before trying to go back to the bargaining table, as a response to NWA imposing the t/a 1, (which fulfilled the requirements of the Bankruptcy court directive to come up with cost savings) had abrogated its duty to negotiate first, and strike only after NMB mediation and a "cooling off" period had been announced.

The problem with that arguement is that NWA chose not to utilize mediation under the RLA, since after all they had no right to push for Sect 6 openers since their contract was not within the time period where such openers can be presented. Instead they took a short cut to self help and imposed new rates of pay and workrules. Mediation is no longer an issue, the act has been committed. In order to avail themselves of the mediation process under the RLA they would first have to go back to the status-quo that existed before the dispute. So, since NWA already imposed new workrules they cant claim to want to engage in mediation. NWA already took a shortcut to self help, its absurd to require that the FAs play by half of one set of rules while NWA and the court make up new ones as they go. According to the RLA its clear that the FAs can use self help once the company imposes new rates of pay and work rules.Lets not forget that its not within the scope of the BK code to ban strikes,the ban on strikes is covered under the terms of the RLA, and according to the RLA the conditions lifting the ban, public interest considered, has been met. The Judge is overstepping his bounds.