DL Settles with Kip Hedges

700UW said:
Why did DL settle?
Good question.

Possibly to save face? To avoid the very scenarios E laid out earlier?

What I do know is that to this day no one here has been able to specifically state what policy/procedure he violated. No one.

What I also know is that he is very happy with the outcome here, and that he will continue his work not only organizing the DL property, but also other causes he is passionate about.

He's a strong leader and man of great character. The social justice movement's gain is DL's loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
Kev3188 said:
Good question.

Possibly to save face? To avoid the very scenarios E laid out earlier?

What I do know is that to this day no one here has been able to specifically state what policy/procedure he violated. No one.

What I also know is that he is very happy with the outcome here, and that he will continue his work not only organizing the DL property, but also other causes he is passionate about.

He's a strong leader and man of great character. The social justice movement's gain is DL's loss.
Great to hear Kev, great to hear.  Carry on Kip, carry on brother...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Perhaps the reason why no one can cite a broken rule is because there are none. DL wanted him gone and was willing to pay to make it happen but it doesnt mean there will be a similar result in another case. He won't be organizing ON DL property
 
He can go to any airport get a permit and be able to organize DL employees on airport property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
wrong.

in many airports, DL's lease allows it to control the activities on the property it leases and that is true with many carriers.
 
and you should know that DL has defined to its employees where those lines are.

btw, thank you for confirming to 700 that DL does indeed have that right... and again, it isn't something that DL alone has chosen to make a part of its leases.

You can bet that AA isn't interested in Maria's tea shop or the neighborhood cult from setting up shop in their terminals.
 
Kev3188 said:
It's okay; it's not really something he ever had to deal with...
And that stops him from being an expert how?

There are very few places where DL can successfully prevent him from meeting with DL employees. Chances are those aren't places you'd want to be meeting anyway.

The only "loss" is perhaps access to the break areas, and I'm sure there's no shortage of employee advocates who can recruit/deliver the message there.

By breaking out the checkbook this early in the process, they admitted they were probably going to lose in court. That gives Kip credibility that others might have been able to downplay, since in the myopic world of DL koolaid drinkers, the Company would never have cause to pay someone off if they were really within their rights to do so...

That's certainly the approach we've heard when other parties (e.g. WN?) have "buckled" under the threat of a lawsuit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

I know, WT will argue otherwise until the cows come home, but at least I won't have to read it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
WorldTraveler said:
DL wanted him gone... that doesn't mean it has anything to do with labor issues.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. 
 
So Delta had a slam dunk court case(per you) and they are going to give him money? Yeah okay WT. 
 
Get help. smfh
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
The State of Minnesota has granted Hedges unemployment compensation, rejecting the airline’s claim that he is ineligible.
In a letter to Hedges, the state Department of Employment and Economic Development wrote, “The evidence does not show that the applicant violated a policy or failed to follow instructions or procedure. The applicant’s actions were not employment misconduct . . .  The applicant is eligible for unemployment benefits . . .”

http://www.workdayminnesota.org/articles/fired-delta-baggage-handler-awaits-word-appeal

Delta did attempt to fight his unemployment insurance claim and lost.

They then settled out of court instead of taking it all the way. They settled obviously under the advice of council. All large corporations have lawyers on constant retainer for termination issues. Settling for an issue like this would absolutely NOT have happened if the company was convinced they were justified in terminating the employee. The implication alone shows the company made an error in judgement and also shows the employees how management lays down a heavy hand when it comes to dissension. 

They settled because a judgement against them would have made the news and would have painted a much larger black eye. That's the reality.
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
He is gone. Both settled. If there was a fight, neither wanted it
He's gone and got cash and he cannot engage in union activities on DL property. You can bet his checks depend on it
 
eolesen said:
And that stops him from being an expert how?There are very few places where DL can successfully prevent him from meeting with DL employees. Chances are those aren't places you'd want to be meeting anyway.The only "loss" is perhaps access to the break areas, and I'm sure there's no shortage of employee advocates who can recruit/deliver the message there.By breaking out the checkbook this early in the process, they admitted they were probably going to lose in court. That gives Kip credibility that others might have been able to downplay, since in the myopic world of DL koolaid drinkers, the Company would never have cause to pay someone off if they were really within their rights to do so...That's certainly the approach we've heard when other parties (e.g. WN?) have "buckled" under the threat of a lawsuit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...I know, WT will argue otherwise until the cows come home, but at least I won't have to read it.
Bingo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people