2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

I'm going to ask what may very well be a dumb question but how can the Association file for anything when it hasn't been voted on and approved by the membership?

Anyone, including a individual can file a single carrier application and get its name on the ballot if it has the support.  The TWU and IAM fleet service association will be the only name on the ballot as both the IAM and TWU will legally yield its support to the association.  No cards need to be signed.   AH doesn't care what name is on the ballot, what he wanted and grabbed is the triggering device.  Contrary to what you are being told by some on here,  this process will commence in early June.  If the TWU balks, then AH covered that base as well and the TWU can only buy 30 days. 

 

[700UW]

No, the 30 days is that the arbitration needs be be heard, you need to reread paragraph 9.

And that isn't written in stone if all the parties can't schedule the hearing within 30 days.

Stop with the misinformation.

 

[700UW]

 

 

[Tim Nelson]

No, the 30 days is that the arbitration needs be be heard, you need to reread paragraph 9. And that isn't written in stone if all the parties can't schedule the hearing within 30 days. Stop with the misinformation.

It's not misinformation, it's just a disagreement that me and you have, based on what is written in the contract. I, personally, don't approach that document and get any idea whatsoever that there is any lengthy delay built in there.  Quite the opposite.  Not only is there a 6 month timeline that expires on June 9,  but also AH also made sure any resolution was handled expeditiously and even pre assigned a named arbitrator.   That's quite unusual.
One thing we can say for certain is that AH wants that application filed, yes?    Can I say with certainty that the TWU will subject itself and balk?  No, and stranger things have happened,  but I think it is incredibly unlikely, in any case, that these legal affairs will drag on.
 
Whatever the case, the NC's current position, i.e., full sick pay, more holidays, more vacation, 13% pay raise, more scope, more retirement [6 items they said were part of the impasse and its final offer] has now polarized negotiations so bad that each time the company meets with the NC, it offers less and less.   And how is a purposeful violation of a contract suppose to enhance these relations?  This is where I differ with the current group insomuch as there is a reason why 70,000 other employees of this company have already signed a pre-joint talk contract, and I think it is the refusal of the IAM NC of not recognizing the reality of pre joint talks that has isolated only the IAM.  Further isolation can be expected if there is willful violation of contracts. 
 
Further, I'm not grasping the benefit of violating the contract and delaying things further.  I'm open to you sharing your opinion on what that will accomplish other than putting our shoes in deeper concrete.  My reason for saying this is because if there was a violation, then it's only purpose is to delay the inevitable, which after all is a single carrier application being filed.

 

[700UW]

Show where in Paragraph 9 that is states a decision must be made within 30 days of the dispute under arbitration, it doesnt it.
 
The case must be heard within 30 days of the dispute and a grievance by either side being filed.
 
Even if the case was heard, no decision ever only takes 30 days to render.

 

[WeAAsles]

Show where in Paragraph 9 that is states a decision must be made within 30 days of the dispute under arbitration, it doesnt it.
 
The case must be heard within 30 days of the dispute and a grievance by either side being filed.
 
Even if the case was heard, no decision ever only takes 30 days to render.

And shall be "decided" no later than 30 days after the first hearing unless "mutually" agreed to.

The last line again is very succinct and clear.

 

[700UW]

I have been involved with numerous arbitration cases, no decision has ever been handed out in 30 days.

You get 30 days to file post hearing briefs alone.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I have been involved with numerous arbitration cases, no decision has ever been handed out in 30 days.

You get 30 days to file post hearing briefs alone.

i dont think AH is counting on your opinion. Its very clear that AH covered his timelines from application to resolution. Your argument has to hold the position that the twu will violate its agreement and the arbitrator will violate the terms of decision. The fact that the arbitrator was also contracted means that he is fully aware of the pre agreed upon timelines.

But assuming your absurd position is true and everyone breaks the mou then what is the point of a delay anyways? What is delating sc going to coup in?

Ill wait for your reply.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Cricket

 

[roabilly]

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:10088]
And shall be "decided" no later than 30 days after the first hearing unless "mutually" agreed to.

The last line again is very succinct and clear.

The "unless otherwise agreed to in writing" language may very well be an insert point for the alliance to challenge the document...
 
In other words, if the IAM/Alliance challenges the validity due to the alliance... both sides would not be in "mutual agreement"...

 

[WeAAsles]

I have been involved with numerous arbitration cases, no decision has ever been handed out in 30 days.

You get 30 days to file post hearing briefs alone.

700 I'm sorry but your "opinion" is irrelevant to what is stated "in writing" and mutually and legally agreed to.

 

[WeAAsles]

I have been involved with numerous arbitration cases, no decision has ever been handed out in 30 days.

You get 30 days to file post hearing briefs alone.

700 I'm sorry but your "opinion" is irrelevant to what is stated "in writing" and mutually and legally agreed to.

 

[WeAAsles]

I have been involved with numerous arbitration cases, no decision has ever been handed out in 30 days.

You get 30 days to file post hearing briefs alone.

700 I'm sorry but your "opinion" is irrelevant to what is stated "in writing" and mutually and legally agreed to.

 

[700UW]

700 I'm sorry but your "opinion" is irrelevant to what is stated "in writing" and mutually and legally agreed to.

Are you sure about that?
 
White paper, black ink, everything is gray.
 
And if language meant what it said on paper, we wouldnt have a need for a grievance procedure now would we?
 
Its called intent and interpretation.
 
And excuse me Mr Nelson, I was getting ready to go to an event, not at your beckon call on the board, some of us do have to work you know.
 
Post hearing briefs take longer than 30 days to prepare and submit.
 
Shall I list some arbitration cases at US that the language was quite clear, but the company didnt agree with its intent?
 
Lets see:
Airbus Arbitation
HMO Arbitration
Dr's Note Arbitration
401k Arbitration
 
Shall I continue?  I can list many more.
 
And Weaa, you can post it three times, doesnt make it anymore right or wrong, lol

 

[WeAAsles]

I didn't mean to post 3 times. I'm posting from a phone and didn't think the message was posting.

You seem to be trying incredibly hard to convince us you're right when the issue is simple enough that even a 6th grader could understand it.

Normally I would accuse Tim of having an ulterior motive behind a fabrication but right now I don't find this to be the case. Why are you trying so hard to get the TWU to screw up? Do not assume that myself or my Union are stupid. What is your agenda here? Do you support the association?