Airline (RLA) CBA rejection

[Hopeful]

The following is a section of Chapter 11, 1113 covering the abrrogation of CBA's for both RLA and non-rla unions. Full text is at http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/employeebenefits/vol6num2/section.pdf




(a) Airline (RLA) CBA Rejection
The Railway Labor Act "abhors a contractual vacuum," and a CBA governed by the RLA
therefore does not terminate upon expiration; instead, it continues in effect and becomes
amendable. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Air Line
Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. UAL Corp., 897 F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th Cir. 1990)). Once a CBA becomes
amendable, the RLA requires the employer and the affected union to abide by a detailed
negotiation and dispute resolution process designed to avoid strikes. See Detroit & Toledo Shore
Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 150 (1969) (observing that the status quo
provision "prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would
justify a strike"). During this period, the airline and the union are obligated to maintain the terms
of employment in effect under the CBA, which courts have termed the "status quo" requirement
of the RLA. An airline that unilaterally modifies the terms of employment during the tenure of a
CBA or during the amendable period has violated the RLA and is subject to a strike by the
affected workers.
Rejection of a CBA under § 1113 overlays a serious wrinkle onto the status quo
requirements of the RLA, however: if rejection constitutes a complete abrogation, and not a
breach, of the CBA, there is no status quo to maintain. Without a status quo, an employer that
unilaterally imposes new terms post-rejection does not violate the RLA, and employees typically
590
28th Annual Spring Meeting
-22-
may not strike. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 173 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The plain
text of [the status quo provisions] compels the conclusion that they do not apply after a carrier
has abrogated its CBA and the 'agreement' has ceased to exist."). Although the CBA itself no
longer exists, however, the airline does not cease to be governed by the RLA. The parties remain
bound by the duty to "'exert every reasonable effort' to make a new contract that would effect a
new status quo." In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007). This
essentially sends the parties back to the negotiating table, and the union may not immediately
strike following a § 1113 rejection absent some display of bad faith by the carrier. Id. at 175.
Before the union may strike, it must more fully exhaust the dispute resolution machinery of the
RLA, presumably by continuing to bargain with the airline and seeking the assistance of the
National Mediation Board if necessary. Id. at 175-76.

 

[strikeforce]

The following is a section of Chapter 11, 1113 covering the abrrogation of CBA's for both RLA and non-rla unions. Full text is at http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/employeebenefits/vol6num2/section.pdf




(a) Airline (RLA) CBA Rejection
The Railway Labor Act "abhors a contractual vacuum," and a CBA governed by the RLA
therefore does not terminate upon expiration; instead, it continues in effect and becomes
amendable. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Air Line
Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. UAL Corp., 897 F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th Cir. 1990)). Once a CBA becomes
amendable, the RLA requires the employer and the affected union to abide by a detailed
negotiation and dispute resolution process designed to avoid strikes. See Detroit & Toledo Shore
Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 150 (1969) (observing that the status quo
provision "prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would
justify a strike"). During this period, the airline and the union are obligated to maintain the terms
of employment in effect under the CBA, which courts have termed the "status quo" requirement
of the RLA. An airline that unilaterally modifies the terms of employment during the tenure of a
CBA or during the amendable period has violated the RLA and is subject to a strike by the
affected workers.
Rejection of a CBA under § 1113 overlays a serious wrinkle onto the status quo
requirements of the RLA, however: if rejection constitutes a complete abrogation, and not a
breach, of the CBA, there is no status quo to maintain. Without a status quo, an employer that
unilaterally imposes new terms post-rejection does not violate the RLA, and employees typically
590
28th Annual Spring Meeting
-22-
may not strike.

so, a breach of contract and an abrogation of contract are different??? really?? And, our smart labor attorney's allowed Congress to write it this way???

and, isn't the agreement in the "amendable period" whether it's rejected or unilaterally modified??? boy, you talk about the RLA being one-sided....this is classic "have your cake and eat it too"! WE are absolutely screwed!

so, let me clarify something......if the airline changes the terms of the cba while in negotiations, you may strike. But, if they reject the cba, make changes, and allow the parties to continue negotiating after rejection, you may not strike. Again, it begs the question, "When does the amendable period end?"

 

[AA89]

so, a breach of contract and an abrogation of contract are different??? really?? And, our smart labor attorney's allowed Congress to write it this way???

and, isn't the agreement in the "amendable period" whether it's rejected or unilaterally modified??? boy, you talk about the RLA being one-sided....this is classic "have your cake and eat it too"! WE are absolutely screwed!

so, let me clarify something......if the airline changes the terms of the cba while in negotiations, you may strike. But, if they reject the cba, make changes, and allow the parties to continue negotiating after rejection, you may not strike. Again, it begs the question, "When does the amendable period end?"

The RLA and BK. Could there be any more anti-labor tools invented by our government to bring an end to the middle class?
I saw a Caterpiller executive blathering the other day on tv about how dictating that Federal Stimulus Funds used for infrastructure improvements shouldn't be tied to using materials manufactured in the U.S. . "That's "Protectionism." Bad for trade, and ultimately bad for our economy."
But executives embrace BK like a positive thing for the U.S. Economy. I would call them crooks but they aren't breaking any laws.
If the BK laws are not corporate protectionsim then I don't know what is. What a bunch of scumbags.

 

[DallasConehead]

Like usual, you fellas miss the point of the whole passage which is:

The parties remain bound by the duty to "'exert every reasonable effort' to make a new contract that would effect a new status quo." In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007). This
essentially sends the parties back to the negotiating table, and the union may not immediately
strike following a § 1113 rejection absent some display of bad faith by the carrier.

This essentially means the when the carrier jams the CBA down our throat which is really NO AGEEMENT at all, then the parties have to go back to Section 6 per the RLA. So, rather then take a 6 year screw job, I say send them back to the table. This is why unless the consensual is short term with snap backs and a wage opener, I would never vote for it.

 

[700UW]

Having been through a Chapter 11 1113 C abrogation, it does not put you back into Section 6 Negotiations.

That will occur 60 days prior to the amendable date of the imposed CBA by the court.

 

[DallasConehead]

Im thinking you went through the UA BK? Didn't the NWA BK occur after that? (See case history quoted in the passage)

Btw.. I would go with info from the ABI, vs some internet blog.

 

[700UW]

Mechanic and Related at US and I was on the Negotiating Committee, our CBA was abrogated.

What you posted was the ruling of an appeal on an injunction to prevent the FAs from striking upon the abrogation.

Which upheld the injunction.

Once your CBA is abrogated and one imposed, it does not trigger new Section 6 negotiations. Those will take place 60 days prior to the amendable date, what duration is AA proposing? Five year?

 

[DallasConehead]

A Northwest Airlines Case is cited.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A Northwest Airlines Case is cited.

I believe the NW case was after US exited BK II in Sept 2005. The problem with the article cited in the OP is that it reads like there are 2 completely separate and distinct steps to having a contract imposed when there really aren't in most RLA bankruptcy cases. The article reads as though the Judge will rule that the contracts don't exist any longer then separately allow management to impose it's terms. But look at the steps that are necessary under section 1113 - the company must make an offer and support that offer with the numbers showing it as necessary for the successful reorganization of the carrier. So the offer (the term sheets as amended by negotiations prior to the 1113 hearing) are already baked into the judges ruling since without them he couldn't rule in the company's favor. What the abrogation order effectively does is say "the provisions of the former contract are changed to (insert specifics of the new offer)". The employees are NOT without a contract at any point in the process. There is no automatic return to negotiations to establish a new status quo - the company's terms are the new status quo, complete with a new amendable date.

Don't get me wrong - there is nothing preventing negotiations from resuming if both sides agree to resume them. But having just gotten from the Judge what it couldn't get in negotiations, why would the company go right back into negotiations?

Jim

 

[damajagua]

I agree with the above statement by Jim.

I have flown with many pilots that are going around erroneously telling others
It's better if the judge impose a contract because the minute we come out
of bankruptcy we immediatelly go back into negotiations. That is wrong
we will come out of bankruptcy with a contract that is as long as the company
proposed in the 1113 term sheet. That is why it's better for the unions to stop
playing games and get some kind of improvements to the 1113 term sheets
then continue to mislead the membership. Forget about "industy standard"
nonsense. Get us some kind of relief from the 1113 term sheets.

 

[FWAAA]

Of course, the APA's official position right now is that AA's pilots have no contract with AA and thus, there is no contract to abrogate in Ch 11 under section 1113.

 

[AAviator]

Of course, the APA's official position right now is that AA's pilots have no contract with AA and thus, there is no contract to abrogate in Ch 11 under section 1113.

Yep, That case was heard yesterday, and he will offer his written decision prior to the hearing of the company's 1113c filing. He said he doesn't want it contested of appealed. No rebuke from what I can tell..

 

[eolesen]

No rebuke yet because he said he wanted to put it in writing.

 

[700UW]

If there is no CBA then why does AA and the APA still follow everything in it?

The RLA is clear, the CBA stays in effect until a new one is reached, they never expire and go away, they become amendable.

They are reaching.

 

[ord78]

If there is no CBA then why does AA and the APA still follow everything in it?

The RLA is clear, the CBA stays in effect until a new one is reached, they never expire and go away, they become amendable.

They are reaching.

Yes agreed they may be reaching on this one but I for one am glad to see at least one of the 3 unions challenging parts of the bk law that intersect with the provisions of the rla. It may be for nought, but if they win in this narrow lawsuit it would change everything for all 3.