Change of Control Award

[The Bagfather]

The COC as any other grievance is an arbitration issue, not for the courts to decide under the RLA, remember the company tried to use the court system to prevent the arbitration in bankruptcy court and the IAM filed suit in district court to force the arbitration to go ahead.

The grievance was consider a minor dispute, not a major dispute that is why it went to arbitration and into the court system.

Before they filed a grievance could they have not sued the LLC? And If that's
minor what's major?

 

[Planemx]

Before they filed a grievance could they have not sued the LLC? And If that's
minor what's major?

Not getting your 5 million in a COC agreement.

 

[700UW]

You can only file in court if it is a major dispute, otherwise it goes to arbitration:

The United States' Supreme Court has set forth the standard for differentiating between major and minor disputes.

[A] major dispute relates to disputes over the formation of collective agreements or efforts to secure them. They arise when there is no such agreement or where it is sought to change of terms of one . . .

[A] minor dispute . . . contemplates the existence of a collective agreement already concluded or, at any rate, a situation in which no effort is made to bring about a formal change in terms or to create a new one. The dispute relates either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision with reference to a specific situation or to an omitted case.

If there is a major dispute, conduct by either party must be enjoined until the parties complete the mediation process prescribed by the statute. If the actions constitute a minor dispute, a federal district court has no authority to enter an injunction: exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes is vested in the system board of adjustment, which procedure is mandatory and exclusive.

As one court has said, the dispute is major if the change being imposed is not contemplated or arguably covered by the collective bargaining agreement. It is a minor dispute where the position of one or both of the parties is expressly and arguably predicated on the terms of the agreement.

 

[lithuanian]

There' so much uninformed information or informed formation. So where are we really at?
East sits until 2009 with a crummy result of two bankruptcy contracts. Hope you guys can survive on those wages. And, AWA used to think we had a Section 6 on the best of a worst contract under TWU. Do we still have an active Section 6? What the HECK! Go for it! This is the only Shining Star the IAM has is to help the West! Is this correct. We still have an active Section 6? Tell me time hasn't run out.
This will get West up to East Pay and then the company will HOPE the EAST doesn't play Havock! during the entire time until new talks after 2009.

 

[necigrad]

IAM could use West Section 6 for East. Fight for a good contract similar to the TA proposal that got voted down. It has a decent chance of winning. In that include an agreement that at the ammendable date West will continue to work under the West contract (that's been renegotiated) but will transition to the East workgroup for integration purposes. The company gets stuck with 2 work groups for two more years, but one will be MUCH happier. Then, come 2009, take the West agreement, throw that at the company for a combined East/West agreement, and make a reasonable increase to it. East wins, West wins, IAM wins, the Company wins.

Now, I'm sure the East guys will scream about how that's not fair that West gets raises and they don't. Hell, West got Easts profit sharing. Well, Tot he first part of that, so sorry, that's what you're stuck with. And if I needed to did I could point out that East voted down a TA that would give them what the West gets (under this suggestion). Honestly though, I don't want to go there, infighting doesn't help East or West. To the second part (profit sharing) I'll side with the East guys any day of the week. I've got no damned clue why West got the checks. We shouldn't have. I could make the arguement that they are shared profits; there wouldn't be that large of a share, if any, had the merger not happened, and the West is part of that. But this decision has already been made by the IAM, and to undo it would probably cause a full scale revolt from West for losing the profit sharing.

 

[700UW]

There' so much uninformed information or informed formation. So where are we really at?
East sits until 2009 with a crummy result of two bankruptcy contracts. Hope you guys can survive on those wages. And, AWA used to think we had a Section 6 on the best of a worst contract under TWU. Do we still have an active Section 6? What the HECK! Go for it! This is the only Shining Star the IAM has is to help the West! Is this correct. We still have an active Section 6? Tell me time hasn't run out.
This will get West up to East Pay and then the company will HOPE the EAST doesn't play Havock! during the entire time until new talks after 2009.

Ask yourself this question.

Do you actually think the company would go into section 6 negotiations and only negotiate for the west?

And even if the NMB forced them too, you would never reach a deal before the East CBA is up and then have to turn around and negotiate for the East and to combine East and West?

IMO,
It would be a waste of time, energy and money and further alienate the East and West.

The best bet would be to negotiate a Transition Agreement and see what you can get out of the company.

Remember the NMB is slanted towards the companies and not the worker.

The RLA was passed to ensure there would be no distruption of interstate commerce.

Also either side can drag out negotiations every CBA that I have been part of on the East side as taken a minimum of three years to negotiate and a maximum of four years.

Just thoughts to ponder.

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

Thanks for the insight Tim... T-Bone... T-boy.

Question for ya:

You say the company is quick to come back to the table, NOT because they want to, but for reasons stated above. I agree, but do you think the company is hiding something else from us? Some reason to give us more leverage, or maybe they are working out a deal to merge with another airline?

I heard somewhere that we cannot merge unless we are one work group, is that true?

Sorry, that was more than a question ha!

 

[700UW]

No union would want to keep separate but not equal contracts, that would be too dividing as it is now, the goal should be everyone is equal.

IMO,

What necigrad is proposing is segregation.

And once again, do you think the company would negotiate in good faith for the west, knowing they have still negotiate to bring both groups under one CBA?

Nothing would prevent the company from merging with another company but it would complicate any new merger.

 

[rat tales]

No union would want to keep separate but not equal contracts, that would be too dividing as it is now, the goal should be everyone is equal.

IMO,

What necigrad is proposing is segregation.

And once again, do you think the company would negotiate in good faith for the west, knowing they have still negotiate to bring both groups under one CBA?

Nothing would prevent the company from merging with another company but it would complicate any new merger.

Is this not short sighted though? Is this opinion not dependent on reaching an equitable T/A? Did anyone understand what DoUgIe said in the town hall meeting in CLT? "You won't get one cent more!" Based on this, T/A negotiation could be either a circus juggling act or a bad horror flick.

SAW IV-THE CONTRACT.

I can see the previews now: The scene is in a dark dungeon deep in a sand castle. Locked in a room are poor fleet negotiators who have been fed only bread and water for years. Suddenly a drunk madman in a bad clown mask communicates to them by streaming video that he has hidden the key to get out of the room along with a pitiful raise and a sick day. The problem is they have to cut the key out of the belly of their friend CLASS III WEST.
Ask your friend ,the number juggler, what "total" dollar figure can be gained in a T/A.......Big Fat Zero. Is it not pitiful that we are asked to vote on whose throat we will cut in order that we take their share of bread back to our family's? All the while the king of the sand castle gorges himself on the riches cut off our backs.

700, if the T/A fails again because the company wont reach an equitable agreement and the membership, through solidarity, won't accept anything less? What in your opinion would be your next move? I don't think you will answer that because you would have to tell everyone on the board that your formed opinion does not include a legitimate plan B.
Again.......Short sighted!

 

[700UW]

My opinion means nothing I am not fleet and never was.

But having been a member of the NC for M&R, I know the company executives and labor (un)relations people and dealt with them first hand.

Do you even know the section 6 negotiation process?

The process favors the company, and always has since 1926, the RLA was enacted to prevent the disruption of interstate commerce.

Let me educate you a bit on all the CBAs that I have worked under at US.

Our CBA was amendable in 1989, negotiate through October of 1992, voted on CBA down, went on strike for five days to reach an agreement.

Amendable date of 1995, we voted one CBA down in 1999 in Sept and finally reached a TA in October of 1999.

Even if the IAM and US would negotiate Section 6 for the West, you would not even reach a TA before the East's CBA becomes amendable.

The NMB has just about all Bush appointees who have degraded labor's rights under his administration.

Do you actually think the NMB would release you to strike?

And even if they release you the President can enact a PEB and delay for 60 more days, then if you fail to reach a TA he can have Congress legislate your CBA and you cant strike.

This has happened numerous times in the Railroad Sector.

So honestly which is the lesser of two evils?

Negotiate a Transition Agreement for the East and West to work under one CBA and then enter Section 6 when the CBA becomes amendable or just negotiate for the west well knowing the company will use the act and not bargain in good faith and draw the process out for who knows how long?

Do you realize that if there is no major changes in your CBA you dont get to vote on it?

And if you do vote on it and you dont ratify you dont have any recourse but to keep negotiating because this is not traditional bargaining so you dont have the right to strike.

 

[Black Magic]

This company will do whatever it wants to and it shows. If anyone thinks the next TA is going to be better than the first then that is pure fantasy. The new US Airways management is the cheapest of cheap in absolutely everything they do it is always "the bare minimum" and usually not even that much. It's just going to be another "cost nuetral" contract. I'm sure the east will vote it down again and the company will keep laughing to the bank. They can ride this whole thing for a long longgg time!

I remember the arguments like "this company can't get a single operating certificate until all labor groups are under one contract" and "the COC is in black and white and the company must abide by it" in both cases were false.

The company will merge with whoever it wants to and ask questions or settle labor disputes in court later during which everyone in the workforce will be dead or gone in the timetable.

 

[rat tales]

700,

This is the most bazaar non-answer I have heard yet. You are all over the place with that reply. But, you make my point.

You say:
Do you actually think the NMB would release you to strike?
Then you say:
Our CBA was amendable in 1989, negotiate through October of 1992, voted on CBA down, went on strike for five days to reach an agreement.

This confuses me but proves an impasse can be reached in three years time.

The West currently amendable contract has been in the negotiation process for two years already with defined points that were negotiated and agreed upon with the company. If the company stalls for two more years and reaches an impasse, then a cooling down period, then strike. Then the East can enter the fray.

This IMO is a way of gaining leverage. The company could see all this transpiring and decide that less time and monies would be exhausted by sweetening a better T/A and requesting that section 6 negotiations be dropped.

Anything is better than to waste two years on a T/A, then start section 6 with the east contract and waste three to four more years of fruitless negotiations. That kind of thinking will give us a fifteen year span between the signing of the first contract and the conclusion of traditional negotiations of a second contract.

The wait and see strategy is out the door.
Bring in new strategists who will think outside the box.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Thanks for the insight Tim... T-Bone... T-boy.

Question for ya:

You say the company is quick to come back to the table, NOT because they want to, but for reasons stated above. I agree, but do you think the company is hiding something else from us? Some reason to give us more leverage, or maybe they are working out a deal to merge with another airline?

I heard somewhere that we cannot merge unless we are one work group, is that true?

Sorry, that was more than a question ha!

The airline environment is 'ripe' for mergers and this is well noted on wall street. In trying to be most prepared, it is inevitable that US AIRWAYS MUST have transition. Bottom line, if US AIRWAYS didn't need something from the ramp then they WOULDN"T be scheduling negotiations so quickly. I think the company is 'desperate' for an agreement and the ramp should say screw you to transition until the west and east get a contract with dignity. In the meantime, these District 141 guys are killing us sounding off like the company mouthpieces they have become. My focus is on getting out all the 'deadweight' officers like Canale who have destroyed the very foundations of everything Labor is suppose to stand on.

regards,

 

[GoldenRam94]

This company will do whatever it wants to and it shows. If anyone thinks the next TA is going to be better than the first then that is pure fantasy. The new US Airways management is the cheapest of cheap in absolutely everything they do it is always "the bare minimum" and usually not even that much. It's just going to be another "cost nuetral" contract. I'm sure the east will vote it down again and the company will keep laughing to the bank. They can ride this whole thing for a long longgg time!

I remember the arguments like "this company can't get a single operating certificate until all labor groups are under one contract" and "the COC is in black and white and the company must abide by it" in both cases were false.

The company will merge with whoever it wants to and ask questions or settle labor disputes in court later during which everyone in the workforce will be dead or gone in the timetable.

That is correct! Management does not need a unified workforce, in reality the existing work rules are favorable to a merger since the West is working at 7-11 wages!

Also, if you think that the next contract is going to be sweeter, then you are really fooling yourself. The market has changed in a few short months, and investors are not going to allow pre 9-11 wages and work rules to come back.

 

[Tim Nelson]

My opinion means nothing I am not fleet and never was.

But having been a member of the NC for M&R, I know the company executives and labor (un)relations people and dealt with them first hand.

Do you even know the section 6 negotiation process?

Your babbling is as soft as "Baby Do Do"

Bagfather is right and your statements are bizarre and reactionary, which is typical of the IAM.
Who doesn't know the company's future actions? Don't we all know that company's do what company's do? US AIRWAYS is no different and its executives are no cheaper than any other wall street business.

OTOH, this is america and workers have incredible rights, the unions just have muzzled them while they stand on their political soapbox and claim Bush or Regan are to blame. DL141 leadership has failed to keep this management accountable. If they don't, who will? So stop with your goofy 'gloom and doom' IAM rhetoric. IMO, your problem is that you were brainwashed and perhaps have way too much experience being an IAM bargainer. You've been beaten so long you just throw up your hands and basically say 'we screwed' and it all comes down to Bush for you. Puh leeessseee. Your boy Clinton forced the American stews back didn't he? Your writings have become 'unclear' and cloudy.

The BEST path, but unlikely one, is for the IAM to do section 6 negotiations for the west since the path to fairness in this industry has always came from traditional collective bargaining, NOT TRANSITION AGREEMENTS. Not surprisingly, the section 6 path is the one that the company does not want to go down. This company has been 'stroking' the union with transition talks for 2 years to avoid the west section 6 bargaining.

So the question is 'why doesn't the company want to do section 6 negotiations?'

The reason is VERY CLEAR and one that you fail to grasp.

The east DOES NOT NEED TO WAIT ON AN IMPASSE pass the ammendable date to go on strike.

The company knows this because the company gave the EAST ramp 'the equivalence of striking' with the following language.

"The company will not require the employees hereunder to cross picket lines of the company's employees legally established under contractual provisions and the Railway Labor Act on or in front of the premises. The individual or 'concerted' refusal to pass such picket lines shall not constitute grounds for discipline, discharge, lay-off, or be considered a violation of this agreement."

THAT'S WHY THE COMPANY DOESN'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE IN WEST SECTION 6. The ammedable date of the east contract and/or any future impasse is 'irrelevant' in the context of section 6 negotiations for the west SINCE the east will 'already have the right' ordained by the company, to refuse to work.

With the west contract becoming ammendable 2 years ago, once traditional bargaining picks up, the RLA provides a reasonable solution to the injustice. The IAM leaders know this also but the injustice will continue until they get voted out.

The alternative is a transition agreement. However, our network of unity is strong, much stronger than the DL141 negotiating committee. We've already #### slapped them once and we will do it again if they make us. While we are not at the negotiations table explicitly, we are implicitly. Both the company and DL141 officers know we will '#### slap' another goofy TA if it has a semblance of the last one. We are now more 'dialed into' the west also. Fortunately, nobody listens to the DL141 officers because they have lost their district and have no juice.

Any new TA will be met with education, knowledge and an organized effort to get out the no vote one more time if needed. The hope is that the workers strength across the system is not taken for granted by your company and also that workers stay united and fight for what they deserve.

regards,