Change of Control Update
- Thread starter Tim Nelson
- Start date
- Status
Henderfuzz
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
From reading this I see that what has been stated before. The company has presented a very strong case. I would expect us to loose this one guys and gals.
So now how long do we wait for better wages. A long long time.
Im just so glad we showed the company with that vote down of the T/A I feel so good dont you.
Oh and anyone thinking the company is comming back to the table with anything better should dream on. So you better get your walking shoes on ready if you have the guts.
So now how long do we wait for better wages. A long long time.
Im just so glad we showed the company with that vote down of the T/A I feel so good dont you.
Oh and anyone thinking the company is comming back to the table with anything better should dream on. So you better get your walking shoes on ready if you have the guts.
mike33
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 1,128
Henderfuzz
Lets be realistic....I am sending am email to the arbitrator concerning my situation and about 15 other of my fellow furloughed employees....with an open mind, do you consider my circumstance a change in control acording to the tems of my CBA.
I am furlough and don't exercise my options b4 the 60 day rule.
I get Hired by America west b4 the merger.
The merger happens and I am now a Usairways employee again in my furloughed station.
Under the CBA, do I not work for the same company as when I was furloughed ?
IF YES THEN:
1. The Company should recognize my USAURWAYS seniority.
2. THERE SHOULD BE NO HIRING OFF THE STREET till all the furloughed employees have been offered recall in their station PERIOD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. Is that happening NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF NO THEN:
all of the above should have appllied a long time ago.........................
MY point is sometimes the simplest of events dictate the truth. All that lawyer garbage is just that...F them
sunofsamsonite
mike33
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 1,128
I will post my email to Mr. Richard I Bloch when I finish it. All those pages of Briefs by all those high priced lawyers and all that stock tran S..t are just that......S..t. The simple truth is I'm a BI_PRODUCT of that transaction.
sunofsamsonite
sunofsamsonite
pjirish317
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 743
Mike33,
Pay no attention to fuzz. He is just upset the Fleet Service voted down his prescious TA. It was voted down because it was a concessionary contract, not just for the "CIC". He and the I AM MANAGEMENT did not get their way so it is all gloom and doom. That is why we need a union just for us. GO IBEW!
Pay no attention to fuzz. He is just upset the Fleet Service voted down his prescious TA. It was voted down because it was a concessionary contract, not just for the "CIC". He and the I AM MANAGEMENT did not get their way so it is all gloom and doom. That is why we need a union just for us. GO IBEW!
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Let me encourage you to expedite your letter.
Also, let me applaud the IAM's legal staff and give them points for their argument [although I am ignorant as to what they asked for should the COC be won]. The central contention seems to be whether or not the IAM had an obligation to bring up the COC matters in bankrupcty as a result of having a board member or being on a committee. It seems to me that the IAM's position is very strong in that it had no obligation to discuss contractual matters and that it was US AIRWAYS burden of risk, and that US AIRWAYS acknowledged this with ALPA but didn't approach the IAM in discussion about the COC contractual talk. At any rate, I'm encouraged that the COC is being heard and that it was not thrown in Parker's trash. the rank and file forced the IAM to take it out of Parker's trash. Onward!
regards,
mike33
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,252
- Reaction score
- 1,128
PJ
I know......its just so much BS by both COM/IAM....ME as an example is so simple.....Sometimes the obvious is the unforseen...
I read that whole brief and there was so much case law after case law its disgusting that we pay so much hard earned money for Politics
The District Court all ready ordered the matter to arbitation and the bankruptcy court all ready told US it did not have the jurisdiction in the matter.
The company is reaching.
Block has awarded the IAM Several Victories in arbitration all ready, including the Airbus Outsourcing.
Something tells me with the company agreeing to use Bloch, they have something else up their sleeves if Bloch rules in favor of the IAM, IMO which he should, as you read all the Officer Agreements filed with the SEC, each one states "Change of Control".
The company is reaching.
Block has awarded the IAM Several Victories in arbitration all ready, including the Airbus Outsourcing.
Something tells me with the company agreeing to use Bloch, they have something else up their sleeves if Bloch rules in favor of the IAM, IMO which he should, as you read all the Officer Agreements filed with the SEC, each one states "Change of Control".
pjirish317
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 743
As Tim stated, the I AM MANAGEMENT actually did a decent job in the Final Breif. Stating that the case shoukd stay within our CBA language and not case law. We will see if our $$$$ waas well spent or not.
pjirish317
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 743
Yeah it tells me that the I AM MANAGEMENT is ready to sell a victory back to the company for pennies on the dollar on another concessionary contract. Another "Yes Doug, Anything for you Doug, How much can we save you Doug, Can we give you anything else Doug." We will see though.
perserverance
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 382
- Reaction score
- 0
My two cents for what thier worth, probably two cents:
The Company states : Quote- ''The CIC provisions only apply in the event there is a sale
of ''assests'' or the ''then outstanding'' ''common stock'' of group. Neither has occured
hence and, as a result , the CIC provisions were not triggered.''
The IAM states : All stock in USAIR was canceled and new stock was issued. 20% going
to AW, 56% to New Equity Investors, 11% to Unsecures Investors, and 13% to Public
sale.
Alright, now to determine what exactly occured is for Mr. Bloch to decide. There is one point
though that is very important in the Unions argument. The company in thier final briefs constantly
refer to past cases and rulings similar to the current arguments, but these references are based
on an agreement made in a specific language agreement. The language in the agreement agreed
upon by the Union and the Company is based in the ''World of Corporate Transactions'' and not
in the ''Labor Management World''.
This means if this agreement had been agreed upon in the ''Labor Management World'' and not
how it was agreed upon which was the "World of Corporate Transactions'' all them references
would be valid but since the it was not presented and agreed upon in that particular language
all the company's references the company has asked Mr. Bloch to refer to should be discarded....
We'll see....and thats' my two cents but reading the briefs my two cents could be worth
considerably more soon.
Thanks
The Company states : Quote- ''The CIC provisions only apply in the event there is a sale
of ''assests'' or the ''then outstanding'' ''common stock'' of group. Neither has occured
hence and, as a result , the CIC provisions were not triggered.''
The IAM states : All stock in USAIR was canceled and new stock was issued. 20% going
to AW, 56% to New Equity Investors, 11% to Unsecures Investors, and 13% to Public
sale.
Alright, now to determine what exactly occured is for Mr. Bloch to decide. There is one point
though that is very important in the Unions argument. The company in thier final briefs constantly
refer to past cases and rulings similar to the current arguments, but these references are based
on an agreement made in a specific language agreement. The language in the agreement agreed
upon by the Union and the Company is based in the ''World of Corporate Transactions'' and not
in the ''Labor Management World''.
This means if this agreement had been agreed upon in the ''Labor Management World'' and not
how it was agreed upon which was the "World of Corporate Transactions'' all them references
would be valid but since the it was not presented and agreed upon in that particular language
all the company's references the company has asked Mr. Bloch to refer to should be discarded....
We'll see....and thats' my two cents but reading the briefs my two cents could be worth
considerably more soon.
Thanks
The Bagfather
Senior
The company's arguments are so pathetic I couldn't get through the
first page. They're saying that US Airways has miraculously emerged
from bankrupcy with the help from America West and a few unrelated
"benifactors"? That's completely absurd.
Laws are made to be fair, consistent , understandable and unambiguous
as possible. The IAM lawyers have done a great job here. As far
as I can tell the only vunerable spot would be concerning the lanquage
of "all or substatially all" as it relates to CIC. But IMO it's grasping
at straws and speaks little to the reality of the situation as the IAM
has argued.
We won't know the ruling for a while but for me just the clarity
of these arguments represents a victory for truth.
first page. They're saying that US Airways has miraculously emerged
from bankrupcy with the help from America West and a few unrelated
"benifactors"? That's completely absurd.
Laws are made to be fair, consistent , understandable and unambiguous
as possible. The IAM lawyers have done a great job here. As far
as I can tell the only vunerable spot would be concerning the lanquage
of "all or substatially all" as it relates to CIC. But IMO it's grasping
at straws and speaks little to the reality of the situation as the IAM
has argued.
We won't know the ruling for a while but for me just the clarity
of these arguments represents a victory for truth.
- Status
