Corporate Security Raids LGA Locker Room

[limit]

Most of these guys will come back just because of implied consent ,previously accepted practice.
There are numerous arbitrated cases in the past where employees have come back to service
(some with pay and some not),just because what they did was "accepted practice",even though clearly against
written company policy.
This was their only defense.

The only way to have made their firings stand ,would have been to issue a verbal or writen notification to all of the
employees at that station(at least), that this practice will no longer be tolerated.
Such a letter was issued in Tulsa,I do not believe this is the case at LGA.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

The only way to have made their firings stand ,would have been to issue a verbal or writen notification to all of the
employees at that station(at least), that this practice will no longer be tolerated.
Such a letter was issued in Tulsa,I do not believe this is the case at LGA.

The company already did issue such notification. It's called the 'Employee Handbook' and it is the final word in all employee disputes.

You do however, have a good point with 'previously accepted practice' even though I doubted it earlier. It would especially apply if no one has previously been busted for this, leading these 8 to believe it was an accepted practice, even though it was specifically prohibited by the employee Rules of Conduct.

Anyhow, their hearings were today - we still haven't heard any of the outcome.

 

[limit]

Chances are that they would not be back after this hearing.
The cases I know ,they all went to arbitration and it took months ,sometimes more than a year
for this to happen,but you never know.
Regardless, there is a 50/50 chance that such a reversal and return will be without back pay.

 

[Hopeful]

The company already did issue such notification. It's called the 'Employee Handbook' and it is the final word in all employee disputes.

You do however, have a good point with 'previously accepted practice' even though I doubted it earlier. It would especially apply if no one has previously been busted for this, leading these 8 to believe it was an accepted practice, even though it was specifically prohibited by the employee Rules of Conduct.

Anyhow, their hearings were today - we still haven't heard any of the outcome.

Recently at JFK, a mechanic was caught by corporate security for sleeping and he went out of his way to do so. He was terminated and an arbitrator ruled in his favor and was brought back without back pay which is understandable. At the time of his termination, the B Check manager was also "let go" because it was reported he was "taking care" of the B c heck guys.. Basically time card fraud. The only difference was that the union mechanic had an arbitrator rule in his favor whereas the shift manager was brought back by AA thanks to the line maintenance VP.

So you see, the company has no problem with sleeping and other "perks" extended to the workforce until Corporate Security gets involved.

 

[eolesen]

Hey Bears, regarding your BOS example... Perhaps Corporate Security needs to make an appearance there as well, and fire all their asses, including the managers.

The rules above are supposed to be posted in work areas alongside the EEOC and Workers Comp required notices. They were even posted at HDQ on each floor.

Implied consent? Please. By that definition, Obama is an implied racist for having passively sat in the pews for 20 years listening to Rev. Wrong, and Bill was entirely justified in all of his extra-marital affairs because Hillary had tolerated it for so many years....


Proving a manager was in on the violations would simply provide a case for the manager to be fired, too.

"I was following orders" doesn't excuse an AMT, pilot, or FA from potential fines by the FAA, and it doesn't hold water when it comes to violating regs...

If a CSM tells an agent it's OK to pocket the cash from an excess baggage ticket, it doesn't change the fact that the behavior is still a violation of Rule 34.

If a supervisor tells you it's OK to badge out another employee, you're still violating Rule 5.

If a MOD tells the CC it's OK to hang a noose in the breakroom, it doesn't change the fact that it's a violation of Rule 32.

If Bob Reding was doing lines of coke with CC's in the breakroom, or Tom Del Valle was pounding back tequila shots at the freighthouse, you'd all still be guilty of violating rules 25, 26, and 33.


Bottom line.... Everyone is responsible for their own behavior. Blaming your own poor choices on the manager not having taken action before is just whining.

 

[Hopeful]

Read my previous post. There was enough violation for JFK to fire a manager for paying guys and letting them leave. But the VP of maintenance brought him back.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Perhaps, but probably not, especially if managers don't have the authority to change Rules of Conduct and never have had it. There are certain things the company reserves to itself and changing or altering Rules of Conduct would be one of them. Every company has rules of conduct and they stick to them like glue, mostly for liability purposes.

It doesn't matter if the manager has the authority to change Rules of Conduct, he is representing management, and if consent is given, in an arbitration it will normally stand.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

You know what's funny about all these people that come on here and condemn some poor mechanic getting a little shut eye after he busted his ass getting his aircraft ready to go in the morning. I'm willing to bet Wing,eolesen,etc. all have something that belongs to their employer(s) in their house right now. Isn't that theft of company property? Now listen to these "hypocrites" deny everything.
Better hope coporate security doesn't raid your house(s). That AA pen and paper you stole just might get you fired.

 

[limit]

Implied consent? Please................................................................
......................................................................
.
.........................

.....Bottom line.... Everyone is responsible for their own behavior. Blaming your own poor choices on the manager not having taken action before is just whining.

I agree with you.
What I posted was strictly referring to what has happened in the past with cases as these.
The outcome for these employees might or not be the same as before.
I would not want to bet my job on past practices.
I have a family to feed.

 

[Hopeful]

You know what's funny about all these people that come on here and condemn some poor mechanic getting a little shut eye after he busted his ass getting his aircraft ready to go in the morning. I'm willing to bet Wing,eolesen,etc. all have something that belongs to their employer(s) in their house right now. Isn't that theft of company property? Now listen to these "hypocrites" deny everything.
Better hope coporate security doesn't raid your house(s). That AA pen and paper you stole just might get you fired.

And Im sure none of these company do-gooders never used the company phone for personal reasons or used the copy machine for personal use.

 

[eolesen]

Split hairs all you want to, guys.... The way "use of company time and materials" is written isn't quite as black and white as "no sleeping", but there's no doubt that taking home office supplies, using the phone for personal calls, or using the copier for personal use are all things that an employee could be held accountable for.

But we're not talking about that -- we're talking about mechanics sleeping on the clock.

AA's policy prohibits sleeping on duty.

These guys were sleeping on duty.

It doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

 

[Hopeful]

Split hairs all you want to, guys.... The way "use of company time and materials" is written isn't quite as black and white as "no sleeping", but there's no doubt that taking home office supplies, using the phone for personal calls, or using the copier for personal use are all things that an employee could be held accountable for.

But we're not talking about that -- we're talking about mechanics sleeping on the clock.

AA's policy prohibits sleeping on duty.

These guys were sleeping on duty.

It doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

And for the last time, of course sleeping is a no-no....but you seem to be ignoring the fact that management has allowed this for literally decades.

 

[jimntx]

And for the last time, of course sleeping is a no-no....but you seem to be ignoring the fact that management has allowed this for literally decades.

The problem with that defense is proving that management even knew about the sleeping, much less that "they allowed it." You have to have someone from management willing to testify that they knew about it and/or gave written permission to the mechanics to sleep after the work was completed.

Result: One manager out of a job. Company arguing in court that no manager has the right to countermand written corporate policy.

And, you go back to the Catch-22 that to use that defense, the defendants have to admit that they were in fact sleeping on the job and had done it on a regular basis for "decades" in direct violation of written corporate policy. Not a promising approach.

 

[lpbrian]

Split hairs all you want to, guys.... The way "use of company time and materials" is written isn't quite as black and white as "no sleeping", but there's no doubt that taking home office supplies, using the phone for personal calls, or using the copier for personal use are all things that an employee could be held accountable for.

But we're not talking about that -- we're talking about mechanics sleeping on the clock.

AA's policy prohibits sleeping on duty.

These guys were sleeping on duty.

It doesn't get anymore black and white than that.

Just talked to a guy who came back from a field trip. He got about 6 hours of sack time. While on time and a half. Waiting for parts. Not to mention AA time when he got back. Sounds black and white to me.

 

[jimntx]

Yeah, and driving 85 on the freeway is "legal" if you don't get caught.