DL 142 Change of Control Grievance Update

[allstrike]

Per THE IBT CONTRACT That is What the WEST is UNDER WE IN THE WEST CAN NOT STRIKE.
So If Anyone Strike's it Will Have To Be the EAST People.
🙂

First of I do not want to go on strike,I dont think anyone does,Id like to see this worked out.Id also like to know whats on the table right now.How ever Im just a small guy in a big station.
You my old fellow worker do bring up a very strong point.I dont think I need to say more,this is really getting good now.
:angry: <_< :down:

 

[ussnark]

Per THE IBT CONTRACT That is What the WEST is UNDER WE IN THE WEST CAN NOT STRIKE.
So If Anyone Strike's it Will Have To Be the EAST People.
🙂

Maybe, you do not have to strike.

You do have to do your job in a very thorough manner, however, with all eyes dotted and tees crossed, comprendo?

Any shortcuts and your tail will be in the breeze.

 

[Mr Eagle]

Maybe, you do not have to strike.

You do have to do your job in a very thorough manner, however, with all eyes dotted and tees crossed, comprendo?

Any shortcuts and your tail will be in the breeze.

We Have Been, Have YOU ALL IN THE EAST?

 

[NevadaHP]

Per THE IBT CONTRACT That is What the WEST is UNDER WE IN THE WEST CAN NOT STRIKE.
So If Anyone Strike's it Will Have To Be the EAST People.
🙂

i believe everyone has a no strike clause even on the west FS but what the hell is the company going to do if we FS/MX all walk? They will fine the UNION, thats what we pay dues for. it wil only take a day before parker sees his millions in stock go down the drain and he will then talk. dont fall for his GAMBLE that we will do nothing. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

 

[700UW]

If a court rules a major dispute under the RLA you are free to strike.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

If a court rules a major dispute under the RLA you are free to strike.

I have told you more then once that striking is not automatic if a court rules a dispute is a major dispute.

Major Dispute procedure

III. Collective Bargaining Disputes (So Called "Major Disputes")

Definition of Major Dispute. Major disputes involve the creation or changing of collective bargaining agreements on rates of pay, work rules and working conditions, and are subject to conciliation procedures that are purposely long and drawn-out. Unlike other industries, collective bargaining agreements under the RLA do not expire on certain dates, but remain in full force and effect until changed in accordance with the procedures of the RLA.


RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:

- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").

- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.

- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.

- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.

- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.

- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.

Self-help. The RLA is silent on the scope of allowable self-help available to the parties after they have exhausted the major dispute resolution procedures. However, court decisions have made clear that the scope of permissible self-help is broad, extending considerably beyond the bounds of self-help that would be permitted to employers and unions covered by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Courts have ruled, for example, that an RLA union may strike and peacefully picket a carrier with which it has a primary dispute, engage in intermittent work stoppages (e.g ., "selective" or "rolling strikes"), and secondarily picket other neutral RLA employers (a practice prohibited under the NLRA). For carriers, self-help includes: implementing their proposed contract changes; making a national response to defend against a selective strike that jeopardizes national bargaining, including locking out striking workers and, if the labor contract with non-striking workers permits, other workers; and replacing striking workers. The courts cannot enjoin such self-help activity.

Secondary Picketing. While neutral RLA carriers cannot block lawful secondary picketing by employees of other carriers, they may be able to secure injunctive relief preventing their own employees from honoring the picket lines. To secure such relief, a carrier would need to show that applicable labor contracts arguably prohibit the carriers' employees from honoring secondary picket lines; the contract interpretation dispute would then be submitted to binding arbitration under the RLA. This course of action was successfully followed by Amtrak and the New York commuter operators in 1989 when they secured court orders blocking walk-outs by their employees in response to threatened picket lines by striking Eastern Airline employees.

Airline vs. Railroad Bargaining. While the airline and railroad industries are subject to the same statutory procedures, collective bargaining in the two industries differs. Individual airlines and their employees typically negotiate comprehensive bargaining agreements for a definitive period; if a class or craft of employees is represented by a union, that union represents all the employees of the carrier. Railroad collective bargaining, on the other hand, is dominated by national bargaining. However, some railroad carriers such as Amtrak are not part of the national bargaining committee and some general union chairmen on carriers may elect to negotiate directly with the carrier rather than to grant the national union officers the authority to bargain for them in national negotiations

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

I have told you more then once that striking is not automatic if a court rules a dispute is a major dispute.

Relating to the topic at hand...the "change of control" dispute..If the court ever had to rule on if it is a minor or major dispute I don't see how it could be ruled anything other than a minor dispute. Since all it really involves is interpretation of an existing article in the current CBA. Granted it involves changes in the rate of pay but the real dispute is if the "change of control" clause should have been triggered by the merger. The changes in the rate of pay are already agreed to in the current CWA if the "change of control" was triggered.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Relating to the topic at hand...the "change of control" dispute..

And before you know who comes and says I am citing only section 6 negotiations not major disputes here is court ref. for what happens if a major dispute was ruled (in this case it was ruled a major dispute then overruled..just like the Airbus case)

When a major dispute arises, the parties are required to "maintain the status quo" until they complete a "lengthy process of bargaining and mediation." Id. at 302. The district court has jurisdiction to enter an injunction to prevent a disturbance of the status quo during resolution of a major dispute without a showing of irreparable harm. Id. at 303. If the bargaining and mediation process fails to settle a major dispute, the parties may resort to the use of economic force. Id.

Court case

Also this regarding what constututes a minor dispute

Minor disputes, "growing 'out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions,'" are subject to conference and compulsory arbitration procedures. Id. at 303 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 152 Sixth). This category of disputes "relates either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision [of a collective bargaining agreement] with reference to a specific situation or to an omitted case." Id. (quotation omitted). The National Railroad Adjustment Board, or any board established by the parties under the RLA, has exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes, with only limited review of the arbitrated decision available. Id. at 303-04. Although district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over minor disputes, they may enjoin a strike called because of a minor dispute. Id. at 304. Therefore, the propriety of the district court's injunction in this case turns on whether the dispute over UP's actions is major or minor.



So my contention is if a major dispute is ruled status quo would be invoked and any changes the company thought they were entitled to make would have to be changed through section 6 negotiations.

 

[700UW]

Learn to read and comprehend, your information is in regard to Section 6 Negotiations, something that US and the IAM are not engaged in. If the company breaks the status quo and a court rules a major dispute the union is free to strike.

Have you attended Leadership I, II, Advanced Leadership or Train the Trainer?

Apparently not as you post stuff in regard to section 6 negotiations.

Guess you dont remember when the judge ruled a major dispute in the first round of court in regard to the airbus outsourcing, which the IAM was free to strike but did not.

 

[fanlube]

Learn to read and comprehend, your information is in regard to Section 6 Negotiations, something that US and the IAM are not engaged in. If the company breaks the status quo and a court rules a major dispute the union is free to strike.

Have you attended Leadership I, II, Advanced Leadership or Train the Trainer?

Apparently not as you post stuff in regard to section 6 negotiations.

Guess you dont remember when the judge ruled a major dispute in the first round of court in regard to the airbus outsourcing, which the IAM was free to strike but did not.

Which was overturned and ruled a minor dispute. And even if this is ruled a major dispute the company already knows the IAM want have the b@%^s to do anything their history shows this! They will talk tough just like before but in the end they will allow their members to take it in the shorts again for the sake of a few extra dues!

 

[allstrike]

they will allow their members to take it in the shorts again for the sake of a few extra dues!

I see the last hr story repeating itself again :down: :down: :down:

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Learn to read and comprehend, your information is in regard to Section 6 Negotiations, something that US and the IAM are not engaged in. If the company breaks the status quo and a court rules a major dispute the union is free to strike.

Have you attended Leadership I, II, Advanced Leadership or Train the Trainer?

Apparently not as you post stuff in regard to section 6 negotiations.

Guess you dont remember when the judge ruled a major dispute in the first round of court in regard to the airbus outsourcing, which the IAM was free to strike but did not.

You learn to read and comprehend and also when you are "there" learn to comprehend what is going on.

What you remember is the IAM threating to strike (just like they are doing now) But they NEVER (during Airbus dispute) had the right to strike that is a bald-faced lie.

Mechanics THREATEN strike

The paragraphs below are straight out of the intitial ruling of a major dispute (that you refer to the IAM as having a right to strike). Also if status quo wasn't maintained after a court ruling of a major dispute I would think that the company would be subject to contempt of court

5. Labor Relations O815
Although the parties involved in a major dispute within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) are ultimately free to exercise self-help, they MUST maintain the status quo until the negotiation and mediation procedures are exhausted.Railway Labor Act, §§ 5, 6, 45 U.S.C.A.§§ 155, 156

6. Labor Relations O393, 395.9
In a major dispute, the Railway LaborAct’s (RLA’s) status quo requirement both prevents the union from striking and management from changing the rates of pay,rules, or working conditions related to the dispute. Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq.,45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq

Airbus dispute case law

Read the paragraph below from the appeals court ruling on the Airbus case. This is why I think the the "change of control" dispute wouldn't be ruled a major dispute. Besides having it ruled a major dispute isn't in the best interests of the IAM members (section 6 negotiations instead of binding arbitration)

the Supreme Court explained that “the formal demarcation between major and minor disputes does not turn on a case-by-case determination of the importance of the issue presented or the likelihood that it would prompt the exercise of economic self-help.†Id. at305, 109 S.Ct. at 2481. Rather, the difference between the two types of disputes is that major disputes seek to create contractual rights, while minor disputes seek to enforce them.

Major disputes relate to the formation of collective bargaining agreements or efforts to secure them. They arise in the absence of such anagreement or where a party seeks to change the terms of one, and therefore the issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy.

Major disputes look to the acquisition of rights for the future, not to the assertion of rights claimed to have vested in the past.

In contrast, minor disputes arise out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of existing collective bargaining agreements. Where an employer asserts a contractual right to take the contested action, the ensuing dispute is a minor one if the action arguably is justified by the implied or express terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Where, by contrast, the employer’s claimed justification for the action is frivolous or obviously insubstantial, the dispute is a major one.(noting that the court may not “consider the merits of the underlying dispute; its role is limited to determining whether the dispute can be characterized as involving the proper application or meaning of a contract provisionâ€).

A minor dispute is subject to a compulsory and binding arbitration before an adjustment board established by the employer and the unions representing the employees. That board,in this case the System Board, has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. There is no general statutory obligation that the employer maintain the status quopending the arbitrator’s decision. Thus, in a minor dispute, “[e]ach side can act on its interpretation of the existing agreements until the arbitration panel rules otherwise.â€

Appeals court ruling

Seems to me the IAM wasted its time and the memberships union dues sending you to Leadership I, II, Advanced Leadership and Train the Trainer.

Again major disputes lead to section 6 negotiations and the IAM cannot strike until those negotiations are exhaused. I provided the proof you have provided nothing but your all-knowing condescending attitude.

Why don't you admit you are wrong??? or if you still contend you are right provide some proof and official documents to backup your claims instead of that impressive list of classes you must have slept through.

 

[700UW]

Let me explain this one more time to you.

US and the IAM ARE NOT IN SECTION 6 NEGOTIATIONS, everything you post is about negotiations.

You really need to learn how to read and comprehend.

The company is violating the CBA and if the court rules a major dispute the IAM would be free to strike.

How many times are you going to post something about negotiations to back up your point of view when the major/minor dispute is not about negotiations, it is about violation of the CBA, not negotiations.

Do you even know what section 6 of the RLA is?

You really need to check out what the system board is.

A major dispute does not lead to section 6 negotiations, section 6 is the intent to modify the CBA 30 days prior to the amendable date.

Bargaining Procedures and Status Quo Requirement.
1. Section 6 Opener.
Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, establishes the initial procedures for collective bargaining as follows: Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice.

In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.

In essence, section 6 provides that a party that desires to amend or change a contract must first give a written notice to that effect. This notice, called a section 6 notice, triggers the duty to bargain. The other parties have ten days to respond to the notice, to agree to meet, and the meeting must start within thirty days. This initial phase of negotiations consists of direct bargaining between the parties. The duration of such
direct bargaining is open ended; it usually continues as long as both parties find it productive.

You have no idea of what you are even posting.

This is about the grievance procedure, not Section 6 Negotiations as the CBA is not amendable till 2009.

You make this way too easy and don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

everything you post is about negotiations.

Facts: (most) Everything I posted was cut and paste facts, rulings and links directly relating to the Airbus major/minor dispute.

Prove they aren't.

The company is violating the CBA and if the court rules a major dispute the IAM would be free to strike.

Again here is the ruling from the court when they first ruled the Airbus issue a major dispute.

6. Labor Relations O393, 395.9
In a major dispute, the Railway LaborAct’s (RLA’s) status quo requirement both prevents the union from striking and management from changing the rates of pay,rules, or working conditions related to the dispute. Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq.,45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq (the above paragraph is a court ruling in Airbus dispute)

Which is it can't read or can't comprehend? Cannot strike cannot strike cannot strike. (until they have exhausted the negotiation and mediation procedures)

How many times are you going to post something about negotiations to back up your point of view when the major/minor dispute is not about negotiations, it is about violation of the CBA, not negotiations.

Until you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
5. Labor Relations O815
Although the parties (Company and IAM) involved in a major dispute within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) are ultimately free to exercise self-help, they MUST maintain the status quo until the negotiation and mediation procedures are exhausted.Railway Labor Act, §§ 5, 6, 45 U.S.C.A.§§ 155, 156
(the above paragraph is a court ruling in Airbus dispute)

Do you even know what section 6 of the RLA is?
You really need to check out what the system board is.

Yes I do. Apparently you don't

A major dispute does not lead to section 6 negotiations, section 6 is the intent to modify the CBA 30 days prior to the amendable date.
You have no idea of what you are even posting.

This is about the grievance procedure, not Section 6 Negotiations as the CBA is not amendable till 2009.

You make this way too easy and don't let the facts get in your way.

again...the answer is...major dispute ruling leads to negotiation and mediation

Call it what you like but it follows the same procedure as section 6 negotiations.

You make this too hard I mean a first grader should understand this.

The problem is the facts are getting in YOUR way.

Well well surprise surprise look at what you referenced

Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156,

And look what the court referenced (in regards to a major dispute)

negotiation and mediation procedures are exhausted.Railway Labor Act, §§ 5, 6, 45 U.S.C.A.§§ 155, 156
(the above paragraph is a court ruling in Airbus dispute)

Looks like the SAME section to me. Of course you will not admit it.

By the way the ruling of a major dispute does not in itself trigger the negotiation and mediation procedures. Using the Airbus dispute as an example (if the initial ruling wasn't overturned) the company was barred from farming out the Airbus work due to the status quo and court ruling. If the company wanted to still farm out the Airbus work the only way they could do it would be to...

a party that desires to amend or change a contract must first give a written notice to that effect.

The Railway Labor Act

The RLA was enacted in 1926 and made applicable to the airline industry ten years later. Section 2 (First) of the RLA imposes a legal obligation on carriers and their employees to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.â€

Section 6 of the RLA (“Section 6â€) sets forth a protocol (the “Section 6 Processâ€) for the resolution of “major disputes,†including disputes concerning CBA modifications. This protocol involves (i) notice, (ii) negotiation and bargaining, (iii) mediation by the National Mediation Board (“NMBâ€) for an indefinite period, (iv) voluntary binding arbitration or a 30-day “cooling off†period, (v) authority of the NMB to convene a Presidential Emergency Board to seek resolution during a cooling off period, and (vi) a second 30-day cooling off period if and when the Presidential Emergency Board issues a recommendation. Only the NMB may terminate the Section 6 Process. While these remedies are being exhausted, the parties must reasonably attempt to reach a settlement and neither party may alter the “status quo†by engaging in self-help. Courts have characterized the Section 6 Process as “endless†and “interminable.â€

According to the district court, the major themes of the RLA are (i) the resolution of “labor disputes that threaten to disrupt commerce,†(ii) the requirement that parties exhaust all remedies before engaging in self-help, and (iii) the role of the NMB as a neutral third party representing the public interest.

A good read

Again I ask you to submit facts on your position. No attacts just facts. Give us one court ruling or RLA or other reference to prove your position of

1. A union can strike right after a major dispute ruling

2. That a major dispute ruling can't lead to negotiation and mediation

3. How about a court ruling link to your contention that the IAM was free to strike after the initial ruling of a major dispute in the Airbus case. Wasn't there a TRO? why would they strike even if the could which they couldn't..again prove they had the right..Do not give us some IAM propaganda release.

4. Prove everything I posted was about negotiation process and had nothing to do with major disputes. Show me how my links are fabricated.

5. And last but not least you seem to have all these huge connections with lawyers and the such... how about some statements from them backing up your position and refuting mine.

I forgot this major bombshell to your position (again from the Airbus major dispute ruling)

1. Labor Relations O804If a dispute between a union and an employer governed by the Railway LaborAct (RLA) is major, the courts have broadpowers to enjoin unilateral action by either side to preserve the status quo while statutory settlement procedures go forward; such an injunction may issue without regard to the usual balancing of the equities. Railway Labor Act, § 1 et seq., 45U.S.C.A. § 151 et se

 

[700UW]

You keep posting from section 6 negotiations which is traditional bargaining, look under system board of arbitration.

The Grievance procedure has nothing to do with Section 6 which you keep posting from.

When a major dispute is declared the union is free to seek self-help and not contact the NMB and use them to negotiate something that is not in traditional bargaining, ie section 6.

Never has a major dipuste triggered negotiations.

You are mixing up the two.

That is why the IAM filed a grievance and now went to District Court instead of the NMB, just like in the airbus grievance.

Guess you don't read the DL 142 Updates when they mention self-help and all means available.