Iam 141 update 12-27-02

wts54

Senior
Sep 16, 2002
374
0
www.usaviation.com
December 27, 2002
United Airlines Bankruptcy Update
To District 141-M Represented Employees at United Airlines:
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
In an expected development, United Airlines filed an application today in U.S. Bankruptcy court for rulings that can lead to changes in wages, work
rules and benefits for IAM members and all unionized employees at United Airlines.
United petitioned the court for two rulings under Section 1113 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code: one, (an 1113© motion) begins a process that can lead
to abrogation of collective bargaining agreements, the other, (an 1113(e) motion) seeks immediate financial relief, including a 13 percent pay cut,
effective January 1, 2003, for IAM members at United.
United stated the proposed immediate wage cuts are necessary to achieve cost reductions targets required by its Debtor in Possession (DIP)
financing terms through May 1, 2003. United’s complete 1113 application is available Click Here.
Non-negotiable pay cuts proposed by United for IAM members as ''take it or leave it'' measures was rejected by the district leadership and will not be
presented to IAM membership for ratification. The IAM will object in court to United’s application for emergency wage reductions. We have taken
this position in full knowledge that the proposed 13 percent pay reduction is just the first step in United’s cost reduction plan. United has made clear
their intention to seek major scope changes in our agreement which would necessitate a second ratification.
Representatives of other Unions at United are presenting the company’s 1113(e) pay cut proposals for a ratification vote. United has applied to the
bankruptcy court to impose their 1113(e) terms on IAM members in the event all the other unions ratify the terms proposed by United.
Also in today’s court filing, United stated that if temporary modifications are achieved, it would delay its application to seek total rejection of labor
agreements until March 15, 2003. If the temporary terms are not in place either due to rejection by the membership of any other Union or the refusal
of the judge to impose terms on IAM members, the application to reject the agreements that was filed today will go forward as scheduled.
The IAM believes United’s financial problems can best be resolved with a business plan that emphasizes negotiations and partnership with its
union-represented employees for the long-term health of the airline, its employees and shareholders. The “13 percent solution†represents an
approach using the court to impose temporary measures, but should not negate the need for a long-term resolution that would provide adequate
opportunity for employee involvement and consent.
Judge Eugene R. Wedoff has scheduled a status conference on United’s application for December 30, 2002. The Machinists Union will be
represented by attorney Sharon Levine from the firm Lowenstein Sandler.
We remain convinced that a comprehensive recovery plan can be a success for United’s employees, passengers and investors alike.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Scotty Ford
President and General Chairman
IAM District 141-M
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 10:16:07 PM wts54 wrote:

We will see.I am prepared for whatever happens either way.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You know I am! What I am afraid of though is they might be doing it just because they are being pressured from the majority of the membership, who are mostly Amfa supporters now because they don't believe them anymore. I am an Amfa supporter because I like the way they do business but I am not a fool, I know the consequences of getting our contract rejected so it's best to support our current union right now. Do you agree with that?
 

wings396

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,672
1,122
The IAM will talk big for now, but will end up giving whatever the company asks. They have become even more powerless at US. The company will threaten, and they will give until it hurts and then some.
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/26/2002 3:23:40 PM ual747mech wrote:

The best strategy is to follow what the Unions are saying. They're the ones that can guide us since they got their attorneys and financial advisers looking at whether the company's proposal is fair and equitable. I think if they feel that what the company is proposing is not fair or necessary then they will take it to the judge. I know a case where that happened.


Hey wts54, I told you so.
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 10:04:59 PM thedog wrote:

[STRONG][EM]Meanwhile CAL Mechanics get big raise with retro? Why is this?[/EM][/STRONG]




[SPAN class=BodyFont]CAL is following through on a promise to pay industry standard scales to its Teamsters represented employees.The top scale mechanic will get a 23% increase retroactive to Jan 1,2002.The Teamsters Union rocks!---Source:Yahoo Finance News [/P][/SPAN]
----------------
[/blockquote]

That's a lame contract! They don't beat what we are currently making so they're not industry leading but then again we are going to fall way below them soon.
8.gif']
 

thedog

Member
Dec 27, 2002
27
0
www.usaviation.com
[STRONG][EM]Meanwhile CAL Mechanics get big raise with retro? Why is this?[/EM][/STRONG][BR][BR]
[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]CAL is following through on a promise to pay industry standard scales to its Teamsters represented employees.The top scale mechanic will get a 23% increase retroactive to Jan 1,2002.The Teamsters Union rocks!---Source:Yahoo Finance News [/P][/SPAN]
 
OP
W

wts54

Senior
Sep 16, 2002
374
0
www.usaviation.com
People need to stop believing the lies that are out there about that a judge
has only two choices accept or completely void our contract.Although those things can
happen he can also modify the agreement .I found court cases about that very thing happening.Everybody has to make their own decision about what is acceptable
to them as I have.
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 11:01:35 PM wts54 wrote:

People need to stop believing the lies that are out there about that a judge
has only two choices accept or completely void our contract.Although those things can
happen he can also modify the agreement .I found court cases about that very thing happening.Everybody has to make their own decision about what is acceptable
to them as I have.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The contract will ultimately get rejected or it does not get rejected. The contract may be modified for the time being until rejection or a negotiated tentative agreement is reached. Here's what Section 1113 says.

Sec. 1113. - Rejection of collective bargaining agreements


(a)

The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(B)


(1)

Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section ''trustee'' shall include a debtor in possession), shall -

(A)

make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and

(B)

provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.

(2)

During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.

©

The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that -

(1)

the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1);

(2)

the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and

(3)

the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.

(d)


(1)

Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.

(2)

The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees' representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees' representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.

(3)

The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee's proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.

(e)

If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.

(f)

No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 11:01:35 PM wts54 wrote:

People need to stop believing the lies that are out there about that a judge
has only two choices accept or completely void our contract.Although those things can
happen he can also modify the agreement .I found court cases about that very thing happening.Everybody has to make their own decision about what is acceptable
to them as I have.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yea, the company is asking the court to modify our contract effective Jan 1, 2003 and continuing until rejection pursuant to Section 1113© or an agreement in lieu thereof. The good news is the company intends to keep paying us the retro installments. That's a secured debt so I guess they have an obligation to pay us. Read this: http://www.iam141m.org/ual1227Sec1113.pdf
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 11:44:03 PM wts54 wrote:

I think UAL should pay off all retro
to people who are laid off.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yes they're paying everybody including laid off members and members who retired after the contract became amendable.
 

spacewaitress

Senior
Aug 27, 2002
468
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/27/2002 11:01:35 PM wts54 wrote:

People need to stop believing the lies that are out there about that a judge
has only two choices accept or completely void our contract.Although those things can
happen he can also modify the agreement .I found court cases about that very thing happening...
----------------
[/blockquote]
Can you cite those cases please. I think we'd all like to be as informed as we can be. We are all over a barrel here.
 

Latest posts