Iam 141 update 12-27-02

OP
W

wts54

Senior
Sep 16, 2002
374
0
www.usaviation.com
They were cases in 2nd and 3rd Federal Court.I posted them earlier.
I will have to look for them.Basically one case was the judge can make necessary changes for a company to survive,and the other case was that a judge should just toss the contract out.

The circuit courts are split on the appropriate standard to apply when considering whether rejection should be permitted. The code
allows rejection if the proposed modifications are "necessary to permit the reorganization."

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the concept of "necessary modifications" to mean that rejection should be
permitted only if the modifications are necessary to prevent liquidation of the firm.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a position more favorable to rejection, by allowing rejection if rejection would
be useful in reorganization and if the modifications are reasonable.

http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-21.html
 

The Ronin

Senior
Sep 17, 2002
497
0
It's not the wage reduction that the IAM is so worried about. Its the scope clause, and they are terrified. Why, the jet shop has finished the inventory and are finishing the last engines, no more are coming in. Its going to PW, all of it. Just some c-check and maintain a very very small pool. Thats 1500 mechanics, also TIMCO has announced due to a major airline contract they are accepting applications in all skills. Thats Indy. The Union rep told me that they are hearing numbers as high as 4000 mechanics out they door by end of next year. Line maintenance and some c-check lines, thats it.
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 1:55:04 AM wts54 wrote:

No I mean they should pay them off as in the full amount on one check.
The money has been sitting in a bank drawing interest.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yea, that would be nice if they could pay us all in lump sum now.
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 1:53:26 AM wts54 wrote:

They were cases in 2nd and 3rd Federal Court.I posted them earlier.
I will have to look for them.Basically one case was the judge can make necessary changes for a company to survive,and the other case was that a judge should just toss the contract out.

The circuit courts are split on the appropriate standard to apply when considering whether rejection should be permitted. The code
allows rejection if the proposed modifications are "necessary to permit the reorganization."

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the concept of "necessary modifications" to mean that rejection should be
permitted only if the modifications are necessary to prevent liquidation of the firm.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a position more favorable to rejection, by allowing rejection if rejection would
be useful in reorganization and if the modifications are reasonable.

http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-21.html



----------------
[/blockquote]

This is really what happens:

In a bankruptcy proceeding, union contracts can be voided or modified by a judge. Typically, however, they are modified only with approval from both the company and the union.

Michael Boyd, an aviation analyst from Golden, Colo., said it's imperative that United and mechanics agree on concessions rather than have a judge decide.
 

gimbalimit

Member
Nov 15, 2002
20
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 10:09:22 PM ual747mech wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 1:53:26 AM wts54 wrote:

They were cases in 2nd and 3rd Federal Court.I posted them earlier.
I will have to look for them.Basically one case was the judge can make necessary changes for a company to survive,and the other case was that a judge should just toss the contract out.

The circuit courts are split on the appropriate standard to apply when considering whether rejection should be permitted. The code
allows rejection if the proposed modifications are "necessary to permit the reorganization."

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the concept of "necessary modifications" to mean that rejection should be
permitted only if the modifications are necessary to prevent liquidation of the firm.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a position more favorable to rejection, by allowing rejection if rejection would
be useful in reorganization and if the modifications are reasonable.

http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-21.html



----------------
[/blockquote]

This is really what happens:

In a bankruptcy proceeding, union contracts can be voided or modified by a judge. Typically, however, they are modified only with approval from both the company and the union.

Michael Boyd, an aviation analyst from Golden, Colo., said it's imperative that United and mechanics agree on concessions rather than have a judge decide.

----------------
[/blockquote]

The courts do not like to take a role in the drafting of contracts - they see this fundamentally as a responsibility of the parties involved and the courts will step in to adjudicate only to determine whether a term violates a legal principal or whether there has been a breach. As to the drafting, well, a party who makes his bed can lie in it too (absent unconscionability). The above examples indicate the reticence of the court to step in and modify an agreement when the parties themselves cannot agree - under bankruptcy, it appears, the courts would prefer to (and are allowed to) void a contract and allow management to impose their own, and the imposed upon party to reject if desired (and then strike?) - the parties have to live with their own actions - IOW, don't expect a judge to bail you out of your own poor negotiation.
Cheers, Gimbalimit
 

ual747mech

Senior
Nov 26, 2002
279
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 2:11:36 AM The Ronin wrote:

It's not the wage reduction that the IAM is so worried about. Its the scope clause, and they are terrified. Why, the jet shop has finished the inventory and are finishing the last engines, no more are coming in. Its going to PW, all of it. Just some c-check and maintain a very very small pool. Thats 1500 mechanics, also TIMCO has announced due to a major airline contract they are accepting applications in all skills. Thats Indy. The Union rep told me that they are hearing numbers as high as 4000 mechanics out they door by end of next year. Line maintenance and some c-check lines, thats it.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yea, now that I know why, I don't blame the IAM for not bringing it back to us for ratification like the other unions did. The company is asking too much from us, farm out a lot of our work, closing maintenance bases etc. Lets support the IAM even though we don't like the way handle business they're still our union. Get involved, ask them question so we can make an informed decision.

My prediction though is that both parties will come to an agreement because of the risk involved on both sides. If the company keep insisting on bringing that "take it or leave it offer" then let the judge decide. The judge might favor the company or the union, it's 50/50, I've seen cases where it was decided in favor of either party.