IAM Fleet Service Thread

[redeye]

Hey..Chill,

The company and the union used the assistance of National Mediation
Board facilitator Linda Puchala.

At the NMB website, look at the section listed as "ADR Services"

Here is a quote from that page:

At the NMB, Alternative Dispute Resolution Services (ADRS) offers programs
for resolving disputes outside of the Board's "A-case" contract negotiations.
The NMB offers a range of ADR services, including training, facilitation,
grievance mediation and facilitated problem solving, and a range of
technology-assisted dispute resolution programs designed to enhance
dispute resolution efforts while saving time and money for the Board and the parties.

Neither arbitrator nor mediator shall you be if you are a facilitator.

I am thinking that is our quandary.

Hope this helps!

 

[roabilly]

Wow, two posts already attacking some one.

Union rule is not mob rule.

Dawg...

Askin’ ahh poster tahh verify whut empowers him… or her… tah be an authority on Fleet Service Negotiations, is ahh fair question. It is not meant tah be ah personal attack.

When someone advises us on our position in IAM Fleet Service negotiations…
I think we have every right tahh know whom this poster is…what are his qualifications…whut are his personal interests in these negotiations?

It is quite obvious that Distract Farce has ah certain flair for dissuasion, as well as ahh intimate understanding of collective bargaining negotiation measures & procedures.

In my book… Mr. Farce is offerin’ financial advice! If we believe, and trust him…that is equivalent to accepting his financial advice!

Would you accept financial advice from ahh anonymous… unseen entity... hidin’ behind ahh cool soundin’ screen name, which may… or may not even be ahh qualified financial advisor?

Think about it !

 

[The Bagfather]

You have nothing to arbitrate, why would you need one?

You must mean a mediator.

At this point what we really need is a medium. Is that TV show still
on? Maybe we can contact them.

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

Hey..Chill,

The company and the union used the assistance of National Mediation
Board facilitator Linda Puchala.

At the NMB website, look at the section listed as "ADR Services"

Here is a quote from that page:

At the NMB, Alternative Dispute Resolution Services (ADRS) offers programs
for resolving disputes outside of the Board's "A-case" contract negotiations.
The NMB offers a range of ADR services, including training, facilitation,
grievance mediation and facilitated problem solving, and a range of
technology-assisted dispute resolution programs designed to enhance
dispute resolution efforts while saving time and money for the Board and the parties.

Neither arbitrator nor mediator shall you be if you are a facilitator.

I am thinking that is our quandary.

Hope this helps!

I think it does!!

Because we came to an agreement, we never entered into rule 20 because we came to an agreement:

20. Q: What is a "proffer of arbitration"?
A: When the NMB believes that further mediation efforts will not result in an agreement, it issues a proffer of arbitration, which is an offer to the parties to arbitrate any remaining issues.

Our spineless union got us that WEAK contract, so this action wasn't nessecary. I wonder, can we go BACK to this mediator again? I think it would help speed things along, and then we can start steps 21 and 22. Lets be realistic, we made a REASONABLE effort in the first TA, maybe NOW is the time to start the cooling off process!

21. Q: Why doesn't the NMB make a proffer of arbitration when one of the parties asks for it?
A: Under the RLA, the NMB is responsible for making its best efforts to help the parties reach an agreement without resorting to self-help. While it will listen to requests from the parties for a release, it is the NMB's responsibility to keep parties in mediation until it has expended all reasonable efforts to reach an agreement.

22. Q: What happens if either party rejects the proffer of arbitration?
A: If either party rejects the proffer of arbitration, the NMB releases the parties from mediation and they enter a 30-day count down, or cooling off, period.

Tim, I think this should be proposed to your attorney, obviously he has more insight and knows the precedents involved with these things.
I think this language is very similar to our COC Grievence as there are many shades of gray.

What do you think Browneye?

 

[redeye]

A "proffer of arbitration" would only be proper if we were under
Section 6. Being that we are not, IMO the option of using a facilitator
is one of the few that I can see. You have to read the Questions
you quote in the context for which they are written.
The nice thing about the NMB is that in my communications with
them, they have been willing to interpret my concerns and give
answers to my questions.
You do not need to rely on anyones statements as being gospel
when you can get it from the horses mouth.

Information Hot Line: 202-692-5050

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

Well I may as well keep the chatter going, maybe we can all learn something here. Lately, there have only been personal attacks. The more you know, right?

Ah! Thanks, it says that there in Question 2.

So how did we come about getting a "mediator" in the first TA? CLEARLY we weren't in section 6. Did we request one, did the company?

Maybe you could enlighten us about this potential lawsuit. Is there any merrit to this? Was there any language in the TWU contract that prevented us from entering section 6 as my union leaders have told me.

 

[pjirish317]

Bottom line, the company WANTS the CIC language gone, the company WANTS our profit sharing back, the company WANTS a 2 or 3 year extension. What are they willing to give us for those 3 things? IMO it better be at least $21 to $22 per hour, vacations and sick time back, doubletime, holiday's and holiday pay. Better health/dental benefits. NO OUTSOURCING. Just to start. The company WANTS and NEEDS these things from us. SO their "0" cost contract just got pricey. The question you have to ask yourself is what would you be willing to take, in the form of a T/A, from the company for these 3 items. I mentioned above a few of the things that I want to see in a T/A, that I would be willing to take. How about you?



Hey Oman,
Beat you to the top, as of 16:20 3/16/2008 :bleh: :bleh: :bleh:

 

[mike33]

roabilly,

There are a lot of people viewing these posts these days and people like DF are here to distract from the upcoming elections and nothing else. Most of us do know one another in respect as to what we want out of these negotiations and we keep to our task. When I post I usually try to post according to the history of my employment so let me be the first to say to DF, Jester, and anyone else.

I work for HP in SAN and am a previous East Furloughee
I am PSA/USAIR/HP/ don't know yet.
Over my previous years with PSA I was furloughed 3 times
Over my previous years with Usairways I have been furloughed twice
Hired 8/21/74

If you believe that I am not concerned about the outcome of these or any contract negotiations then I can't help you.

DF ur next

OH! I forgot to mention...............

Hemenway was around in some capacity for 4 out of 5 times ...........

 

[Black Magic]

Bottom line, the company WANTS the CIC language gone, the company WANTS our profit sharing back, the company WANTS a 2 or 3 year extension. What are they willing to give us for those 3 things? IMO it better be at least $21 to $22 per hour, vacations and sick time back, doubletime, holiday's and holiday pay. Better health/dental benefits. NO OUTSOURCING. Just to start. The company WANTS and NEEDS these things from us. SO their "0" cost contract just got pricey. The question you have to ask yourself is what would you be willing to take, in the form of a T/A, from the company for these 3 items. I mentioned above a few of the things that I want to see in a T/A, that I would be willing to take. How about you?

Well put I completely agree!

 

[pjirish317]

Another thought, We retained the CIC language through 2 bk's. We got Profit sharing I think in BK2. Why would we give these back for a "cost neutral" agreement. All we are asking for is a few more of those so called "golden eggs" from the so called "golden goose". Anything less would be a slap in the face from our so called union and the company.

 

[redeye]

Well I may as well keep the chatter going, maybe we can all learn something here. Lately, there have only been personal attacks. The more you know, right?

Ah! Thanks, it says that there in Question 2.

So how did we come about getting a "mediator" in the first TA? CLEARLY we weren't in section 6. Did we request one, did the company?

Maybe you could enlighten us about this potential lawsuit. Is there any merrit to this? Was there any language in the TWU contract that prevented us from entering section 6 as my union leaders have told me.

I am all about education and debate. That what a forum like this should
be all about.
First go to the District 141 website.
http://www.iam141.org/usairway.htm

Scroll to the last update August 10, 2007

The first paragraph reads:

August 10, 2007

District 141 and US Airways Reach Tentative Agreement

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

After more than a year of negotiations and the recent assistance of National Mediation Board facilitator Linda Puchala, your District 141 negotiators today reached a tentative agreement with US Airways that provides for a single collective bargaining agreement for all Fleet Service workers.

The use of the term facilitator indicates the union and the company
were utilizing ADR Services to resolve their disputes.

At the NMB, Alternative Dispute Resolution Services (ADRS) offers programs
for resolving disputes outside of the Board's "A-case" contract negotiations.
The NMB offers a range of ADR services, including training, facilitation,
grievance mediation and facilitated problem solving, and a range of
technology-assisted dispute resolution programs designed to enhance
dispute resolution efforts while saving time and money for the Board and the parties.

National Mediation Board's mediation services may be invoked by either party to a collective
bargaining dispute by filing an application with the Board.
Generally, applications for mediation services will be docketed (assigned an "A" case
number) within three business days of receipt, and a mediator will be assigned within
ten calendar days of docketing.

The Transition Agreement is not considered "A-case" contract negotiations.
It is an agreement between the company and the union to modify terms
of the contract without entering into Section 6 negotiations. It is by the same
reasoning that DoUgIe states that he can keep us seperate if he so desires.

I am not a lawyer so my enlightenment is my opinion only. The dispute you
are talking about is a DFR "Duty of Fair Representation" . That must be
resolved in a court of law. The test I think you are seeking is whether the
union failed to represent the west contract properly by not pursuing the
continuation of Section 6 negotiations in parallel to a transition agreement.
With the discussion from DoUgIe IMO that he could keep the groups seperate
if he felt it necessary, a person could make the observation that the continuation
could have been in the best interests of the west with that in mind.
Is that enough to prove your point? A good lawyer could probably make that
case. Again that is an answer based on opinion.

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

Yes, I see it that way Browneye. There should be obligation from both the union and company to resume talks ASAP if the contract should fail. Things like this are why Canale and crew are criticised. It makes them look like they would rather see us suffer great pain while they reap the benefits.

I promise you guys this. I would make it an issue to resume talks ASAP if I were your leader.

I'm going to play devils advocate and ask you what legal obligation DP had to come back and resume negotiations, in terms of the Railway act. Is it against the RLA to stall negotiations if the initial contract is voted no, ESPECIALLY if they had asked for mediation? It just seems to me that once they have begun that process, they have to continue, not through "good faith" but because they should find themselves in legal trouble if they don't.
This is what the HELL we need our union to be doing, but they only seem to want to deal with the table-top issues, they lack depth and insight!!

 

[pjirish317]

I'm going to play devils advocate and ask you what legal obligation DP had to come back and resume negotiations, in terms of the Railway act.

 

[pjirish317]

I'm going to play devils advocate and ask you what legal obligation DP had to come back and resume negotiations, in terms of the Railway act.

Chill,

DP has a legal obligation to continue section 6 for the West, not Fleet Service as a whole. The I'LL ASK MANAGEMENT dropped the ball on the section 6 for the West to pursue a transition per the company. So to put heat on the company for a transition, the I'LL ASK MANAGEMENT should petition the company and the NMB to resume section 6 for the West, alongside with transition talks. I may be wrong on this though.

 

[redeye]

I'm going to play devils advocate and ask you what legal obligation DP had to come back and resume negotiations, in terms of the Railway act. Is it against the RLA to stall negotiations if the initial contract is voted no, ESPECIALLY if they had asked for mediation? It just seems to me that once they have begun that process, they have to continue, not through "good faith" but because they should find themselves in legal trouble if they don't.

Doug has no "legal" obligation to resume transition negotiations.
Again, they did not ask for mediation, they asked for a facilitator.
Section 6 negotiations will not occur until it is applied for at the
end of the east contract. That will not happen until Dec. 2009.

Transition Negotiations are going to resume Apr. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.