IAM Fleet Service topic

[roabilly]

I learned of this several weeks ago. Apparently, the G/C and an AGC were on property in CLT and this was openly discussed. I was not present, so everything I got was either second or third hand.

My understanding is that we (Fleet Service) have been interpreting the agreement as containing a 2% raise after Jan 1, 2012 and another negotiation incentive raise of 2% in July of 2012 if no new agreement is reached by that date.

I have reviewed the language in the printed F/S contract, and I still understand it to read as TWO 2% increases… however… I’m now being told that the Company is challenging this language as either a misprint, or an interpretation issue.

Ultimately, this could indeed test the mettle of the ND folks. If we allow this matter to favor the Company, they will sit at the negotiating table with an ace up their sleeve that is valued at 2%!

Perhaps necigrad… or Jester will post the exact language for interpretation on this board.

 

[Kev3188]

I read it as a singular 2% *assumed* increase on 1/1/12. The language immediately below the pay table notes the other mandated increase dates, but nothing for 1/1/12.

Article 31 then states:

"Except as otherwise noted, this Agreement shall become effective on May 8, 2008, and shall remain in full force and effect through December 31, 2011, and thereafter unless and until reopened in accordance with the Railway Labor Act. The parties will commence bargaining for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement no later than July 15, 2011. In the event the parties have not reached a tentative agreement during the status quo period following the amendable date, all base rates will be increased by two (2%) percent for all employees effective on the first (1st) day of the first (lst) pay period following July 1,2012."

Not much to misinterpret there...

 

[Black Magic]

Straight from the book I have it states getting a 2% increase for Jan 2012.

With an ** stating..Two (2%) percent pay increase assumed beyond the amendable date.

 

[roabilly]

I read it as a singular 2% *assumed* increase on 1/1/12. The language immediately below the pay table notes the other mandated increase dates, but nothing for 1/1/12.

Article 31 then states:

"Except as otherwise noted, this Agreement shall become effective on May 8, 2008, and shall remain in full force and effect through December 31, 2011, and thereafter unless and until reopened in accordance with the Railway Labor Act. The parties will commence bargaining for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement no later than July 15, 2011. In the event the parties have not reached a tentative agreement during the status quo period following the amendable date, all base rates will be increased by two (2%) percent for all employees effective on the first (1st) day of the first (lst) pay period following July 1,2012."

Not much to misinterpret there...

Unfortunately, I think this issue is getting used as tactic in negotiations. If we start a new agreement 2% behind the eight ball, the Company will offer the same 2%, and proclaim it as an awarded raise in the new agreement!

This trick is as old as the used car industry… jack the price up… and then come down to what you really wanted to begin with… the customer feels like he got a deal, and shakes your hand!

So dons the leisure suit…

Brobilly

 

[bagchucker]

Just WHY is there even 1 "misprint" in the contract. A contract is a contract. Hours, days, weeks, months, and years are spent hashing out every last detail, only to have a series of "misprints"? I call BULLS**T. This is exactly how misinterpretation starts! The Union says, well this is what it SAYS ...the Company says, well this is what it MEANS. Not Cool. You would think that on something so serious as the wage scale, there would be NO room for misinterpretation, at all. But then again, look at the players in this scenario... a Company that treats their employees like sh** and a Union that lets them do it. If somebody in the "higher" up category actually gave 2 sh*ts about stuff like this, it would not be tolerated and there would be no such thing as a "misprint". I wish I could "interpret" the furloughing I am about to experience as a "misprint" and keep my job. This sh*t is weak! To the Union...grow a set! To the Company, quit Fu**ing your employees.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Just WHY is there even 1 "misprint" in the contract. A contract is a contract. Hours, days, weeks, months, and years are spent hashing out every last detail, only to have a series of "misprints"? I call BULLS**T. This is exactly how misinterpretation starts! The Union says, well this is what it SAYS ...the Company says, well this is what it MEANS. Not Cool. You would think that on something so serious as the wage scale, there would be NO room for misinterpretation, at all. But then again, look at the players in this scenario... a Company that treats their employees like sh** and a Union that lets them do it. If somebody in the "higher" up category actually gave 2 sh*ts about stuff like this, it would not be tolerated and there would be no such thing as a "misprint". I wish I could "interpret" the furloughing I am about to experience as a "misprint" and keep my job. This sh*t is weak! To the Union...grow a set! To the Company, quit Fu**ing your employees.

Unfortunately, R Delaney has given his 'full' support to the company interpretation that eliminates your 2% pay increase on Jan, 2011 as mentioned on page 115, explicitly in your contract. He has instructed all of his US AIRWAYS AGC's to support him in this, and each of them have drunk the kool aid for $100,000+ reasons! Sheesh.

Folks, this would never have happened at United Airlines DL141. Of course, the party line is that Canale signed a letter of agreement against the 2% in your contract book, but when asked to produce the letter of agreement, the AGC's said it disappeared. Folks, Canale, Delaney....what's the difference?

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Tim Nelson]

Another thing is if there are misprints about how much money you should make when it says explicitly "Jan 2012, 2%", and that language really doesn't mean that, then how do you know if any other part of your contract can be re-interpreted when the time comes??

This would NEVER have happened at United. The union would have went to the mat for the workers. Get ready to hear all kinds of BS excuses from your AGC's, and the few Local Chairman who support them. Only at US AIRWAYS. Only at US AIRWAYS.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[roabilly]

Unfortunately, R Delaney has given his 'full' support to the company interpretation that eliminates your 2% pay increase on Jan, 2011 as mentioned on page 115, explicitly in your contract. He has instructed all of his US AIRWAYS AGC's to support him in this, and each of them have drunk the kool aid for $100,000+ reasons! Sheesh.

Folks, this would never have happened at United Airlines DL141. Of course, the party line is that Canale signed a letter of agreement against the 2% in your contract book, but when asked to produce the letter of agreement, the AGC's said it disappeared. Folks, Canale, Delaney....what's the difference?

regards,

Tim Nelson

Tim...

I'm with you, and as mad as hell about this...

WTF?... Tentative Agreement Interpretation?... screw the T/A... the spirit of the agreement is contained within distributed language that the membership is familiar with, and as it is provided within the printed contract each member receives.

This is certainly something that we should ALL be pissed about... personally... I think it is a diversion to take our attention off of what is really important... and that is to regain what we have lost, with the addition of compensation for our past sacrifices!

So polishes his platform (boogie) shoes...

BroBilly

 

[cactus hugger]

There is a rumor going around that Fleet Service will NOT be getting the Jan. raise. We are hearing it's in our book but not in the contract. Is this the truth ? Will Fleet be getting a raise ?

Go to http://www.iam141.mobi/dir.html

look up your station and try getting hold of your AGC for your city. Someone showed me that a few weeks ago
I just hope you don't have Mike Crowell because . I emailed no response . I tryed his cell and got mail box is full.
so good luck

 

[Black Magic]

I'm with Bagchucker on this, if they can say such and such is a "misprint" in the book whenever it seems fit then wtf good is the paper it's printed on?! This whole place is a joke from the top down!!

Just for clarification on this whole thing so are we getting a 2% raise come Jan. 2012?

 

[700UW]

Sounds like Delaney is asking for a DFR, looks like you need to contact Roach's office, ask for Sito Pantoja or Tom Regan.

 

[roabilly]

Sounds like Delaney is asking for a DFR, looks like you need to contact Roach's office, ask for Sito Pantoja or Tom Regan.

As far as I’m concerned… the integrity and validity of this entire Union and/or Agreement will hinge on how this plays out.

If Fleet wins this… we will still lose! The company will go to the table with either a previously awarded 2% argument… or a 2% advantage for the current T/A. Either way; they have a 2% wild card over any future gains!

Slight of hand… shell games… however you wish to view it… it is what is!

 

[freedom]

I'm with Bagchucker on this, if they can say such and such is a "misprint" in the book whenever it seems fit then wtf good is the paper it's printed on?! This whole place is a joke from the top down!!

Just for clarification on this whole thing so are we getting a 2% raise come Jan. 2012?

We are GOING to get our 2% raise on Jan 2012 .....

we bust our butts for this company , they are GOING to give us the respect and decency we work for day in and day out ...


The COST OF LIVING raise is not up for negoation nor debatable ... if the company wants to amend it , they can do it in the next contract .

 

[bagchucker]

Go to http://www.iam141.mobi/dir.html

look up your station and try getting hold of your AGC for your city. Someone showed me that a few weeks ago
I just hope you don't have Mike Crowell because . I emailed no response . I tryed his cell and got mail box is full.
so good luck

MC is WORTHLESS as an AGC. He is SUPPOSED to be the contact AGC for the station I am located at. He is a GHOST who DOES NOT return calls, texts, or emails. Way to earn that $$ guy! Thanks for your support, glad to know the Union is "behind" us all the way. HA! Maybe furloughing out of this company IS a blessing. MC... you should take the position you occupy a little more seriously.

 

[necigrad]

Nah, no raise in January. Your contract is the contract that says 2% pay raise Jan 1, 2012 on the compensation schedule, evan after both sets of attorneys reviewed it. But the no direction is now telling you that it is a 'misprint'. While there did seem to be plenty of misprints in this contract, why does the union only agree to the alleged misprints when they go in the company's favor? What happened to the 101 misprints that Delaney said they were going to "Fix"?

I can hear it now, "Canale did it!". Please, nobody wants to hear the same bull crap from the no direction that "Canale this", "Canale that".

Unfortunately, R Delaney has given his 'full' support to the company interpretation that eliminates your 2% pay increase on Jan, 2011 as mentioned on page 115, explicitly in your contract. He has instructed all of his US AIRWAYS AGC's to support him in this, and each of them have drunk the kool aid for $100,000+ reasons! Sheesh.

Folks, this would never have happened at United Airlines DL141. Of course, the party line is that Canale signed a letter of agreement against the 2% in your contract book, but when asked to produce the letter of agreement, the AGC's said it disappeared. Folks, Canale, Delaney....what's the difference?

First off, that's one hell of an accusation based off of two second hand rumors. Somebody comes on the board and asks "Is it true?", the other says "I heard it from someone else." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist. Is there anyone that's actually heard this remark? If so, from whom?

Regarding the "misprints" from a few years ago, when RD and his crew was in LAS I was told that that the Company stated that Canale agreed to the changes. I mention that the website needs to be updated to that and the membership informed. I was also told that the Company was asked to show the letter agreeing to those changes and at the time that letter had not materialized. We DO need an update on this. Trying to play that the "Canale did it" on a subject like this is a weak excuse is itself a weak excuse. If Canale did it, he did it, and there's nothing the ND can do to change that. Facts are facts unless you're in a political campaign. Then they become whatever the side using them wants them to be.

Another thing is if there are misprints about how much money you should make when it says explicitly "Jan 2012, 2%", and that language really doesn't mean that, then how do you know if any other part of your contract can be re-interpreted when the time comes??

This would NEVER have happened at United. The union would have went to the mat for the workers. Get ready to hear all kinds of BS excuses from your AGC's, and the few Local Chairman who support them. Only at US AIRWAYS. Only at US AIRWAYS.

You're right on your analysis that if it happens now it may happen again. So IF the rumors are true this needs to go through the grievance process. I can't imagine any arbiter, even a Company one, not recognizing the BS of a "typo". The Company got the contract printed and distributed over three years ago. I can't imagine any Judge believing that the Company "just now" realized it, especially in combination with the "approved changes".