Iam To Appeal

[700UW]

February 5, 2004

Machinists Union to Appeal Airbus Outsourcing Decision

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
today announced it will petition the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc
rehearing in the case involving US Airways' subcontracting of heavy maintenance
on its Airbus aircraft.

“This issue is too important to allow a split decision by a 3-judge panel be
the final word,†said IAM International President R. Thomas Buffenbarger.
The request, if granted, will give all 13 judges on the 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals the opportunity to reconsider the outsourcing issue decided by a 2-1
margin on Feb. 3, 2004. A majority of the full court must agree to rehear the case.
The IAM will file its petition next week.

“The Machinists Union will take all legal steps to protect the interests and
jobs of our membership,†said General Vice President Robert Roach, Jr.
The District Court’s October 21, 2003 injunction prohibiting US Airways
from subcontracting Airbus maintenance will remain in force pending a
determination by the Appeals Court on the IAM’s petition. The District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania has taken no action to lift the injunction.
“David Siegel is trying to steal from our members the work he couldn’t attain
in negotiations,†said IAM District 141-M President Scotty Ford. “He has put the
integrity of the entire airline into question.â€


The BOLDED section is just for you A320Capt.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Way to go, guys. Good luck.

Jim

 

[delldude]

funny, i was told its over....someone has a credibility problem then. this could mean that U will invoke the dreaded PAINFUL CLAUSE .

 

[etops1]

yuo guys need to let it go. you lost . worry about the next fight now. think what game plan your gonna use to won the next battle. cause the one you had before sure did not work. <_<

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Does this appeal delay arbitration?

 

[delldude]

yuo guys need to let it go. you lost . worry about the next fight now. think what game plan your gonna use to won the next battle. cause the one you had before sure did not work. <_<

lost what?
looks to me like something was clarified...and due process allows for appeal.
what's been decided?
apparently you didn't read the opinion or understand it either.
you let it go...the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

 

[Winglet]

Let it go!!?? Why doesn't Seigle "let it go?" Why? .... because he wants to outsource the entire airline.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Now delldude,

Be reasonable, like Dave. He wouldn't keep fighting till his options ran out would he?

Oh, I forgot, he did didn't he.

Jim

 

[700UW]

yuo guys need to let it go. you lost . worry about the next fight now. think what game plan your gonna use to won the next battle. cause the one you had before sure did not work. <_<

I guess you don't understand.

We did not lose the right to do the work, the ONLY thing the court ruled on was if it was a major or minor dispute.

Since it was found to be a minor dispute by two Republican judges, it repremands it back to the lower court and arbitration.

The court DID NOT rule on the contract nor the language.

And once again, stick with your group and your contract and don't tell us to give up our contract, our rights, our work and our jobs.

Why don't you let Dave hire Mesa F/As to do your work at Mesa wages?

Would you stand for that?

The Mechanic and Related at US Airways HAS always overhauled EVERY TYPE and EVERY PLANE mainline flies, 54 years of contract langauge that will prevail.

Learn to read the facts and digest what transpired.

And it worked three times previously, get the facts straight!

 

[delldude]

Now delldude,

Be reasonable, like Dave. He wouldn't keep fighting till his options ran out would he?

Oh, I forgot, he did didn't he.

Jim

he he he...thanks....

 

[ITRADE]

Since it was found to be a minor dispute by two Republican judges, it repremands it back to the lower court and arbitration.

Two points.

#1 The court remanded the District Court's finding. It did not repremand (sic) the decision.

#2 One of the two judges was a Clinton appointee - not a Republican.

But don't let facts stand in your way.

 

[700UW]

Tirade,

The judges ruled 2 to 1 in favor of the company, the Judge Smith ruled in dissent (for the IAM, in case you did not know) and he was the only judge to offer an opinion on the matter.

Read and learn the FACTS!

The fact that it was not a unanimous decision and Judge Smith agreed 100 % with the lower decision. Judge Smith gave the following statement in his dissenting opinion “… where I part company with my colleagues is in their conclusion that US Airway’s position is not frivolous.â€￾ Furthermore, he stated “…because I believe US Airways has not presented a construction of the contract that even arguably supports its position, I respectfully dissent.â€￾

 

[delldude]

2 republicans and one dem guy...3 judge panel

 

[insp89]

UH, There were 3 judges, Right ?

 

[700UW]

Yes Three (3).