Duty of Fair Representation...aka lawsuit against the union for not doing their job.
Kasher Vrs. Contract?
- Thread starter MCI transplant
- Start date
You are kidding , right?
That term has been around since 1959, before I was in Diapers!
Bagbelt
Senior
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 6
MCI what you are proposing would never hold up. The only thing I can think of that comes close would be a title 4 fueler bumping a title 3 clerk using dual seniority in case of a rif. But that is a contract item. So what you are asking for would be to "check-in" to STL and put a 12L in after a year to wherever and presto- 30 years?
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< But bags! That's what our Contract reads!!!! And it was radified after the Kasher ruling! Kasher ruled that because the "Contract"(at that time!) read that TWAers couldn't harm a nAAtive! He must have felt that the Contract had to be taken into concideration! Will, guess what!!! We now have a new contract that states a person who transfers,(for whatever reason) Can not have his seniority messed with!! Art.10e! Read it for yourself. It don't say,"except exTWAers"! So if Kasher gave us our seniority for the purpose of intragration! And we have been intragrated! The Contract radified after the Kasher ruling says that seniority can not be mest with due to a transfer, how else can you take it!!????
<_< AMFA--- Copies of the greavances in question,have already been sent to the Atorney handeling the presant lawsuit! If he see fit to use them is up to him!!!!
If you say that your seniority can't be messed with, then how come all of those TWAers from the line cities who Kasher awarded 4/10/01 were given their 100% TWA seniority when they bumped into STL and MCI? Why are there no complaints about that?If we go by what you are saying, then those people should have 4/10/01 in STL and MCI instead of their 30+ years of TWA seniority. You can't be selective about applying the Kasher ruling and contract only when it benefits you. The fact that those TWAers' seniority went from 4/10/01 to 100% set a precedent. But I can see what they are trying to do; go from a 4/10/01 or 25% city to STL or MCI and get their 100% back (thus changing their seniority) and then go from STL or MCI to anywhere in the system with 100% (with no change in their seniority). Under your scenario, all the TWAers would have to do is go to STL and MCI and, presto, instant 100% dovetail.<_< But bags! That's what our Contract reads!!!! And it was radified after the Kasher ruling! Kasher ruled that because the "Contract"(at that time!) read that TWAers couldn't harm a nAAtive! He must have felt that the Contract had to be taken into concideration! Will, guess what!!! We now have a new contract that states a person who transfers,(for whatever reason) Can not have his seniority messed with!! Art.10e! Read it for yourself. It don't say,"except exTWAers"! So if Kasher gave us our seniority for the purpose of intragration! And we have been intragrated! The Contract radified after the Kasher ruling says that seniority can not be mest with due to a transfer, how else can you take it!!????
<_< AMFA--- Copies of the greavances in question,have already been sent to the Atorney handeling the presant lawsuit! If he see fit to use them is up to him!!!!
<_< But bags! That's what our Contract reads!!!! And it was radified after the Kasher ruling! Kasher ruled that because the "Contract"(at that time!) read that TWAers couldn't harm a nAAtive! He must have felt that the Contract had to be taken into concideration! Will, guess what!!! We now have a new contract that states a person who transfers,(for whatever reason) Can not have his seniority messed with!! Art.10e! Read it for yourself. It don't say,"except exTWAers"! So if Kasher gave us our seniority for the purpose of intragration! And we have been intragrated! The Contract radified after the Kasher ruling says that seniority can not be mest with due to a transfer, how else can you take it!!????
<_< AMFA--- Copies of the greavances in question,have already been sent to the Atorney handeling the presant lawsuit! If he see fit to use them is up to him!!!!
Its still not clear, what are you are saying you deserve. Give an example with two cities.
As far as I know they did not change the scope clause with included the protective language.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< Is it? I'm asking,not telling! At this point in time, if it is,I'de say it was highly discriminatory??? Wasn't that language meant to protect nAAtives "durring" the intragration of the two work forces? We have been intragrated!!! So,why has such language been allowed to remain in our contract??? More fuel for thought,or the Courts!! 😉
Mr. Transfer
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
To aafsc,
The fact that TWA people keep coming back to STL is a problem with not only native AA but also TWA in STL. After the award was made a window of approx 30 days was set for any TWA fsc's to bid a city where they would hold their senority. After that window closed, their senority was set where ever they were working. If in a 25% city, that would be their AA senority or in a 4/10/01 city that would be it. Bumping back and forth into STL and MCI was not to be part of the award. That is part of the issue on the lawsuit that has been filed. Granted the people in the 100% cities would have been awarded 100% as a AA senority but no one else would have. I might add that when I stated the senority was set after the window of transfer closed, that was to be their senority for the rest of their AA career and used for transfer purposes.
The fact that TWA people keep coming back to STL is a problem with not only native AA but also TWA in STL. After the award was made a window of approx 30 days was set for any TWA fsc's to bid a city where they would hold their senority. After that window closed, their senority was set where ever they were working. If in a 25% city, that would be their AA senority or in a 4/10/01 city that would be it. Bumping back and forth into STL and MCI was not to be part of the award. That is part of the issue on the lawsuit that has been filed. Granted the people in the 100% cities would have been awarded 100% as a AA senority but no one else would have. I might add that when I stated the senority was set after the window of transfer closed, that was to be their senority for the rest of their AA career and used for transfer purposes.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< There lays the problem in this! Kasher,in all his wisdom, never provided for such a window! His rulings were meant to provide a means of inragration of the two work groups! Well,that intragration has in fact happened! If the TWU leaves language in their scope singleing out one paticular memmber group for special treatment, they may face charges of discrimination!!!But I feel in due course, the Courts will have to be the ones to sort this all out!!!(To be Continued!!!!!)
Discriminatory? Well yes, it is, just like the fact that some employees had a "P" while others only had an "S". Employees who joined the company on 4/10/01 have neither because the contract was never adjusted to include them.
Who says you cant discriminate based upon when you join a company?
If you win based on that it would be great news for all the people who dont have pensions from companies that used to provide them.
During integration and beyond.
Thats one of the dummest things I've heard on this subject.
So if a guy had 30 years with TWA and stayed in New York he would only have 25% but if a guy who had less seniority than he did from MCI prior to the integration transferred to NY that guy would now be senior? How much sense does that make? None!
All you need to do is look at the seniority list and if you are ex TWA you will have three different Occ dates. If you stay in STL or MCI you have 100%, however if you go to DFW your will have 4/10/01.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< So Mr.Transfer----- What your saying is Kasher has aplied Senioity to the person, not the place? What a novel idea!!! Just like everyone else at aa!!!So by aa/TWU setting up a defacto "Station Seniority" system, they are in fact in violation of their own Contract! I'm assuming Kasher in fact was the one that offered this 30 day window? But why was it only offered to Title III people, and not Title I, or II??? Or if it was, why weren't we notified about it here ??? I know! Because we already had 100%,so why should they!? But that brings up another question! What else don't we know about the Kasher rulings??? 😉 "and used for transfer purposes." So what your saying is that a person, with 25% seniority, established at JFK, could in fact use that senioity to transfer to TUL, or MIA??? My! My! My!!!
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< Bob---- The dumbest thing I've heard is having three differant Ocupational Seniorities!!!That is aa/TWU's inteputation, not Kashers!!! As far as your "Protection language" I still feel a person with more seniority can bump a "protected" person! All protection means is that aa has to gaurentee that person a job! Not nessisaraly the job he's presantly working!!! Besides, there are unprotected people out there!!!
Mr. Transfer
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
You don't have to agree with what I stated about the window that was suppose to be given to lock the senority of the TWA rampers that Kasher gave us. It also worked for people in our stores department. I know several who left stores and returned to the ramp inorder to keep their fsc senority. Several had that same window and used it to keep their jobs. Several people were laid off because they were at the bottom of the senority list in stores and didn't exercise their ability to return to the fsc position.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
If Stores employees were given 30 days to return to fleet service, was that because they were part of the fleet service classification at TW?
Since AA has them as separate job classifications, having to make a one-time choice to cross over before the classification fence went up makes perfect sense.
Since AA has them as separate job classifications, having to make a one-time choice to cross over before the classification fence went up makes perfect sense.
Bagbelt
Senior
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 6
At aa if you transfer to another job you keep your former seniority in case of a rif unless you have eclipsed the time you were in the former job, if you had 5 years and got laid off in your new job at 5 years and a day too bad. I believe at twa you allways were able to utilise former classification seniority.
