New Concessions By Oct. 17?

[kirkpatrick]

The twu did one better. After the language was finished(long after the vote), it was discovered that we volunteered to give up that week.

Here is the wording in the FA Concessionary Contract:

1. As soon as practicable, following ratification of the Restructuring Participation Agreement, the Company will offer for re-bid the vacation schedules for the vacation fiscal year May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2004 for all vacations commencing on or after June 1, 2003. Each flight attendant will bid using up to sixty-seven (67) percent of his/her accrued vacation. The remaining thirty-three (33)percent, less PVD’s taken in 2002, will be deferred (banked) for use in the vacation fiscal year May 1, 2004 through April 30, 2005.

2. For the calendar year January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, each flight attendant will accrue vacation credit at a rate up to thirty-three (33) percent of the rate of such accrual under the 2001AA/APFA Collective Bargaining Agreement.

3. For the vacation fiscal year May 1, 2004 through April 30, 2005, each flight attendant will bid for vacation time equaling the sum of the amount deferred in 1. above and the accrued amount in 2.above.

4. In subsequent years (January 1, 2004 and thereafter), vacation credit will accrue at a rate up to sixty-seven (67) percent of the rate of such accrual under the 2001 AA/APFA Collective Bargaining Agreement.

In a nutshell, what this means is that we didn't "give up" vacation already accrued; it was "deferred" to the next year and we accrued vacation at a rate only one third of the previous rate, making the next year's vacation equal to two thirds of the previous vacation. In subsequent years we accrue vacation at two thirds the previous rate.

The end result may be the same as giving up a third of our vacation, but the wording, and the fact that it was put into a binding contract that was ratified by the membership make the outcome of any lawsuit gloomy, to say the least.

MK

 

[eolesen]

From California's Division of Labor Standards:

Under California law, earned vacation time is considered wages, and vacation time is earned, or vests, as labor is performed. For example, if an employee is entitled to two weeks (10 work days) of vacation per year, after six months of work he or she will have earned five days of vacation. Vacation pay accrues (adds up) as it is earned, and cannot be forfeited, even upon termination of employment, regardless of the reason for the termination. (Suastez v. Plastic Dress Up (1982) 31 C3d 774) An employer can place a reasonable cap on vacation benefits that prevents an employee from earning vacation over a certain amount of hours. (Boothby v. Atlas Mechanical (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1595) And, unless otherwise stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement, upon termination of employment all earned and unused vacation must be paid to the employee at his or her final rate of pay. Labor Code Section 227.3 The Califonia Legislature, in order to ensure that vacation plans were fairly and equitably handled, provided that the Labor Commissioner was to "apply the principles of equity and fairness" in resolving vacation claims.

It's clear that earned VC cannot be taken away (and it wasn't), but there's nothing in the California law which states the accrual calculation can't be modified, nor is there anything that says that the total number of days/hours can't be capped in a given year forcing deferment of additional days into the following year.

 

[Oneflyer]

I'm still waiting for those domestic routes that are for sale.

Hey Wing, how much for DFW-OMA?

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Looks like Hurricane RITA wants to wipe out the Galveston-Houston-Texas City Oil refineries. Wonder what $80.00/barrel oil will do to the AA/TWU concessions train. Will RITA help gut our pension,pay and benefits?

 

[aafsc]

Looks like Hurricane RITA wants to wipe out the Galveston-Houston-Texas City Oil refineries. Wonder what $80.00/barrel oil will do to the AA/TWU concessions train. Will RITA help gut our pension,pay and benefits?

[post="303341"][/post]​

Are you hoping that it will?

 

[Bob Owens]

From California's Division of Labor Standards:
It's clear that earned VC cannot be taken away (and it wasn't),

[post="302782"][/post]​

It was. Try and spin it any way you like we lost a week.

 

[Bob Owens]

F/A's in our LAX & SFO bases have filed a lawsuit in a California Court against AMR for taking their earned vacation. In California there's a law prohibiting any company from taking an employees vacation. I don't know anything about this law but, I guess these f/a's did. Even if it's contractual or not they can't take it. If these f/a's win their lawsuit, then AA will have to give all f/a's their vacation back!

[post="302500"][/post]​

The only problem is that we work under the RLA. Since our contracts are national in scope state laws often do not apply. Thats why people in RTW states that are airline employees under the RLA have to pay dues.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Are you hoping that it will?

[post="303396"][/post]​

No,I wouldn't wish a hurricane on anybody,except for PTO and his scab co-workers. I was just stating what will happen if those oil refineries get hit. $80+barrel for oil. AA will want some more concessions for sure. :down:

 

[AC AA LA FA]

The only problem is that we work under the RLA. Since our contracts are national in scope state laws often do not apply. Thats why people in RTW states that are airline employees under the RLA have to pay dues.

[post="303424"][/post]​

check your source on this lawsuit.....
possibly other non uniounized or furloughed employees?