Checking it Out Posted: Jun 18 2004, 12:50 PM
Veteran Member
Group: Veteran Member
Posts: 1,190
Member No.: 2,067
Joined: 3-April 03
Please explain where The TWU had any part in these decisions?
TWU does not set guidelines for the NMB and no one will be changing title groups.
NMB ruling; United Airlines, 22NMB 12 (1994), United Airlines, 28 NMB 533 (2001), and American West Airlines, 22 NMB 12 (1994), to support its contention that employees whose predominant function is cabin or lavatory service are part of the Mechanic and Related Employees craft and class.
“American states that it erroneously omitted these individuals from the listâ€
Therefore, the 1167 names on Attachment O will be added to the list.
--------------------
The TWU is the Best Choice in Representation! Get the Facts! Learn the Truth!
______________________________________________________________
CIO,
Again, we get to the real question: unlike the cases cited above, the functions of Title II Cabin service v. Title III, FSC Cabin Bid and Title IV Fueling v. Title III, FSC Fueling Bid are factually different at AA versus the way those departments functioned at other carriers.
I) Cabin Service - Occupational Seniority and Predominance of the Work:
Since the 1995 contract, Article 11 of the Maintenance & Related contract has a defined position for Title II Cabin Service. After the concessions negotiations, the TWU still has Maintenance & Related Title II Cabin Service that is ONLY allowed to function on the aircraft, they are not part of the Ramp Overtime sheet nor are they allowed to bid out of their position to the ramp or air cargo without losing all occupational seniority. Further, the Title II Cabin Service pay steps are altogether different with the Title II Cabin Cleaner "topping-out" at a substantially lower rate of pay than the Title III, FSC Cabin Bid whose pay steps are the exact same as other Title III FSC bidding the ramp or air-cargo.
The predominance of the work belongs to the Title II Cabin Serviceman prior to being proffered to the Title III, FSC Cabin Bid.
The Title III, FSC Cabin Bid are allowed to cross-over bid from cabins to the ramp and to air-cargo and keep their occupational seniority and regularly work overtime on the ramp. Factor in the elimination of RON cabins in the majority of the system and fewer Title III, FSC Cabin Bids are in existence much less potentially eligible.
Therefore there is a factual difference in the scope of the work, the functional departments to which these employees belong and their pay and status when moving between departments.
II) Fueling- Occupational Seniority and Predominance of the Work:
The Maintenance & Related contract, again in Article 11, maintains a classification description for Fuelers. Although the Fuelers were recently allowed to begin accruing dual Seniority in Title III, FSC, they are not allowed to use their full Seniority to cross-over bid into Cabins, Ramp or Air-Cargo and they are only allowed to use that dual time for the proffer of ramp overtime while Title III, FSC Fuelers are allowed to use their full seniority for both the cross-over bid to the ramp, cabins and air-cargo and the proffer of overtime.
The predominance of the work belongs to the Title IV Fueler prior to being proffered to the Title III, FSC Fueling Bid.
However, the Title IV Fuelers always bid shifts and days off before the Title III, FSC Fuelers and a Title III, FSC Fueler cannot hold a Bid or Acting Crew Chief position if any Title IV Fueler is on that shift.
Alternatively, if a Title III, FSC Fueler Crew Chief wishes to bid outside of his department; all of his occupational seniority is good while only the dual portion of a Title IV Fueler is allowed to carry over.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confusing, yeah.
But these were decisions of the TWU ATD and the Presidents Council playing Solomon with Employee Jobs. The majority of those in Title II Cabins and Title IV Fueling would have gladly been accreted into Title III FSC when the decisions were made but the FSC Local Presidents refused to follow the principle: you to take all the people and their time if you take the work.
The TWU and the TWU Presidents Council created a punitive system separating the classifications but now wish to claim that they are all alike.
In fact they are very different:
A) There are differences in Pay;
B) There are differences in Seniority;
C) There are differences in Overtime;
D) There are differences in Assignments;
E) There are differences in Bidding.
Reliance on past decisions requires that the facts in this case are the same as those other cases; else, they are not precedent setting. With the differences cited above, there is no precedent involved and in this case, and in my honest opinion, the phrase, "Potentially Eligible Voter," is as usefull as the phrase, "sort-of pregnant."
