Question on abrogation.

[CMH_GSE]

Leveled playing field? I think you need to do a little more research in BK laws and BK cases historically.
When the company declared BK , we all lost, bigtime.
Now it's only a matter of how much we lose, vote yes, we lose a lot, vote no and we lose much more.

 

[CMH_GSE]

As a side to growing some nads. The NW mechanics were loaded for bear with nads.
They all lost their jobs. Great set of nads though.

 

[TWU informer]

As a side to growing some nads. The NW mechanics were loaded for bear with nads.
They all lost their jobs. Great set of nads though.

FEAR with PRAISE!

 

[CactUS4Ever]

Have NO FEAR Vote No for my ex TWAers....

 

[Hopeful]

Have NO FEAR Vote No for my ex TWAers....

Sadly those in DWH will be among the first to go.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

The process does not end with abrogation!!!

http://02cc047.netsolhost.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/district-court-decision-m0338774-1.pdf

 

[Bob Owens]

There was no vote for which union would represent the mechanics, the IBT never got enough cards to force a vote, same happened for the ramp with the TWU.

And maintenance is mergered under a single CBA.

And no where in the RLA or Section 1113 does it say negotiations commence after an abrogation, the company will have the CBA modified per the term sheet with a 2018 amendable date.

You dont know what you are talking about. The Judge does not modify the CBA in 1113c he either rejects or grants the companys motion. If the company could force us to accept a 2018 amendable date then why wouldnt they go for 2030?

 

[700UW]

The company's motions includes the modifications in the term sheet, go read it.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Items marked with an asterisk (*) in this Term Sheet are contingent upon a concensual collective bargaining agreement

In my view this statement is grounds for an appeal.. In other words take this LBO or you will not get these items upon abrogation..

Good faith bargaining?? I think not!!

 

[2ndGENAMT]

TAKE IT TO THE JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[700UW]

The bargaining is over.

 

[exs]

I just don't get it, if the bargaining is over, Why are the Pilots and F/A's not in a rush to vote on anything, They also have a tougher battle since they're not in the bottom of the industry like we are.Either we are misinformed or they know something we don't know, and with the TWU I'm going with the first choice.


Fear!!! Fear!!! Fear!!!.

Vote NO !!!

 

[AA Tulsa Mechanic]

deleted

 

[AA Tulsa Mechanic]

The process does not end with abrogation!!!

http://02cc047.netso...-m0338774-1.pdf

So what about this from the TWU website? Is it BS?


Recent Posts




Important Questions and Answers Regarding AA's Last Best Offer

May 02, 2012​

Different questions have been raised in the two days since the Company’s Last and Best Offer was finalized. This offer is being put to vote based on the commitment we made at the outset of the Bankruptcy process that the membership would have the opportunity to vote on the LBO. In order to make sure that this vote is based on accurate information about the contents of the proposal and the laws which govern the bankruptcy process, we are putting out answers to commonly asked questions.
[background=rgb(255, 255, 153)]1. If our contract is rejected by the Bankruptcy Court, what will be imposed, the Company’s “ask” before the proceedings began on the Company’s motion to reject, or the Last Best Offer (LBO) made after those proceedings began? [/background]
The law on rejection of collective bargaining agreements has evolved over the years in ways that are not favorable to unions or working people. In 2007, in the Northwest bankruptcy, the Court rejected the contract covering the flight attendants after they rejected the Company’s LBO. At that time, the Bankruptcy Court stated that the Company could only impose its LBO, not the Company’s prior Ask. That ruling, which I commented on in writing at the time, has since been superseded (as has my comment on it), and is no longer the binding law on the issue in the Bankruptcy Courts of the Southern District of New York. The superseding case is the Frontier Airlines case, which was ruled on in 2009. There, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (the district we are in, and the court which reviews all the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court handling AA’s filing) ruled that proposals made after the beginning of the hearings on an 1113 motion are not admissible to establish the level of concessions necessary for reorganization. What the Court specifically held was that “under the regime established by Section 1113, proposals and supporting disclosures made by a party after the rejection hearing has begun may not form the basis for concluding whether the 1113 standard has been satisfied, except, perhaps, where the parties expressly agree they may be considered.” In other words, absent an agreement to the contrary, the LBO, if it was made after the rejection proceedings began, is not even admissible into the hearings to decide whether to abrogate the contract, much less to define precisely what terms and conditions of employment the company may initially impose.
The Company’s “ask” was made before the rejection proceedings began. The LBO was made after those proceedings began. The Company was obviously aware of the Frontier precedent and stated at all times that the terms of the LBO were without prejudice
to its position before the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore, there was no agreement to allow the Court to consider the LBO. We, of course, will pursue all legal arguments should we face contract rejection, but the controlling precedent in New York is that the LBO is not even admissible into the 1113 proceedings and that the Company is not bound by the LBO and can impose its prehearing “ask” if the contract is rejected.

 

[Mr Red]

If the members had our own lawyer,we would get a different story !The twu's lawyer is looking out for TWU and their Kingdom !