So the mechanics have learned they could strike after all

S

sabre

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
161
0
if Dave actually goes forward with his lorenzoistic CBA rejection idea.
In Craines August 19, Reporter James Arndefer''s article interviewed Lawrence Snider who is a partner with the prestigious Mayor Brown Rowe &MAW
Snider says regarding an airline, If a union rejects a contract and the Judge sides with the company, these workers operating without a contract-could strike.
Also, thankfully, local 1976 in PIT has put out info to share with members. The info was from the 1166 law review [vol4:1145] It plainly states the right to strike! but don''t believe me, READ FOR YOURSELF. Go to www.pal1976.org then scroll to the bottom and click ''reconciling labor and bankruptcy law Then enjoy your reading.
Like I have said, I don''t think Dave wants to go there. If I''m wrong then my gut feeling is a liquidation and a pissing away of 2.5 billion dollars Dave would have got. Along with 35,000 jobs. Who would want that burden? It just isn''t plausible that Dave would logically do that.
I hope Dave comes to his senses and does the right thing. If he lays down the wrong card then it is certainly clear that the mechanics have a card they still haven''t played.
 
Joesy:

We are in landmark territory where the company has asked the court to provide an order to terminate a union contract, prevent a union strike, and is seeking damages from any union who does not ratify a restructuring agreement.

The 37 page Legal Brief makes a compelling argument for Judge Mitchell to consider between now and September 23. The company clearly has done its homework and John Butler, the Skadden & Arps lead attorney, with assistance from the law firms of O'Melveny & Myers LLP and McGuireWoods LLP, have produced a comprehensive brief. These lawyers are heavy hitters to battle in court and have obviously developed a rapport with Judge Mitchell.

I believe the challenge for all union members in question is the uncertainty of the hearing and the court siding with the company for every motion presented.

The bottom line which I believe many fail to recognize is that without the IAM-M and CWA agreements, the DIP Credit Facility, Emergence Financing, and Loan Guarantee will become null and void.

Of course the company does not want to risk losing this money, which is exactly why management must seek to obtain a court-ordered CBA cancellation without a consensual agreement, to insure the airline has access to these funds.

Without access to these funds, the September 26 hearing to approve the TPG plan would be in jeopordy, and Mitchell then must entertain other offers, that could from the likes of Marvin Davis or who knows even Carl Icahn, the risks are extremely high and something Siegel cannot accept.

In my opinion UAL777flyer's comments are valid when he said, Considering that US has the highest labor costs in the industry, what makes you think the bankruptcy judge is NOT going to side with Siegel? If past airline bankruptcy history is any indicator, you're taking the gamble of a lifetime in putting your fate into the hands of a judge. What makes you believe you'll attain a better outcome from a bankruptcy judge, when his duty is to act in the best interests of the creditors and shareholders, not the employees? While no outcome is guaranteed, I think it's a foolish gamble that you'll eventually lose. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Chip
 
Chip,,I believe you know as well I do that there is uncertainity on both sides of this fence...Mr. Siegel would of been before the judge yesterday if he was sure it would go all his way..Like you said Chip, we are in unchartered waters..Chip, Can you confirm for me that Judge Stephan Mitchell was appointed by Bill Clinton ? I have heard this but I haven't had time to find out for sure. Thanks
 
Meriel:

Merieal said: And as far as individual union members being personally responsible for damages due to actions by their union... that is a truly bizarre notion.

Chip answers: Meriel, as you know a union is made of its members. If the court agrees with the company's position and the court awards damages, if the union does not have the funds to pay the damages and the union is its members, who would be required to pay the company?

To my knowledge, the only time a union was ordered to pay damages was with the APA sick out. After APA lost the appeal, instead of paying damages that would have bankrupt the union, the AA pilot group agreed to concessions and AMR agreed to the settlement. In addition, the court ordered damages be paid by individual APA members including the union president and vice president, both AA pilots and AA employees.

I suspect if damages have been ordered once in this industry against a union and individual members, it could be ordered against individuals again. Unlike the S.1113 hearing to cancel a union contract which is a landmark case, employees and a union being ordered to pay the company damages already has a precedent.

Regardless, the company's Legal Brief is seeking over $30 million from the IAM-M and over $14.4 million in damages from the CWA, if there is no consensual restructuring accord. If approved, I don't think the company would care if the union or its members paid the penalty. Let's hope we never get to this point in the proceedings.

Chip
 
Insp89:

Insp89 said: Chip,,I believe you know as well I do that there is uncertainity on both sides of this fence...Mr. Siegel would of been before the judge yesterday if he was sure it would go all his way..Like you said Chip, we are in unchartered waters..Chip, Can you confirm for me that Judge Stephan Mitchell was appointed by Bill Clinton ? I have heard this but I haven't had time to find out for sure.

Chip comments: Insp, nobody wants to go into an emotional and ugly courtroom, I'm sure of that. In regard to President Clinton appointing Judge Mitchell, I have no idea.

Chip
 
A strike? All that will do is drive the final nail into the US Airways coffin and ensure a footnote in history's textbooks under the heading: Eastern Airlines: The Sequel.
 
Chip,

Your constant harping on the Judge siding with every motion the company has presented is simplistic. Again... show me a controversial motion that should NOT have been judged in U's favor, and I'll consider your insinuation of Mitchell's suspect ethics.

As far as individual union members being personally responsible for damages due to actions by their union... that is a truly bizarre notion. If you honestly believe that is a possibility, you probably should check a credible source for information on business entities and personal liabilty -- avoid titles that feature Do it Yourself or in 21 Days or Less. You'll be reassured to find that the absolute worst that can happen to a union member is that the union gets fined and it raises dues -- at which point the employees have a variety of options that range from decertifying said union to simply deciding they've had enough of the airline industry and its messes and finds a job at some nice, quiet national park somewhere in Alaska. (The attorneys I work with quite enjoyed your theory, btw. Considering we're going through the crunch of an inhouse file audit, we all appreciate the lift).
 
Chip,

I honestly don't think we're going to convince each other on this one... or any other one for that matter. If you want to believe folks would be individually responsible... fine

I've been around courts far too long to be beguiled by what a court orders -- and what actually happens between appeal and implementation.

For myself, I'm not remotely worried about it. I'd probably be less surprised if some yahoo didn't try to sue half the members on this board for practicing law without a license!
 
The big laugh is I have seen the company lawyers and Dr's
at work and I am still laughing So if I were Dave I wouldn't
rely to heavily on everything they say LOL :0 :)
10.gif']
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/11/2002 9:34:40 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

A strike? All that will do is drive the final nail into the US Airways coffin and ensure a footnote in history's textbooks under the heading: "Eastern Airlines: The Sequel".
----------------
[/blockquote]


Exactly. That's why the MIA IAM and Little Lorenzo need to go back to the table. The company took months fiddling around with the pilots to reach a TA and with Mech and related it's take it or leave it? I don't think so! I'm not objecting entirely to givebacks, but I am objecting to this TA. Therefore, I vote no. Give me a TA I can agree on (namely, doesn't cut my vacation time in HALF) then maybe I can vote yes. This is a piece of junk and both parties need to go back and start bargaining again.
 
The sickout was an illegal job action performed by the pilots; however, if the IAM CBA is dissolved and the Judge issues orders that are not acceptable to the IAM they do have the legal ability and right to strike. The cuts the Judge issues will at a minimum be what is proposed by the company in negotiations since a base line has been established by the other unions and for receiving appropriate financing to emerge from bankruptcy. It is doubtful the Judge will issue a court order to prevent the strike because of the precedent it would set in Management-Labor negotiations and relations.

After saying all that, if the IAM strikes, then U will be transferred from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 for liquidation. Siegel will have other options if U goes under, do you?
 
Anybody who thinks or referres to Dave as any variation of Lorenzo really should look in the mirror, and realize that yes, Virginia, Charlie Bryan really was a psuedo-terrorist and managed to sink an airline for no good reason (even after Lorenzo was out and he was dealing with Borman).

Pot.
Kettle.
And so forth.
 
[blockquote]
(even after Lorenzo was out and he was dealing with Borman).
[/blockquote]

Lorenzo replaced Borman, not the other way around.

Don't remember if Bryan dealt at all with Marty Shugrue, who was the trustee appointed by the court to replace Lorenzo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top