So the mechanics have learned they could strike after all

C

chipmunn

Guest
Hi Planeluvr:

Planeluvr said: 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.

Chip comments: The US Legal Brief and docket gives the judge two options: keep the current contract intact or cancel the agreement. In regard to a strike, the judge has been asked to prevent a strike and to order the IAM-M to pay over $30 million and the CWA over $14 million in damages. I agree with you that this would be a landmark case because never before has a union refused to provide concessions and there has never been a S.1113 case.

In regard to an appeal if Judge Mitchell throws out a contract, which if the company is going to gain access to the capital markets would be required, Itrade made a valid point when he said, Judges are really not that concerned about being overruled all the time. And, remember, the Federal court of appeals that encompasses the E.D. Va. is the 4th Circuit - certainly one of the more conservative circuits in the country - and only that one would likely guess to be corporate friendly. I'm sure that if Mtchell tossed the contract, IAM or CWA could file for a write of mandamus. However, I don't know how willing the 4th Circuit will be to hear a motion of that nature.

Chip
 
OP
S

sabre

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
161
0
Seigel is following the same path of asking for a rejection instead of asking for a modification. So it certianly is lorenzoistic [Your friend Dave just does it with a polo shirt on]. But what it really comes down to is that Dave is just following orders from the board...who BTW is chaired by Wolf. Wolf's image was unacceptable for any package of concessions so they changed the image that represents this company.
Some have bought into it and others haven't and never will.
I certainly hope Dave comes to his senses instead of possibly seeking chapter 7 when the mechanics reject this thing.
 

ClueByFour

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,566
37
www.usaviation.com
I stand corrected. Lack of coffee

I'll leave the post unedited, but surely you take my point: To suggest that Dave is trying to pull a Lorenzo is completely absurd.

Without the credit facilities, US goes under. It's that simple. Without them, they cannot possibly pay anyone what they want or might even deserve.

Does it suck? Sure, but what are the alternatives?

Change unions (afma)? Never happen in time.

Vote NO:

1. The judge does not abrogate the contract. US goes under since the creditors and the ATSB will back off.

2. The judge abrogates the contract. US imposes draconian cuts that make the T/A on the table look like a walk in the playground.

3. #2 happens, and a strike occurs. Goodbye airline.

I suppose this illustrates a wondeful difference between unionized airline work and the real world: here in the real world, 58% of one work group cannot kill a company of behalf of 100% of the remaining workgroups.

Is that an anti-labor way of viewing the world? I suppose. But, tell that to the families and whatnot of the other groups (ALPA, AFA, maybe the CWA) who could be out of work because their franternal brothers were pissed about (insert complaint here) in the current T/A before the IAM.
 

cavalier

Veteran
Aug 28, 2002
2,409
1
www.usaviation.com
I certainly hope Dave comes to his senses instead of possibly seeking chapter 7 when the mechanics reject this thing.

joesy

Please explain, come to his senses?

He can't possibly be any clearer as to what HIS senses exactly are.

You are betting the farm his is a liar.
 

N513AU

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
219
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/12/2002 1:02:20 PM sabre wrote:

Seigel is following the same path of asking for a rejection instead of asking for a modification. So it certianly is lorenzoistic [Your friend Dave just does it with a polo shirt on]. But what it really comes down to is that Dave is just following orders from the board...who BTW is chaired by Wolf. Wolf's image was unacceptable for any package of concessions so they changed the image that represents this company.
Some have bought into it and others haven't and never will.
I certainly hope Dave comes to his senses instead of possibly seeking chapter 7 when the mechanics reject this thing.
----------------
[/blockquote]

All I want is two weeks vacation like the rest of the world and the only pay raise I've seen in two years. Anything else is a no vote.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
ClueByFour:

Your analysis is valid and correct. Let's hope reasonable people can reach an accord. However, if we go to the S.1113 hearing, in my opinion Judge Mitchell would have no option but to throw out any union CBA, if he wants the airline to be restructured, which appears the preferred path.

Without the court canceling the union contracts, as you pointed out there would be no credit facility, TPG investment/emergence financing, and the loan guarantee, which Mitchell clearly understands.

Chip
 

Meriel

Member
Aug 19, 2002
63
0
>> Crystal balls are in short supply on this one aren't they Meriel?? LOL [<

A320... my crystal ball is in perfect working order and functioning precisely as I have always claimed: it holds a variety of different shaped and colored papers firmly to my desk.
2.gif

On a different note, my honey and I took a break from the computer for most of the night to watch A Beautiful Mind. It's an intriguing movie with a lot to offer, although I did wish there had been more explanation/illustration of Nash's theories, which have ultimately been applied to economics, arbitrations, labor negotiations, etc.
 

n711ac

Member
Sep 13, 2002
23
0
www.usaviation.com
I have been reading this for a long time and as a mech with 13 yrs at US, I havent heard anybody in CLT say anything about wanting to go on strike or anything like that.
All I know time is going to run out then in the end what every happens will be.
People on the BB have said things about each group and if we were to sit down and drink a few beers we could make it all work out but that hasnt happen yet like in the good-o-days ask PSA people
6.gif']
 

Boomer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,141
71
Mr. Munn,

On this thread an others, you continue to repeat the threat of fines against Unions and their members. In some cases, you have referenced the case by AMR against APA or the charge of, economic detriment of the bankruptcy.

I) I'm not an attorney and do not have any legal training but I do have opinions based on what I have read. As far as my opinion of your claim that the Company's can file for economic detriment of the bankruptcy.

A) Searching the web based legal resources for definitions and cases around the term, economic detriment of the bankruptcy, brought me to the contract law section and to a term: detrimental reliance. Detrimental Reliance occurs when one party relies on the assertions of another party in reaching a meeting of the minds with respect to the terms and conditions contained within, and around, a contract and being harmed with respect to their reliance on the party to said contract failing to fulfill such terms and conditions.

B) The application of detrimental reliance to these facts is faulty when compared with the statement of Congressional intents, purposes and content of the LMRDA of 1959. Under the LMRDA, as applied to the RLA regarding votes by the membership and Vacca with respect to DFR, the Company could not have relied on representations that a vote would turn out any particular way before any ballots had been cast.

C) Even in the far-fetched and unimaginable supposition that any union would ever give any management team such assurances; the reliance claimed by such a management team would not withstand scrutiny before the courts, they would be party to something they should not have agreed to. I would never assert that any Union or Company would engage in such behavior and even though I may disagree with the quality of the representation, for any Company to assert detrimental reliance given the above facts is a double edged sword.

II) As for the claim that the situation between the IAM and CWA is anything like what happened between the APA and AMR: the items below are available from the web.

A) The dispute behind the alleged job action between the two was arbitrated to constitute a minor dispute.

B) Under the Railway Labor Act, there are two classes of disputes:
1) Minor - relating to the interpretation of terms within an existing contract subject to arbitration; and,
2) Major - relating to a change or seeking to change the pay, hours of work and working conditions within a contract and being held to the status quo provisions of the RLA unless and until released to self-help by the National Mediation Board, NMB, or mutual negotiation and ratification by the parties.

C) AMR filed for a temporary restraining order before a Federal Judge in Fort Worth, TX. claiming that the APA had concertedly initiated a resort to self-help in violation of the RLA: the Federal Judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order, TRO. Subsequently, AMR filed complaint that the union was failing to abide by the terms of the TRO and the Judge cited the union for contempt of court.

D) At no point during the Concessions process has it been claimed that either the CWA or the IAM have resorted to self help in violation of the status quo provisions of the RLA.

E) At no point, has any Judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order, TRO, against either the CWA or IAM.

F) At no point has it been alleged that either the CWA or the IAM have violated said NON-EXISTANT TRO.

G) At no point has anyone agreed that the NON-EXISTANT TRO was being violated.

H) At no point can it be inferred or agreed that the membership had any real or contemplated participation in any violation of the status quo provisions of the RLA.

Again, these are the opinions of another mechanic. As far as to whether concession should or should not be given, I have never said one way or the other.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
Boomer:

Your research is valid per the Railway Labor Act (RLA), but the RLA does not apply in bankruptcy. The rules that do apply are established in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code Section 1113.

That's the difference from your comments and I believe a large-scale misunderstanding by the rank and file.

In my opinion, that is why the IAM Web site said if the proposal isn't ratified, US Airways will ask for deeper concessions in bankruptcy court. It also warns that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern Virginia District, which is based in Alexandria, Va., and is hearing the case, has a reputation for moving cases quickly and being anti-labor.

Again, the court can only rule on the motion in front of it and order that the unions contract be abrogated or kept intact, order the union cannot strike, and for the union to pay damages.

There will be no negotiation, unless the parties agree to an out of court settlement. Moreover, if the union is ordered to pay damages, it will be up to the union and its membership on how to do this.

However, from a cooperate perspective, if either the CWA or IAM reject their restructuring agreements, Siegel must obtain an accord through the courts, but I fear without a consensual agreement the DIP financing deal could fall apart.

Sources indicate CSFB is having a very difficult time syndicating the loan with the threat of war with Iraq.

Even though Siegel may have an “outâ€￾ by rejecting any union contract not restructured, I believe CSFB may look at every contract loophole to not place its money at risk during war. In fact, TPG may also get nervous because of what they believe could be uncooperative labor if we have another Gulf War airline environment.

Chip
 

Boomer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,141
71
Mr. Munn,
I believe you to be wrong with respect to application of the Bankruptcy code and the Railway Labor Act.

More un-lawyerly opinion, this time on my behalf...

I.) The Bankruptcy code and the RLA are not mutually exclusive; each retains the essential elements that Congress sought to create but each exists in therealm of the other.

Ionosphere Clubs, Inc. (Eastern Airlines)
v.
ALPA,

a)With regard to discerning the motives and intent of Legislators. The courts look to the Committee reports which usually accompany enactment of a statute. Where none are available, the court looks to the Congressional Record for statements made by the sponsors of the legislation for an expression of legislative intent.

b)When two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts to regard each as effective; when statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, however, the court must give effect to most recently enacted statute becuase it is the most recent indication of Congressional intent.

Opinion The meaning of particular pieces of legislation is not static. The meaning changes as cases pertaining to that legislation are heard and as the organs of government make rulings with respect to the legislation. It can therefore be argued that the most recent Judicial divination or Executive Branch ruling with regard to the application and meaning of the statute in effect resets that date.

c)The Bankruptcy Court cannot abrogate the RLA, they can release the parties to self-help without the offices of the NMB. However, the release from status quo is mutual in that both sides are released at the same time hence the prohibition against an automatic stay when such stay would have the necessary effect of releasing one party to unilateral action for the termination or alteration of the CBA.

Do you a least agree that citing AMR v. APA is incorrect with regard to the mystery fines?
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Boomer;
Now I know why you go by the name of Boomer, you just blew Chip out of the sky! I hope Dave lent Chip his Golden Parachute!

Chip said; Again, the court can only rule on the motion in front of it and order that the unions contract be abrogated or kept intact, order the union cannot strike, and for the union to pay damages.

If thats the case then its more likely that the Judge will reject the companies request. If its all or nothing then the Judge will rule nothing. Go back to the table. Fining a Union when they have broken no laws and have lived up to thier agreement is unheard of. Releasing one party to exercise self help while denying the other is also unheard of. The fact is there is nothing unique about a company claiming bankruptcy. This road has been travelled before, even an anti-labor court is unlikely to set precidents such as these.This could carry over into so many other situations.
 

Latest posts