Transition Agreements and Seniority

[rat tales]

141 is headstrong about date of hire seniority to the east. The west will have date of hire along with newly integrated managers performing fleet work. The courts found that 141 breached their duty of fair representation with this case. A ton of dues money went into settling this case. Will the International not see this train approaching and stop it before it derails?

View attachment 6888

PIT, PHL, CLT ... Now is the time to make a stand!

 

[Tim Nelson]

141 is headstrong about date of hire seniority to the east. The west will have date of hire along with newly integrated managers performing fleet work. The courts found that 141 breached their duty of fair representation with this case. A ton of dues money went into settling this case. Will the International not see this train approaching and stop it before it derails?

View attachment 6888

PIT, PHL, CLT ... Now is the time to make a stand!

also, the DOL case during the officer elections in 2002 I believe.

This district is corrupt but the workers just have to 'bull rush' it and take it back from the punks controlling it at the top and all the way down to the Boss.

regards,

 

[Hadenough]

Hey Rat Tails
Whats the significance of all this? Very interesting read but where does it apply to us. Are you trying to say my senority might be in question.

 

[necigrad]

I think he's trying to say that District 141 has failed to represent in the past, as is now (in my, and I assume his, opinion), and this decision is proof. Unfortunatly, I do not see any relevance to the two situations, other then District 141 bending [non] represented employees over and anally pummeling them without lube. As far as senority goes, while I dont' necessarily like it, DOH is a fairly clear and non subjective method. If this was about the West not oing into Section 6 (again) I don't see any relevance either. There were some excellent citations from other court cases that have bering in there though.

 

[rat tales]

Hey Rat Tails
Whats the significance of all this? Very interesting read but where does it apply to us. Are you trying to say my senority might be in question.

Only if you were hired before 1999 under the east contract. Half of your part time seniority prior to the '99 contract counted towards your total seniority. Some agents have lost many years of seniority because of this and have been negatively affected at station closings and during past furloughs. I think about 2900 were hired before '99.

 

[Jester]

Rat Tales,

Thank-you for the insightful link, as it serves as a reminder to the incompetance and dishonesty of the IAM leadership, as stated within the text, "This argument borders on the absurd..." If this is the same group that argued the CIC, then Parker can start the kegger early.

I suspect little has changed within the IAM since the ruling, but for the Westies who think IAM cares about you consider the following text within the link:

"The statutory duty of fair representation was developed [decades] ago.' Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967). '[A] union breaches [this] duty . . . when its conduct toward a member of the bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.' Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33, 44 (1998).

"Put differently, a breach occurs when a union fails to 'serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, [or] avoid arbitrary conduct.' Vaca, 386 U.S. at 177.

“[A] union may not, without a legitimate purpose, take action favoring some of its members at the expense of others.' Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 611 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Laborers and Hod Carriers Local No. 341 v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 1977); Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 800 (7th Cir. 1976)).

"Additionally, 'a union violates [its duty] when it causes an employer to discriminate against employees on arbitrary, hostile, or bad faith grounds.' Barton Brands, 529 F.2d at 799."


Is the IAM representing West in good faith as bargaining for a West raise would be a "moot point"? Is the IAM serving the interests of all members (including West) without avoiding arbitrary conduct? Is the IAM favoring East group at the expense of West of its members? Is the IAM allowing the employer to (wage) discriminate against West on arbitrary, hostile or bad faith grounds? It appears that IAM has violated many court rulings, but I doubt they care because it seems many in the West don't care. For those Westies who refused to sign an IBEW card remember that most people in life get what they deserve.

So spews Jester.

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

People didn;t sign IBEW cards because nobody knew what they were. They were getting 3rd hand information from one of their peers who had very little insight as to what they actually meant.

We are truly ignorant out here because nobody in the IAM is here to present ANYTHING to us. I've seen NOBODY from the IAM since they sent those two clowns out who promised they would be around much much more. HAH.

We don't have the complex issues that you guys have out there, and not too many people have gone through a bankruptcy. Our people probably only average 5 years of service each due to the inept management style of America West, low pay, and the fact we have no union to represent us when they start doing unfair things like "house cleaning." Right now there is a big push to start firing people for their attendence. That's fine, although they are just randomly pulling up records and checking them. Shouldn't you be suspect only AFTER you've called in sick an excessive amount of times? Shouldn't you be warned before the problem becomes so serious you will lose your job?

America West employees have much pride Jester. Shame on you for those comments, I'm disappointed. This was an EAST scam, not a union thing. Not one of you guys non-reved out here to give us the facts when this was YOUR doing to begin with. Everybody in PHX understood that this union change was brought about by a few bitter agents in the East. When someone wants to talk, we listen and decide. We are sick of getting half-truths from everybody so we turned a deaf ear to this IBEW bid'ness.

I'll tell ya what the boys deserve: A raise and fair representation.

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

I don't want to create an E v W argument, I still feel we should be a functional family. Perhaps we need to build bridges after the grivence has been taken care of.

We need a website where we can invite fleet service agents from all across the country to come and voice their opinions and get the facts from you guys since you have this information readily available to you.

 

[The Bagfather]

Is the IAM favoring East group at the expense of West of its members? Is the IAM allowing the employer to (wage) discriminate against West on arbitrary, hostile or bad faith grounds? For those Westies who refused to sign an IBEW card remember that most people in life get what they deserve.

So spews Jester.
[/quote]

Jester: Thanks for that spew. It's possible IMO that one of the reasons for that TA
was to give the apearence of favoring the west so as not to open themselves up to
legal criticism from the west .

But check out Dawgs reply to Mike33 on the section 6 thread. It seems to me that
we may have a valid legal challenge here........BF

 

[The Bagfather]

Does anybody know how these guys financed thier lawsuit?

 

[Jester]

It's possible IMO that one of the reasons for that TA
was to give the apearence of favoring the west so as not to open themselves up to
legal criticism from the west .

BF,

I'll repeat what I said a couple months ago. Boss Canale and his boys are reading the writing on the wall and trying to figure a way out of looking completely inept. They have passed off CIC as being something of great value, but I suspect they know that the ruling won't go in their favor. It was about using CIC as a leverage with Parker to get a more favorable TA, but they have overplayed their position with the rank and file to the point that nearly everyone thinks CIC will go in their favor. People began to believe their own BS, and that's never a good thing. This wasn't about attempting to look balanced in their treatment of West.


Also I realize some have taken offense by my comment of people getting what they deserve. Maybe I should preface that comment and rephrase it as, "Those who refuse to take action to improve their situation in life, typically get what they deserve." Additionally, people make excuses of not understanding the IBEW drive, but did those same people do not know they were being abused and neglected by the IAM either? Get informed and realize, especially those in the West, the IAM does not have your best interests in mind, and pretty much any other legitimate union would have been a better alternative.

So mulls Jester.

 

[700UW]

Jester,

You couldnt be more off base.

If you look at all the SEC Documents it clearly states "Change of Control" is clearly stated in all the documents filed in regard to executive compensation and other items.

Being a former member of the NC for the M&R Group, we saw the language in the CBA left and knew it would come back to haunt the company.

Ask yourself this, why is M&R pushing the COC so hard and ramp is not?

Even though before the arbitration, Roach met with both districts and numerous lawyers to map out the strategy, the IAM would have not gone to court to force the issue if they did not believe it was a winner.

And Mr Bloch has a clear understanding of the M&R CBA as the IAM and US have used him in numerous arbitration cases, IE the 401k and Airbus, both which were won by the IAM.

 

[Jester]

700UW,

You say, "If you look at all the SEC Documents it clearly states 'Change of Control' is clearly stated in all the documents filed in regard to executive compensation and other items."
The same phrase or word can have different meanings within the context or how it has been defined within a contractual agreement, so to say "Change of Control" can only mean one thing would be incorrect.

You say, "Being a former member of the NC for the M&R Group, we saw the language in the CBA left and knew it would come back to haunt the company."
Respectfully, I doubt any of them had an extensive background in contract law.

You question, "Ask yourself this, why is M&R pushing the COC so hard and ramp is not?"
Last I saw the TA voted down overwhelmingly suggest the ramp is pushing for the CIC.

You say, "Even though before the arbitration, Roach met with both districts and numerous lawyers to map out the strategy, the IAM would have not gone to court to force the issue if they did not believe it was a winner."
I'll repeat myself... this was a strategem using the remote chance of a CIC victory to have leverage with Parker to obtain a better TA. Keep in mind that Boss Canale himself told PHL rampers that he thought the TA was a good contract. You sure that Boss Canale thought CIC was a "winner" if he thought that offering the TA was a better alternative versus proceeding with arbitration?

You say, "And Mr Bloch has a clear understanding of the M&R CBA as the IAM and US have used him in numerous arbitration cases, IE the 401k and Airbus, both which were won by the IAM."
But yet some brilliant legal minds extensively reviewed all labor contracts before the merger and the CSR's union thought the CIC had little merit. In fact, Parker and his high-paid legal advisors thought so little of CIC, they did not bother going to bankruptcy court to void the CIC section when they had the chance. While Mr. Bloch might be a great legal mind well aware of the CBA, if you do not have the facts and the law on your side, then your chance of prevailing would be weak. I'll repeat... This is the problem when people begin to believe their own BS.


I read both sides on the CIC issue and I thought the Company had a more compelling argument which relates back to the original thread topic insofar that the IAM representatives appeared to be amateurish and grasping at straws in both cases. I guess we will find out in a couple of months. I hope I am wrong, because there will be a great deal of hue and cry along with the gnashing of teeth otherwise within fleet.

So soothsays Jester.

 

[700UW]

Actually all the members have extensive backgrounds in CBAs in the airlines, probably several hundreds years of experience was on our committee.

As a matter of fact one person who was not on the committee but was an advisor organized the IAM on US property back in 1949 and negotiated every CBA on the property except the last two, but was used as an advisor in those negotiations.

So since when did you become a financial expert, arbitor or lawyer too?

If you read the employment contracts the Change of Control was the same meaning for Glass and other executives to walk away with millions as it pertains to the CBAs.

M&R never used the COC as a bargaining tool, negotiations went slow and no where and M&R has stood firm on the outcome of the COC.

As an officer of US Airways, you will also receive an employment agreement
providing you with certain benefits in the event that your employment is
terminated or substantially changed either prior to a change in ownership of the
company or following a change of control. If your employment is terminated or
substantially changed prior to a change in control, you will receive a severance
benefit equal to two years' base salary and target bonus. In the event that your
employment is terminated or substantially changed after a change in control, you
will receive a severance benefit equal to three years' base salary and target
bonus, three years of benefit continuation, three years of LTIP payout and life
time officer travel benefits.

The above is from Jerry Glass' employment contract.

 

[mike33]

I read both sides on the CIC issue and I thought the Company had a more compelling argument which relates back to the original thread topic insofar that the IAM representatives appeared to be amateurish and grasping at straws in both cases. I guess we will find out in a couple of months. I hope I am wrong, because there will be a great deal of hue and cry along with the gnashing of teeth otherwise within fleet.

So soothsays Jester.
[/quote]



Jester,

The problem with us is we don't have the knowledge for such predictions. I thought the company presented it in the light of corporate law and the union in the light of labor law. Which is right? I don't pretend to know, but when Crellin walked away with 7 mil due to CIC in his contract I believe it applied to both. The pilots used it as a bargining chip for their side during BK. They brought it up!!! The IAM had no reason to. It was up to the company to carry it further in talks with other unions. They didn't do that until after the fact.

sonofsamsonite