US Airways Legal Brief filed with the Bankruptcy Court Says, The RLA Would Not Allow US Airways' Emp

C

chipmunn

Guest
Page 18 of US Airways'' Legal Brief filed with the Bankruptcy Court to seek emergency relief to abrogate union contracts states:
The RLA Would Not Allow US AIrways'' Employees to Strike
Although a strike could severly impact the Debtor''s efforts to reorganize, employees subject to the Railway Labor Act could not lawfully strike in response to rejection. The principal purpose of Congress in enacting the RLA was to prevent strikes or other interruptions to the nations''s transportation systems. See 45 U.S.C. 15la. This purpose is embodied in Section 2, First of the RLA, which provides that (i)t shall be the duty of the carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions...in order to aboid any interruption to commerce or to the operations of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof. 45 U.S.C. 152, First (emphasis added). This provision, the courts have held, prohibits a union from strking during negotiations over a collective bargaining agreement until exhaustion of the mandatory negotiation and mediation provisions of the RLA. Detroit & T.S.L.R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 149-51 (1969). This principle applies even where the carrier itself is not subject to any status quo requirement, as during negotiation of an initial agreement. Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal ***''n v. Atlantic Coast Airlines, Inc. 125 F.3d41 (2nd Cir. 1997).
Moreover, the negotiation and mediation procedures of the RLA are purposefully long and drawn out, requiring direct negotiations between the parties until they reach imp***e, and then permitting either party to seek mediation under the supervision of the National Mediation Board. Detroit & T.S.L.R.R. Co., 396 U.S. at 149-51. The rationale underlying the statute is that by delaying the right to self-help, it becomes more likely that the parties can reach agreements without a strike. As the Supreme Court observed in the Shore Line case:
The Act''s status quo requirement is central to its design. Its immediate effect is to prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would justify a strike. In the long run, delaying the time when the parties can resort to self help provides time for tempers to cool, helps create an atmosphere in which rational bargaining can occur, and permits the forces of public opinion to be mobilized in favor of a settlement without a strike or lockout.
Id. at 150.
Appling these principles to the present circumstances, it would be completely inconsistent with the RLA to permit either the CWA or IAM to
strike following rejection until the union had sought to negotiate a new agreement with the carreir through the RLA bargaining process. Therefore, a strike is not likely even if the court must authorize rejection of the collective bargaining agreements with CWA and IAM.
 

N513AU

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
219
0
We might not have the right to strike. However, a judge can not make employees actually work while they are at work
 

sabre

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
161
0
Let's make this simple.
If US AIRWAYS pushes for rejection and gets it granted [something not likely in the first place], then US AIRWAYS rejection will be based on an imp***e with the IAM.
Please tell me you people know what an imp***e can cause?

The very fact that US AIRWAYS is making a desperate appeal for this implicitly tells us that Chip and other PHL attorneys were wrong when he said the IAM Can't strike. Also, if you know anything about the case US AIRWAYS sites [amfa/ACA] then you know US AIRWAYS legal team has a weak case in its position.

At any rate, the real question that seems to be slipping by everyone isn't whether they can strike or not, but rather what financing will US AIRWAYS get if 7,000 mechanics aren't on board?
And please don't discount the last question because it is the very essense of our survival.
 

ua767fo

Senior
Aug 30, 2002
252
3
Chip said:Could this be why the CWA leadership is recommending a yes vote and the IAM leaders are sending out the IAM-M agreement for a second vote?

Im sure that the IAM believes the TA is in the best interests of the membership, but can not come out and say it without appearing weak and giving AMFA an in. Hence, the 'misunderstanding' prior to the first vote.


 
OP
C

chipmunn

Guest
Joesy:

Joesy asked: At any rate, the real question that seems to be slipping by everyone isn't whether they can strike or not, but rather what financing will US AIRWAYS get if 7,000 mechanics aren't on board?

Chip answers: Joesy, the Legal Brief filed with the court said, access to the second tranche of $175 million is conditioned upon adequate cost reduction agreements being reached with ALPA, AFA, and IAM -- or court-ordered relief pursuant to Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. Access to the third and fourth tranches of $50 million and $200 million, respectively, are conditioned upon either an agreement with all unions for adequate cost reductions or court-ordered relief from any collective bargaining agreement not so modified by agreement.

On Friday, September 6, Siegel met with representatives of TPG, who require the 85 percent target labor cuts to provide the DIP financing, simultaneously when Employee Relations and CWA/IAM Negotiators reached their latest agreement(s). Coincidental? Or could Siegel have asked TPG, as well as CSFB & BOA for relief, and the DIP investors said no to Dave's request to waive the provisions of the DIP agreement embodied in the Legal Brief comment above?

At this point given the company's stance and the Legal Brief, there will be no DIP financing or Loan Guarantee without ratified restructuring or court-ordered agreements. Could this be why the CWA leadership is recommending a yes vote and the IAM leaders are sending out the IAM-M agreement for a second vote?

Chip
 

Latest posts