eaglefly

Well, for that matter, who says something similar hasn't already occurred ?

Perhaps a subgroup HAS questioned the APA on their representational abilities regarding that certain subgroup. If they have, I doubt it would be public right now.

crzipilot

That is the question, and the reason I'm like...HUH?

the company tried or is still attempting to get silver to garner that right to the West class in the Addington law suit, BUT she hasn't ruled. AND how can she rule trumping Fed. Law, that a craft and class of workers can have more than one recognized bargaining unit.

Imagine the box that would opened around all sorts of Labor negotiations around the country.


Now again, it could be that Doug wants the timeline maintained. He has to show that he learned from the mistakes of the prv. merger and he has to be spot on with this one.

So instead of delaying the timeline. He invites the West group to the first party. It's simply meetings to set out the protocols of the SLI process I believe. So instead of having to invite them if Silver rules in their favor, they do it now so they are in the loop. At the same time, if Silver comes in with a ruling before the actual negotiations start, or even after they start. If the West loses, they can always be kicked out of the room.

Who knows, because I imagine whichever side prevails, the other will be attempting an appeal to the 9th.

Either way the process of the SLI can continue forward, and who knows, there's no crystal ball, except for the one that Cacti has, and maybe in those 30 days of negotiations something can be agreed upon by the three parties. I am highly suspect though that the West guys will follow their party line. Lay a revised NIC award, which would put all of their pilots in the position of being able to hold capt, and say this is the starting point.

So instead of seeing current west capts being put in line with similar capts etc. You will see West Capts and F/O's being inordinately placed higher on the list then would be a normal progression.......

I'll bet a sixer on it...

cactiboss

That could happen, anything can in arbitration. I can tell you without any hesitation the west class feels very, very comfortable going up against usapa in any arbitration wether it's a 2 way or 3 way.

P.s. What do you think the chances are arbitrators will discard A previous arbitration that has been found to be fair and equitable?

crzipilot

Well questioning your union representation as to their ability to represent your group, is quite a bit different from having the company recognize that subgroup, and elect a separate merger committee for that group.

I guarantee there are many subgroups questioning the ability for USAPA to represent that groups particular interests, but you don't see an invitation being extended.

And if that subgroup in APA hasn't been made public, then they are a little late to the party as the meeting is this friday isn't it? or next?

crzipilot

Not sure how you can say it has nothing to do with RLA when the RLA is mentioned in the first dame sentence of the MB law. Craft and Class as covered under the RLA. So who is the representative of the Craft and Class of Pilots at US Airways?


LABORINTEGRATION
Pub. L. 110–161, div. K, title I, § 117, Dec. 26, 2007, 121
Stat. 2382, provided that:
‘‘(a) LABOR
INTEGRATION
.—With respect to any covered transaction involving
two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination
of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.
151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective
provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in
the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59
C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered em-
ployees of the covered air carriers; except that—

‘‘(1) if the same collective bargaining agent rep-
resents the combining crafts or classes at each of the
covered air carriers, that collective bargaining
agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if
any, will not be affected by and will supersede the
requirements of this section; and

‘‘(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining
agreement that may be applicable to the terms of in-
tegration involving covered employees of a covered
air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements
of this section as to the employees covered by that
agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the
Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS
.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
‘‘(1) AIR CARRIER
.—The term ‘air carrier’ means an
air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chap-
ter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
‘‘(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER
.—The term ‘covered aircarrier’ means an air carrier that is involved in a cov
ered transaction.
‘‘(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE
.—The term ‘covered employee’ means an employee who—
‘‘(A) is not a temporary employee; and
‘‘(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject
to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
‘‘(4) COVERED TRANSACTION
.—The term ‘covered transaction’ means—
‘‘(A) a transaction for the combination of
multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
‘‘(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control
of—
‘‘(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities
(as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States
Code) of an air carrier; or
‘‘(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets
of the air carrier.
‘‘(c) APPLICATION
.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier
that took place before the date

eaglefly

I'm happy you're comfortable. Of course, considering the "anything can happen" equation in arbitrations, one result may be more of a victory against the East, but a lessor result in the overall AA integration to compensate in the effort to prevent a windfall and/or maintain career expectations. It's impossible to say ahead of time that choosing one course of action won't weaken another conflicts outcome (and SLI's ARE conflicts whether we like that or not).

It's my understanding arbitrators are loathe to reverse or undermine other past arbitrations that have been completed, but my opinion means little. I certainly hope arbitrators don't undermine their OWN past arbitrations.

eaglefly

I'm not going to comment further on this subject, but the SLI process is in its infancy and has 12-18 months to go, so expect some twists and turns along the way and there is plenty of time for twists and turns.

justfun

Cactiboss,

Here is our unions official position, just to clear the air.

"The board approved a related motion to authorize the committee to enter into protocol and seniority integration negotiations in accordance with the four-party MOU and the McCaskill Bond Act labor protective provisions. The committee is directed to seek a fair and equitable seniority integration based on the AA pilots' pre-merger career expectations that ensures equitable sharing of post-merger progression or decline."

I hope this helps.

crzipilot

Not for nothing, If your bored and want to read a little. A little interesting discourse on the MB..

http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

cactiboss

Helps with what? Mark this post ok? I'm telling you that the Apa leaderships believes the usairways/amr sli will
Be decided under arbitration. Now what you posted simply authorizes the apa committee to enter into a protocol (process) regarding sli negotiations/arbitration as required by mou