AOL update
12-18-2013, 07:12 PM
#2081
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
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
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
This is between the pilots and has nothing to do with a collective bargaining agreement. The NMB has no authority. We are not negotiating with the company for seniority.
12-18-2013, 11:42 PM
#2082
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
Welllll Cacti. Good try again., I think. Go read through some of that link I sent you.
Especially with the argument the company is using to give a carve out to you guys for a seat at the table. (the past precedent of NONUnion employees getting a seat) But I digress....
If you look at the history of CAB AM part 3 and 13, you will see quite the standard of the company being involved.
The more interesting part of that discussion on the link is the about the MB, and any legal precedent behind it, or in fact lack thereof. Only 3 or 4 cases where any intent has been attempted to be derived from the law. Go read it....
Oh and I do believe the seniority list is located in section 22. The process for combining such is within respective contracts and the MOU/MTA. etc. So exactly how this does not have anything to do with a CBA I don't know.
Where did I saw the NMB has anything to do with this, but I'll bet ya they are in the background there somewhere...
Typical West behavior of trying to carve things out to look in their favor, instead of backing things with facts.....
Especially with the argument the company is using to give a carve out to you guys for a seat at the table. (the past precedent of NONUnion employees getting a seat) But I digress....
If you look at the history of CAB AM part 3 and 13, you will see quite the standard of the company being involved.
The more interesting part of that discussion on the link is the about the MB, and any legal precedent behind it, or in fact lack thereof. Only 3 or 4 cases where any intent has been attempted to be derived from the law. Go read it....
Oh and I do believe the seniority list is located in section 22. The process for combining such is within respective contracts and the MOU/MTA. etc. So exactly how this does not have anything to do with a CBA I don't know.
Where did I saw the NMB has anything to do with this, but I'll bet ya they are in the background there somewhere...
Typical West behavior of trying to carve things out to look in their favor, instead of backing things with facts.....
12-19-2013, 09:03 AM
#2083
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Welllll Cacti. Good try again., I think. Go read through some of that link I sent you.
Especially with the argument the company is using to give a carve out to you guys for a seat at the table. (the past precedent of NONUnion employees getting a seat) But I digress....
If you look at the history of CAB AM part 3 and 13, you will see quite the standard of the company being involved.
The more interesting part of that discussion on the link is the about the MB, and any legal precedent behind it, or in fact lack thereof. Only 3 or 4 cases where any intent has been attempted to be derived from the law. Go read it....
Oh and I do believe the seniority list is located in section 22. The process for combining such is within respective contracts and the MOU/MTA. etc. So exactly how this does not have anything to do with a CBA I don't know.
Where did I saw the NMB has anything to do with this, but I'll bet ya they are in the background there somewhere...
Typical West behavior of trying to carve things out to look in their favor, instead of backing things with facts.....
Especially with the argument the company is using to give a carve out to you guys for a seat at the table. (the past precedent of NONUnion employees getting a seat) But I digress....
If you look at the history of CAB AM part 3 and 13, you will see quite the standard of the company being involved.
The more interesting part of that discussion on the link is the about the MB, and any legal precedent behind it, or in fact lack thereof. Only 3 or 4 cases where any intent has been attempted to be derived from the law. Go read it....
Oh and I do believe the seniority list is located in section 22. The process for combining such is within respective contracts and the MOU/MTA. etc. So exactly how this does not have anything to do with a CBA I don't know.
Where did I saw the NMB has anything to do with this, but I'll bet ya they are in the background there somewhere...
Typical West behavior of trying to carve things out to look in their favor, instead of backing things with facts.....
12-19-2013, 09:40 AM
#2084
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Welllll Cacti. Good try again., I think. Go read through some of that link I sent you.
Especially with the argument the company is using to give a carve out to you guys for a seat at the table. (the past precedent of NONUnion employees getting a seat) But I digress....
If you look at the history of CAB AM part 3 and 13, you will see quite the standard of the company being involved.
The more interesting part of that discussion on the link is the about the MB, and any legal precedent behind it, or in fact lack thereof. Only 3 or 4 cases where any intent has been attempted to be derived from the law. Go read it....
Oh and I do believe the seniority list is located in section 22. The process for combining such is within respective contracts and the MOU/MTA. etc. So exactly how this does not have anything to do with a CBA I don't know.
Where did I saw the NMB has anything to do with this, but I'll bet ya they are in the background there somewhere...
Typical West behavior of trying to carve things out to look in their favor, instead of backing things with facts.....
Especially with the argument the company is using to give a carve out to you guys for a seat at the table. (the past precedent of NONUnion employees getting a seat) But I digress....
If you look at the history of CAB AM part 3 and 13, you will see quite the standard of the company being involved.
The more interesting part of that discussion on the link is the about the MB, and any legal precedent behind it, or in fact lack thereof. Only 3 or 4 cases where any intent has been attempted to be derived from the law. Go read it....
Oh and I do believe the seniority list is located in section 22. The process for combining such is within respective contracts and the MOU/MTA. etc. So exactly how this does not have anything to do with a CBA I don't know.
Where did I saw the NMB has anything to do with this, but I'll bet ya they are in the background there somewhere...
Typical West behavior of trying to carve things out to look in their favor, instead of backing things with facts.....
There is no doubt that the company's invitation to the West is a clear expression of their intent to violate the RLA.....
But even before that, it is a clear intent to unilaterally invent provisions, rights, and authorities that don't exist and are contrary to the explicit terms of the MOU (as well as the laws governing the creation of contracts).
Any and all of the parties to the MOU that acquiesce to this are equally culpable for the violations.
The APA raped all pilots that they ever merged with. Don't be surprised if they see this as an opportunity to repeat offend. And useful idiots that aid them, thinking they will get comfort for their efforts, should bring their own vaseline.
12-19-2013, 09:45 AM
#2085
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
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?
P.s. What do you think the chances are arbitrators will discard A previous arbitration that has been found to be fair and equitable?
12-19-2013, 09:54 AM
#2086
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
There is no doubt that the company's invitation to the West is a clear expression of their intent to violate the RLA.....
But even before that, it is a clear intent to unilaterally invent provisions, rights, and authorities that don't exist and are contrary to the explicit terms of the MOU (as well as the laws governing the creation of contracts).
Any and all of the parties to the MOU that acquiesce to this are equally culpable for the violations.
The APA raped all pilots that they ever merged with. Don't be surprised if they see this as an opportunity to repeat offend. And useful idiots that aid them, thinking they will get comfort for their efforts, should bring their own vaseline.
But even before that, it is a clear intent to unilaterally invent provisions, rights, and authorities that don't exist and are contrary to the explicit terms of the MOU (as well as the laws governing the creation of contracts).
Any and all of the parties to the MOU that acquiesce to this are equally culpable for the violations.
The APA raped all pilots that they ever merged with. Don't be surprised if they see this as an opportunity to repeat offend. And useful idiots that aid them, thinking they will get comfort for their efforts, should bring their own vaseline.
Reminds me of an insanely rabid dog that bites everyone, his master included.
12-19-2013, 09:58 AM
#2087
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
The Nicolau award has never been implemented because the contractual terms that stipulated when implementation would occur, never did. And now the only contract that ever gave any force to a Nicolau arbitration and its award, is a nullity.
Anyone can still passionately argue for its benefits, but as of Dec 9th their is no contractual basis to impose it. An arbitrator in the future could decide anything he wants. But that is nothing new. By definition an arbitrator can always decide anything he wants.
12-19-2013, 10:00 AM
#2088
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
You are good with name calling, and even better with inventing name calling that I never did. Do you have any reference to the MOU, or to reason, or is that why you resorted to name calling.
12-19-2013, 10:05 AM
#2089
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Well, it would seem that new management and the APA seem legally comfortable with the path now chosen, so it is what it is. It's interesting you proclaim the ability of an arbitrator to decide anything he wants but obviously USAPA does not agree that binding arbitration is binding. Apparently they see it as more of a suggestion that can be overruled. Again, unlike the past process, USAPA wont be in the drivers seat, only one of apparently 3 parties that must accept the presence and position of the others. Then, yes an arbitrator will decide whatever he wants.
Last edited by eaglefly; 12-19-2013 at 10:17 AM.
12-19-2013, 10:08 AM
#2090
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Ahh yes, they "have your cake and eat it too philosophy". The reason it was never implemented is that a clever minority devised a method to hijack that process before it was completed. The argument then that reward should come for that down the road in the form of not unhijacking the situation so as to maintain the hijackers leverage seems a bit myopic to me.
You haven't got near the clue you think.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
