Atlas / Southern
#521
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,398
I hate to stick my K4 nose is this discussion and I only point this out for information purposes
I have no idea how much safer it makes the operation but we have had AQP and FOQA for almost 10 years and are in the process of implementing LOSA
If we can do it - its quite obvious Atlas could institute these programs if they wanted to - why they wont even consider it is befalling
We over here really do wish you guys over there all the best
I have no idea how much safer it makes the operation but we have had AQP and FOQA for almost 10 years and are in the process of implementing LOSA
If we can do it - its quite obvious Atlas could institute these programs if they wanted to - why they wont even consider it is befalling
We over here really do wish you guys over there all the best
So the interesting thing about Kalitta is that you can improve safety while going through all the strains of explosive growth.
The problems here at Atlas, therefore, are not the inevitable results of growth and strain; they are the preventable results of unmanaged growth.
This also means our current leadership can be turned in the right direction. Connie was in charge during the bad days and the good. If he can see the value in this safery stuff, our people can too. Of course Connie races cars, so he might have a mind for not killing people that never evolves in academia. That still means the issue is in the education and perspective of our leaders rather than their character. K4 is reason to have hope and to fight to stave off the next crater.
#526
This:
Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 18-1086 (2d Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of grievances raised by airlines in a dispute with the collective bargaining representatives of their pilots.
The court held that the district court properly granted the employers' motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration. The court held that the management grievances did not involve a major dispute; rejected the Union's argument that the case raised issues of representation that would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and held that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. The court also held that Atlas's motion to compel arbitration of its management grievance was timely.
Finally, the court rejected the Union's three arguments with respect to the arbitrability of the employers' management grievances. In this case, Southern was entitled to file a management grievance with the Southern Board regarding the interpretation of Section 1.B.3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); the district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to decide whether the merger provisions of the Atlas CBA were prompted by the announced operational merger of Atlas and Southern; and nothing in the process of interpreting the provisions of the two collective bargaining agreements purports to bind Atlas or Southern pilots to the terms of another existing CBA.
Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 18-1086 (2d Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of grievances raised by airlines in a dispute with the collective bargaining representatives of their pilots.
The court held that the district court properly granted the employers' motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration. The court held that the management grievances did not involve a major dispute; rejected the Union's argument that the case raised issues of representation that would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and held that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. The court also held that Atlas's motion to compel arbitration of its management grievance was timely.
Finally, the court rejected the Union's three arguments with respect to the arbitrability of the employers' management grievances. In this case, Southern was entitled to file a management grievance with the Southern Board regarding the interpretation of Section 1.B.3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); the district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to decide whether the merger provisions of the Atlas CBA were prompted by the announced operational merger of Atlas and Southern; and nothing in the process of interpreting the provisions of the two collective bargaining agreements purports to bind Atlas or Southern pilots to the terms of another existing CBA.
#527
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Position: Wichita
Posts: 736
This:
Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 18-1086 (2d Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of grievances raised by airlines in a dispute with the collective bargaining representatives of their pilots.
The court held that the district court properly granted the employers' motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration. The court held that the management grievances did not involve a major dispute; rejected the Union's argument that the case raised issues of representation that would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and held that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. The court also held that Atlas's motion to compel arbitration of its management grievance was timely.
Finally, the court rejected the Union's three arguments with respect to the arbitrability of the employers' management grievances. In this case, Southern was entitled to file a management grievance with the Southern Board regarding the interpretation of Section 1.B.3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); the district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to decide whether the merger provisions of the Atlas CBA were prompted by the announced operational merger of Atlas and Southern; and nothing in the process of interpreting the provisions of the two collective bargaining agreements purports to bind Atlas or Southern pilots to the terms of another existing CBA.
Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 18-1086 (2d Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of grievances raised by airlines in a dispute with the collective bargaining representatives of their pilots.
The court held that the district court properly granted the employers' motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration. The court held that the management grievances did not involve a major dispute; rejected the Union's argument that the case raised issues of representation that would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and held that the district court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. The court also held that Atlas's motion to compel arbitration of its management grievance was timely.
Finally, the court rejected the Union's three arguments with respect to the arbitrability of the employers' management grievances. In this case, Southern was entitled to file a management grievance with the Southern Board regarding the interpretation of Section 1.B.3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA); the district court correctly determined that it lacked authority to decide whether the merger provisions of the Atlas CBA were prompted by the announced operational merger of Atlas and Southern; and nothing in the process of interpreting the provisions of the two collective bargaining agreements purports to bind Atlas or Southern pilots to the terms of another existing CBA.
#529
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 501
I think that that is very unlikely. The problem is that the union is, for reasons that I completely understand, choosing to ignore the plain meaning of the terms of the contracts. It's a strategic maneuver that they want to play out legally over as long a period of time as they can get away with. That's why the company had to sue to force them to integrate the seniority lists, because the union is refusing to do what it is required to do under the contracts and as ordered by the System Boards of Adjustment. Again, I totally understand the strategy and understand the reason that the union doesn't want to honor the contracts, but it is probably a losing battle. I seriously doubt that the Second Circuit will rehear that ruling en banc, and I think it even less likely that the Supreme Court would take it up. But the union has every right to make the applications for those courts to discretionarily take up the appeal if it wants to try, to show that it exhausted all possibilities.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post