golfandfly

I surely hope that I never hire you as my legal representation. You are turning this contract dispute into "truth, justice, and the American way." It should be simply a matter of truth. Did these individuals misinterpret the LOA agreement? Did unforeseen events occur which affected them?

Our contract isn't Sharia law. We (Fedex pilots) approved this LOA. Some of us, like myself, voted against it. But majority rules. Our union (us) negotiated this agreement. We approved it. None of our pilots have been involuntarily assigned to the FDA. None of the pilots that bid the FDA have been coerced into accepting the housing allowance. This is a two party contract, which we negotiated and approved. Doesn't sound like Sharia law.

No spouse has ever been forced into moving to the FDA. The FDA provides an option for pilots. If you find it acceptable, bid it. If you bid it and accept the additional money, abide by it. These pilots may very well have very plausible reasons for their actions. They will have a chance to tell their side of the story at their hearing. As another poster said, the company is not vindictive. I believe that. They want people to live in Hong Kong, no doubt about it. They knew that offering a little money would entice pilots to move there. What they found was that some people accepted the money and didn't move there. They offered amnesty to them. Some accepted, paid the money back, others thought that they were in the right and wanted a hearing.

Foamflier,

It's not out of sight and out of mind. I wish the pilots would, for once, say the deal is bad. Don't bid it and see what happens. I think they should get an allowance if they bid the domicile. Period, no strings attached. However, we get what we negotiate and that is what we negotiated. I hope these guys tell their side of the story and move on without punishment. But to say that they aren't being treated as Americans is hogwash. We negotiated the deal, now we have to live with until we can make it better.

The company went to great lengths to investigate. You know they have a copy of every jumpseat they took, any ticket bought with company money (deviation bank). I don't think they ever said that someone couldn't take vacation. But when you are leaving after every trip and coming back only when you have to work next, I think they consider that a crashpad and not a primary residence.

Huck

You're dwelling on contract law.

There's other areas of the law.

Pertinent to this issue: constitutional law, employment law, EEOC regs, labor law, tort, etc....

golfandfly

Huck,

If I were headed for the hearing, I would highly suggest sticking to the contract. This LOA isn't a company mandated agreement, it was negotiated, endorsed, and approved by ALPA.

It was bid voluntarily by our pilots, the housing allowance agreement was voluntarily signed by our pilots.

A disciplinary hearing isn't a court of law. If you are taking this to a court of law, maybe your pertinent issues are at play. I don't think PC is going to believe the US Constitution is at issue here. I believe it will be more of: "Did they adhere to the agreement or not? Were there any special issues that came into play? Do they believe that they were taking the money fraudulently? Did they misunderstand the intent? Etc." I don't think your rights as an American are really going to be the center point of any successful argument in this hearing.

Anyway, enough of this. Hope it works out for them...

FDXLAG

Again where in the housing allowance agreement does it say where you have to spend your time on your days off?

Is it unreasonable for a pilot to assume that as long as he makes it to work on time he can spend as much time off as he wants away from home?

4A2B

not unreasonable at all, as long the pilots is not spending most if not all of that free time at his "real home" that is not the FDA primary home he is getting money for.

gderek

From a legal standpoint, just because it was negotiated, endorsed and approved by ALPA doesn't make it okay to discriminate if that's what's going on.

Just because Congress passes a law that doesn't make it Constitutional, that's what the courts are for.

I'd say these guys need to use every angle they have assuming what they were doing was ethical and above board. This is indeed a slippery slope.

Gnaw

Is there anything that says how far or how often you can travel without being in violation of the agreement? If not, I'd say a reasonable person would side with the pilot from the above example. The agreement was between the company and its pilots, but nebulous agreements can cut both ways. I'd assume the company didn't want to get too specific (i.e. "you must be physically in the HKG city limits for 90% of each year") for fear of scaring away applicants.

Iwa Washi

Actually, it is possible that some might be taking their specific cases to a court of law with their own lawyers.

FDXLAG

So lets assume he spends 140 days away from his fda home for work, that leaves 220 days to split between his "real home" and his FDA home. 111 in HKG and 109 in Vegas good enough for you? How about a commuting day does that count as real home or fda home to you?

We screwed this pooch; we should fix it. But instead it sounds like we are delivery boy for the company's last and final threat.

golfandfly

Then a more thorough defense may be appropriate. I'd say bringing up the constitution during your disciplinary hearing will get you nowhere. But, if that is the course they choose to take, I hope it works for them.