FDXLAG

So the arbitrator didnt gut 4A2b as far as the pilots were concerned?

What was the point of 4A2b? To prevent a furlough. Was FDX ever in a position to furlough when they implemented 4A2b?

We are back to quotes again. Here is what you quoted:

I mean the best hope these guys have is either an arbitrator will gut the current agreement to make almost everyone eligible for the housing allowance or some court will.

I stand by it, especially since I thought very hard before adding the "almost". If the arbitrator side with the HKG four almost everyone will be eligible for the allowance. If the courts say fdx discriminates against married couples the agreement will be gutted.

I am not a lawyer either but I did say ALPA was screwing pilots because they werent specifically defining what it took to to qualify for the HKG relocation allowance when they announced the 2nd LOA. Sometimes it doesnt take a lawyer.

TonyC

In order to bring the conversation back around to the original topic, I've quoted Post #3 (the "expanded" version of Post #1). To summarize, The Company has claimed there is no gray area when it comes to the housing allowance, and yet a pilot who is legally married in seven states, registered to his same-sex partner, and who had been receiving "spouse like" benefits for his partner from FedEx had those benefits terminated and move benefits denied when he came to Hong Kong. So, while pilots are terminated because The Company is not satisfied with the day-to-day whereabouts of the spouse, this pilot is not even allowed to have his spouse with him unless he pays for it himself.



Our CBA has a "test" or "standard" for relocation in Section 6, Relocation Expenses.

§6.G.4.:

The Company may request documentation to establish that a

pilot has completed a relocation, as provided in Section 6.G.2.

The documentation may include, but is not limited to,

• settlement statements relating to the purchase and/or sale of residences,
• verification of the movement of household goods and automobile(s) to the new location,
• verification of the permanent relocation of a pilot’s spouse and/or dependent children under the age of 18 years,
• if applicable, establishment of a pilot’s residence at the new location for purposes of applicable property or state income taxes,
• driver’s license,
• automobile registration and
• voter’s registration.

A pilot shall

submit documentation requested by the Company in accordance

with this paragraph.

(I took the liberty of reformatting the paragraph to produce the bullet point list -- none of the words have been changed.)

This paragraph was part of our original CBA, and it is referenced in the FDA LOA when defining requirements to receive the housing allowance. Paragraph C.2.d.iii. states, "Standards for determining whether a pilot has relocated his permanent residence under this paragraph shall be the same as for full relocations under Section 6 of the Basic Agreement." To my knowledge, the standard has never failed to work for any other relocation any pilot has completed up until now. Except for the exact list of items, there is no reason why the same concept should not apply now.

When I register or renew the registration for my car (license plates) in Shelby County, I have to prove where I live. Some municipalities have higher taxes. Since the cheapest rate is in Shelby County unincorporated, everyone would like to live there. The Shelby County Clerk requires that I produce 2 items out of a list of probably a dozen to prove where I live and that I'm entitled to register my car at that address. The CBA standard uses the same concept. Not all of the items will apply to everyone, so the person registering the car, or the pilot completing relocation, will produce some of the items on the list. This concept has served us well, and with an updated list of items applicable to the FDA, could serve us well in the future.

For example, most pilots in Hong Kong are not going to purchase a home, and they're not going to register a vehicle, and they're not going to register to vote. They will, however, have a lease agreement, a work visa, and a Hong Kong ID card. Since some of them do have automobiles or motorcycles, registration and license should be an acceptable document to prove relocation, but not required. Similarly, not every pilot will have a cable bill, but if they do, that should be accepted as evidence that the relocation has occurred. Utility bills are good enough for Shelby County -- they should work for FDA relocation, too.

Until we, FDX ALPA (MEC, Negotiating Committee all the way down to us line dawgs) can agree with FDX Management what this Relocation Standard is and means, the problems will not be solved. We can invent a new means of qualifying for the Housing Allowance by evaluating the physical presence of the pilot and dependents in the FDA, and we can count days and establish a minimum number of days, but not only does that violate the privacy of the pilot, it doesn't FIX the underlying problem.

While it may seem inviting, it's the wrong road to go down. FDX Management has intimated that 9 days is not enough, so what if we agree to 10 days? Seems easy enough until they decide in negotiations that 10 should be 120, and we have to spend negotiating capital and time at the negotiating table debating the number. Regardless of the number, accounting for the number requires intrusion into the pilot's personal life which we should never condone. 1 day of The Company prying into my personal time is 1 day too much.

We need to agree on a list of items (lease, utility bill, household goods moved, etc.) which works for an FDA (it may be a different list for each FDA) and hold The Company to the standard both parties agreed to in RLA Section 6 negotiations. As it stands now, nobody knows what "Standard", if any, FDX Management is using.





------------------------
If somebody wants to start a "History of the FDA LOA" thread, I'll be glad to participate. In summary, I supported FDA LOA 1.0, I opposed the modification of it (V 1.1) while the vote was in progress, and while I supported the improvements in V 2.0, I opposed the 2011 CBA into which it was wrapped.) I'll need more information to determine if I was on "opposite sides" from FDXLAG "of the imaginary training list for passover pay." Let's keep the focus of this thread on the thread's title.



.

golfandfly

Tony,

I could rent a place (lease), get cable (bill), etc., but that doesn't mean it isn't a crash pad. Where you lived was never that important before the housing allowance was added to the equation.

Like it or not, they want you (and your family if you have one) to actually live there. That's why they pay extra. That want warm bodies at their beckoning call when they need them.

For those that blame the union, why? They can negotiate with the company, but they can't force them into dropping the "charges". Someone said that they have spent about a million in these guys defense. I have no idea if this is true, but I'd say they are doing what they can. I wouldn't want to risk my job on arbitration, but I wouldn't want to pay back the money and admit guilt if I thought I didn't do anything wrong. Tough choices. I think those that think they can win a discrimination suit are really reaching. I hope they win, but I don't think it will fly.

TonyC

They can want anything -- doesn't mean they get it. Unless it's negotiated and ratified in CBA or LOA language, it doesn't matter. They want me to work to FAR limits, and do it for free. Ain't happnin'.

A single pilot inquired of the System Chief Pilot about how many days he could be out of the FDA in his "off" time. He was told he could do anything he wants in his "off" time. That is the correct answer.

If a single pilot works 180 days, and travels the world the other 185 days, never stopping at his FDA residence any longer than to take a shower, drop off or pick up laundry, and pick up his mail, he's fine. For some reason, if a married pilot's spouse spends the same amount of time away from the FDA residence, it's a problem.


Let me reemphasize. They can want anything. They can only require that which is agreed to in CBA or LOA language.






.

Alaskan

This. Not only can the company not require the pilot to stay in HK on non-duty days without paying for it, but the company's assertion that it can require the spouse to be there at all in order for the pilot to qualify for an employment benefit (the seed money and HA) is very likely against the law in 20 US states. Both the compay and ALPA should have known this before the so-called "amnesty deal" was proffered and as the HKG witch hunt started. The company is, I believe, about to fnd out for itself that it cannot interpret CBA or LOA language in a manner that violates state laws.

The current LOA should be thrown out and a new one negotiated. If the company wants to pay its FDA pilots extra salary in return for not letting them drop trips or making them hang around on non-duty days, it can negotiate to see how much this extra duty is worth. Likewise if it wants to force draft. If the company wants to pay for any pilot's housing in the FDA, it will have to use the same criteria (rent and utility receipts etc.) regardless of the pilot's marital status, and it's none of the company's friggin' business if several pilots choose to pool their money and get a bigger place with more amenities instead of 600 sq ft of concrete.

If the company pays for any spousal trips to the FDA, it should pay for all spouses, including those whose marriages may not be recognized federally but are valid in several states. If the company wants to make it more attractive for married pilots to move to FDAs, it can do what 99% of international companies do, and provide a bigger allowance, and larger household goods shipment, for larger households. If a married pilot scams the company by claiming this larger allowance when the spouse and/or family has not in fact relocated, that might be a firing offense. Big difference between this and not paying any allowance at all to married pilots whose non-employee spouses have other plans for their own lives.

Note that for domestic moves, the rules are permissive. Non-employee spouses are not required to relocate to the pilot's domicile in order for the pilot to get her or his move paid. You just can't wait longer than 18 months to get a place in the new domicile and move your HHG if you want the compay to pay for it. 21st century newsflash: plenty of dual profession married couples live apart throughout the Western world, especially childless or empty-nest couples. And plenty of unmarried couples shack up for significant periods. Not any corporation's business and not something any corporation should base employee compensation on. Especially one that made a big deal of its new policy regarding same-sex partner benefits a few years ago, and that has broadly advertized its policy of not discriminating based on marital status.

Alaskan

I'm afraid you are wrong. Contracts between parties in the USA are subject to local, state and federal laws. Contract terms that violate these laws are invalid. The LOA explicitly acknowledges that the laws of the US apply to it. Courts have and will continue to throw out portions of RLA agreements that violate local, state, and federal laws. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out portions of FedEx's contract with SFO employees back in 2001 (under the RLA) because by failing to provide benefits to same-sex partners of employees, the company was violating a City of SF law. The Supreme Court ruled that the RLA could not be used by companies to shield themselves from minimum labor standards set by states way back in the 1940s -- labor standards that include anti-discriminatory provisions.

If the issue is how to interpret otherwise legal language in the RLA, then you are correct: arbitration is the venue.

golfandfly

I guess they "want" you to maintain a primary residence 100 miles from the FDA. I'll paraphrase the CBA for you.

We can all argue what constitutes a primary residency (also called a permanent residence) in Section 6. These four believe they have a primary residency in HKG and have complied with the contract. Unless they take a deal, I guess they will allow an arbitrator to make a decision based on the information.

The part about "wanting" you to live in domicile is simply a desire of the company. Obviously, the housing allowance was created to entice people to move to HKG. While they may "want" pilots to live there, it isn't required if you don't take the money.

golfandfly

I believe this is exactly what the company is claiming now.

The Walrus

What other employees at Fedex work under a contract?

TonyC

FedEx Ground / Home Delivery Drivers

Stand Your Ground - FedEx Ground Home Delivery Drivers Nationwide Class Action lawsuit






.