Delta Pilots Association
05-24-2011, 02:47 PM
#5551
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Who is the defendant in this DFR suit, the APA (the pilots of American Airlines' collective bargaining agent) or the ALPA (the pilots of Trans World Airlines' collective bargaining agent)?
The DFR suit identifies the defendant in the judgement as:
It then goes on to say, in line 2:
Is the APA now representing the interests of the ALPA in this matter, or are their interests somehow intermingled (the "ET AL." in the defendant identification representing, among others, the ALPA)?
Thank you for the clarification.
The DFR suit identifies the defendant in the judgement as:
It then goes on to say, in line 2:
Is the APA now representing the interests of the ALPA in this matter, or are their interests somehow intermingled (the "ET AL." in the defendant identification representing, among others, the ALPA)?
Thank you for the clarification.
Carl
06-01-2011, 07:25 AM
#5552
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Calling PCL_128...Calling PCL_128...Come in please.
You called me every name in the book when I challenged you about your statement that we cannot strike over scope. You posted the 1974 court case that set the precedent. Now, Check Essential posted the parts of the case you left out, and follows it with a Supreme Court opinion that contradicts you. Please read the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Carl-
I have to admit that I haven't been closely following the discussion over in the DPA thread. This exchange you've been having regarding the status of scope as a subject of mandatory bargaining has caught my eye however.
I'm pretty sure that you were correct in your initial interpretaion and PCL 128 is mistaken when he states that we can never strike over a scope issue. I believe his reading of the court's opinion is in error. He's overlooking a crucial distinction between that JAL Machinist's case and our current situation.
We already have a scope clause. It is part of an existing set of "rules and working conditions". The IAM contract with JAL had none. The IAM was trying to get their very first scope language. This wasn't about the machinists who were working under the agreement. They were trying to bring new people and new work sites under their jurisdiction. It wasn't really outsourcing because that work had never been "insourced". That's a huge difference. Look at these parapraghs from the court's ruling:
The primary impact of the scope proposal does not lie in these mandatory areas of bargaining. If adopted, its principal beneficiaries would be those persons hired to fill the newly created jobs. Nothing in the RLA obliges JAL to discuss with the Union issues of immediate concern only to individuals not yet included within the bargaining unit. See Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 179-80, 30 L. Ed. 2d 341, 92 S. Ct. 383 (1971); NLRB v. Local 445, supra.
The RLA was enacted in 1926 against a background of nearly forty years of frustration with unsuccessful legislative efforts to stabilize labor relations in the railroad industry. In unique fashion, it was drafted by representatives of the carriers and their employees and then enacted by the Congress. See International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 758, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141, 81 S. Ct. 1784 (1961). Testifying on behalf of the bill which they had written at hearings which preceded its passage, spokesmen for both labor and management emphasized that "the only kind of a dispute wherein there is any danger of . . . a strike is a dispute where there is a change sought in the existing rules and working conditions."
The court goes on to talk about the fact that the IAM's current employees are already protected by a no furlough clause and their job security is not dependent on JAL's discontinuance of "subcontracting". The IAM's attempt to open up this new area of bargaining and extend their contract far beyond its current "scope" was not something that they could strike about --- but that is definitely NOT the case if you are talking about the Delta Pilot Working Agreement.
We have a long established scope clause. It is an integral and vital part of our "rules and working conditions". We have been bargaining on that issue for years. Our job security is quite clearly dependent on the strength of our scope language. That is not a subject that management can now suddenly refuse to discuss. Our situation is very different from the JAL machinists.
PCL 128 didn't post the whole opinion. He left out some crucial passages. Specifically the last 4 or 5 paragraphs. Those sections of the opinion make it clear that the court is only saying that management can refuse to bargain over scope only when the union is seeking to substantially expand the reach of its contract and the job security of the existing workers is not really at issue. They are clearly not issuing a flat ruling that scope issues can never be the subject of a dispute that leads to a release to self-help. Its only if the particular scope issue is "peripheral" that you can't strike over it. That's not the case with major airline pilots these days.
Anyway, I've babbled enough. Bottom line is -- that case doesn't apply to us. I think both DALPA and the company have a duty to bargain over scope and either party could legitimately insist on their position all the way through to self-help under the RLA.
Here's a link to the full text if you're interested:
FindACase™ | Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous. Its even more loony than saying that Republic Air is not an air carrier.
Here's the Supreme Court on the issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/203/case.html
So where have we all gone wrong here PCL_128? Check Essential's case law clearly shows that we DO have the right to strike over Scope language.
Do we, or don't we?
Carl
You called me every name in the book when I challenged you about your statement that we cannot strike over scope. You posted the 1974 court case that set the precedent. Now, Check Essential posted the parts of the case you left out, and follows it with a Supreme Court opinion that contradicts you. Please read the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Carl-
I have to admit that I haven't been closely following the discussion over in the DPA thread. This exchange you've been having regarding the status of scope as a subject of mandatory bargaining has caught my eye however.
I'm pretty sure that you were correct in your initial interpretaion and PCL 128 is mistaken when he states that we can never strike over a scope issue. I believe his reading of the court's opinion is in error. He's overlooking a crucial distinction between that JAL Machinist's case and our current situation.
We already have a scope clause. It is part of an existing set of "rules and working conditions". The IAM contract with JAL had none. The IAM was trying to get their very first scope language. This wasn't about the machinists who were working under the agreement. They were trying to bring new people and new work sites under their jurisdiction. It wasn't really outsourcing because that work had never been "insourced". That's a huge difference. Look at these parapraghs from the court's ruling:
The primary impact of the scope proposal does not lie in these mandatory areas of bargaining. If adopted, its principal beneficiaries would be those persons hired to fill the newly created jobs. Nothing in the RLA obliges JAL to discuss with the Union issues of immediate concern only to individuals not yet included within the bargaining unit. See Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 179-80, 30 L. Ed. 2d 341, 92 S. Ct. 383 (1971); NLRB v. Local 445, supra.
The RLA was enacted in 1926 against a background of nearly forty years of frustration with unsuccessful legislative efforts to stabilize labor relations in the railroad industry. In unique fashion, it was drafted by representatives of the carriers and their employees and then enacted by the Congress. See International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 758, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1141, 81 S. Ct. 1784 (1961). Testifying on behalf of the bill which they had written at hearings which preceded its passage, spokesmen for both labor and management emphasized that "the only kind of a dispute wherein there is any danger of . . . a strike is a dispute where there is a change sought in the existing rules and working conditions."
The court goes on to talk about the fact that the IAM's current employees are already protected by a no furlough clause and their job security is not dependent on JAL's discontinuance of "subcontracting". The IAM's attempt to open up this new area of bargaining and extend their contract far beyond its current "scope" was not something that they could strike about --- but that is definitely NOT the case if you are talking about the Delta Pilot Working Agreement.
We have a long established scope clause. It is an integral and vital part of our "rules and working conditions". We have been bargaining on that issue for years. Our job security is quite clearly dependent on the strength of our scope language. That is not a subject that management can now suddenly refuse to discuss. Our situation is very different from the JAL machinists.
PCL 128 didn't post the whole opinion. He left out some crucial passages. Specifically the last 4 or 5 paragraphs. Those sections of the opinion make it clear that the court is only saying that management can refuse to bargain over scope only when the union is seeking to substantially expand the reach of its contract and the job security of the existing workers is not really at issue. They are clearly not issuing a flat ruling that scope issues can never be the subject of a dispute that leads to a release to self-help. Its only if the particular scope issue is "peripheral" that you can't strike over it. That's not the case with major airline pilots these days.
Anyway, I've babbled enough. Bottom line is -- that case doesn't apply to us. I think both DALPA and the company have a duty to bargain over scope and either party could legitimately insist on their position all the way through to self-help under the RLA.
Here's a link to the full text if you're interested:
FindACase™ | Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.
The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous. Its even more loony than saying that Republic Air is not an air carrier.
Here's the Supreme Court on the issue:
The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/203/case.html
So where have we all gone wrong here PCL_128? Check Essential's case law clearly shows that we DO have the right to strike over Scope language.
Do we, or don't we?
Carl
06-01-2011, 09:00 AM
#5553
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 379 U. S. 203 :: Volume 379 :: 1964 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
So where have we all gone wrong here PCL_128? Check Essential's case law clearly shows that we DO have the right to strike over Scope language.
Do we, or don't we?
Carl
So where have we all gone wrong here PCL_128? Check Essential's case law clearly shows that we DO have the right to strike over Scope language.
Do we, or don't we?
Carl
I may be wrong, but we negotiate under the Railway Labor Act which is overseen by the National Mediation Board.
Fibreboard negotiates under the National Labor Relations Act which is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.
Two different Acts, two different Boards.
06-01-2011, 09:37 AM
#5554
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Carl, Check Essentials refers to Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
I may be wrong, but we negotiate under the Railway Labor Act which is overseen by the National Mediation Board.
Fibreboard negotiates under the National Labor Relations Act which is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.
Two different Acts, two different Boards.
I may be wrong, but we negotiate under the Railway Labor Act which is overseen by the National Mediation Board.
Fibreboard negotiates under the National Labor Relations Act which is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.
Two different Acts, two different Boards.
06-01-2011, 10:20 AM
#5555
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
A gross oversimplification, but ...
In effect the RLA is in some ways similar to our agreement to arbitrate our seniority list. It mostly does not change the law and practice as much a it changes the process of getting to a conclusion. The rules regarding Alter Ego remain largely intact. The NLRA is a more general piece of legislation geared to general and local labor situations. The NLRA covers the vast majority of American workers because only a small percentage of them work in national transportation systems. Under the NLRA, employees can unionize in small localized groups, and government led mediation is not a required step in the negotiation process.
The RLA is a dispute resolution process designed to avoid work stoppages in the critical transportation industry. Rail lines lent themselves to local monopolies since the rail line itself was a very finite resource. During a time of war, a work stoppage on a rail line could be a security threat.
Obviously the same is not true of airlines. The RLA is outdated. With our current administration the power of the RLA could be diminished.
In effect the RLA is in some ways similar to our agreement to arbitrate our seniority list. It mostly does not change the law and practice as much a it changes the process of getting to a conclusion. The rules regarding Alter Ego remain largely intact. The NLRA is a more general piece of legislation geared to general and local labor situations. The NLRA covers the vast majority of American workers because only a small percentage of them work in national transportation systems. Under the NLRA, employees can unionize in small localized groups, and government led mediation is not a required step in the negotiation process.
The RLA is a dispute resolution process designed to avoid work stoppages in the critical transportation industry. Rail lines lent themselves to local monopolies since the rail line itself was a very finite resource. During a time of war, a work stoppage on a rail line could be a security threat.
Obviously the same is not true of airlines. The RLA is outdated. With our current administration the power of the RLA could be diminished.
06-01-2011, 12:17 PM
#5556
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
A gross oversimplification, but ...
In effect the RLA is in some ways similar to our agreement to arbitrate our seniority list. It mostly does not change the law and practice as much a it changes the process of getting to a conclusion. The rules regarding Alter Ego remain largely intact. The NLRA is a more general piece of legislation geared to general and local labor situations. The NLRA covers the vast majority of American workers because only a small percentage of them work in national transportation systems. Under the NLRA, employees can unionize in small localized groups, and government led mediation is not a required step in the negotiation process.
The RLA is a dispute resolution process designed to avoid work stoppages in the critical transportation industry. Rail lines lent themselves to local monopolies since the rail line itself was a very finite resource. During a time of war, a work stoppage on a rail line could be a security threat.
Obviously the same is not true of airlines. The RLA is outdated. With our current administration the power of the RLA could be diminished.
In effect the RLA is in some ways similar to our agreement to arbitrate our seniority list. It mostly does not change the law and practice as much a it changes the process of getting to a conclusion. The rules regarding Alter Ego remain largely intact. The NLRA is a more general piece of legislation geared to general and local labor situations. The NLRA covers the vast majority of American workers because only a small percentage of them work in national transportation systems. Under the NLRA, employees can unionize in small localized groups, and government led mediation is not a required step in the negotiation process.
The RLA is a dispute resolution process designed to avoid work stoppages in the critical transportation industry. Rail lines lent themselves to local monopolies since the rail line itself was a very finite resource. During a time of war, a work stoppage on a rail line could be a security threat.
Obviously the same is not true of airlines. The RLA is outdated. With our current administration the power of the RLA could be diminished.
Ergo, work within the framework to find an agreeable solution.
06-01-2011, 03:39 PM
#5557
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
If I was at US Air, I'd be yelling to wildcat their posterior and dare O'Bama to do anything about it.
(as much as I'd like to see things change at Delta, we've got it really good compared to some of our competitors in the Southeast. A fact I'm thankful for every day.)
(as much as I'd like to see things change at Delta, we've got it really good compared to some of our competitors in the Southeast. A fact I'm thankful for every day.)
06-01-2011, 04:15 PM
#5560
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Nice, non-answer Carl. I posted a thread about USAPA and it got moved to the Union forum within hours. I agree, this is talk of nothing more than an alternate union.
Moderators, how about moving this to the appropriate forum?
Moderators, how about moving this to the appropriate forum?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
