Captain Herbert E. Gullaksen

Continental Airlines {Striker} Retired

To the Pilots of United Airlines,

As l've watched your merger transpire over the last few years under the Continental Airlines management, I can't help but draw some parallels to a time not so long ago. I began my career as a Continental Airlines Pilot in 1967 and ended up on strike for 2 1/2 years during the Lortenzo years of deregulation and "Alter Ego Airlines." The issues you have faced and continue to face are eerily similar to what we were dealing with during, and after the strlke of 1983-1985. The current Continental management team has been very successful in the dividing and conquering techniques which they mastered during the striking years.

As the strike was coming to an end and the back to work agreement was being negotiated, management quickly threw together the largest vacancy bid in the history of the company: Bid 8S5. This vacancy bid included Captain, First Officers, and some Flight Engineer positions for 441 pilots. During lhis period there were 1,600 scabs working (these were a combination of cross-overs and replacement pilots) and 1,000 striking pilots. This vacancy bid totaled aver 27% of the entire working pilot group at the time. There were various options negotiated for us to choose from when we came back to work, and none of them included returning with our rightful seniority or longevity; and none of them included an opportunity to fairly bid on these 441 positions. I was forced back to the DC-10 as a Second Officer; eventually made it to the 737 First Officer position, and finally to 737 Captain.

The collusion of the cross-over and replacement pilots with management continued until the end of my career with these pilots continuing to get rewarded for their cooperation. When management established a new defined benefit retirement plan in 86187, all the cross-over and replacement pilots were given a start date for retirement purposes of Jan 1o, 1984. All the returning Striking Pilots were given a date of which they returned to work, which ultimately cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are just a few examples of the way in which management operated during my career to divide and conquer the pilot groups; and from what I can see, it appears not much has changed.

The most recent CAL vacancy Bid 14-02 is not only very similar to Bid 85-5, in that it is nothing more than a seat-grab at the expense of another group of pilots, but it's also a very obvious attempt at interfering with the Seniority List integration process. This is a very tried-and-true technique which this airline management has been very successful at for many years: reward those who cooperate and punish those who don't. What's unsettling for me is that it appears ALPA has colluded with management to make this happen. One thing you have that we didn't during Bid 85-5, is a contract. Why ALPA is standing with management and not the pilots on this issue is not dear; but the fact that you all need to support this Grievancel4-02 lawsuit and injunction is very clear.

We stood up for what was right in '83 when Lorenzo wanted half our pay and used the bankruptcy process to get it; and we stood up against vacancy Bid 85-5 when we sued ALPA and went all the way to the Supreme Court for them agreeing to the seat-grab by the crossover and replacement pilots at the expense of the Striking Pilots. lt was right for us to stand up then, and it is right for a! United Pilots to stand up now for your contract against the same "divide and conquer' and "reward and punish" management team who have been successfully mentored by Frank Lorenzo

Fratemally,

Ciaptain Herbert E. Gullaksen

/

The suggestion that the "discrimination" between striking and working pilots represented a breach of the duty of fair representation also fails. If we are correct in our conclusion that it was rational for ALPA to accept a compromise between the claims of the two groups of pilots to the 85-5 bid positions, some form of allocation was inevitable. A rational compromise on the initial allocation of the positions was not invidious "discrimination" of the kind prohibited by the duty of fair representation. Unlike the grant of "super seniority" to the cross-over and replacement workers in NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221 (1963), this agreement preserved the seniority of the striking pilots after their initial reinstatement. In Erie, the grant of extra seniority enabled the replacement workers to keep their jobs while more senior strikers lost theirs during a layoff subsequent to the strike. See id. at 373 U. S. 223-224. The agreement here only provided the order and mechanism for the reintegration of the returning strikers but did not permanently alter the seniority system. This case therefore more closely resembles our decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Flight Attendants, 489 U. S. 426 (1989), in which we held that an airline's refusal, after a strike, to displace cross-over workers with more senior strikers was.not unlawful discrimination.

Page 499 U. S. 82

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

13-C. Termination by Notice. An Airline Party or ALPA may terminate this Transition and Process Agreement on fifteen (15) days notice delivered to the other Parties at any time following termination of the Merger Agreement under Section 8.1 of that Agreement.

13-D. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Transition and Process Agreement will not affect a Party's obligations under Sections 3, 7-B-(iv), 8, 11, 12, and applicable definitions in Section 1, nor will it affect any outstanding payment obligations under Section 15. A Pilot who has been employed pursuant to Section 7-B will continue, at his option, to be employed by the employing Airline in accordance with that Airline's collective bargaining agreement; however, two (2) months after termination of this Transition and Process Agreement his pay rate going forward will be adjusted to reflect only his accrued service credit at the employing Airline.