28 m-80s 14 767s
- Thread starter jj
- Start date
- Status
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 2:09:06 PM G4G5 wrote:
Pan Am/Delta is the most recent case that the arbitrator will have compare the TWA/AA too. Very similar.
Save your money.......
----------------
[/blockquote]
This is not an arbitrator this is a judge issuing a decision on a lawsuit and penalties. Very different.
----------------
On 10/19/2002 2:09:06 PM G4G5 wrote:
Pan Am/Delta is the most recent case that the arbitrator will have compare the TWA/AA too. Very similar.
Save your money.......
----------------
[/blockquote]
This is not an arbitrator this is a judge issuing a decision on a lawsuit and penalties. Very different.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 2:30:04 PM Striker wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 2:01:30 PM MiAAmi wrote:
So if the judge rules against you, you will finally be satisfied?[/P]
----------------[/P]
Satisfied, no. What AA's unions have done to TWA's employees is flat out wrong. I'll never change my opinon on that. However, before you get all excited, I want to expand on my response a bit.[/P]
All I've ever wanted to see is a neutral third party to decide this matter. There's a major conflict of interest when one side of the equation unilaterally determines what it considers to be fair and equitable. What really needs to occur is a neutral arbitrator to handle these matters. Absent that, the court system is another venue.[/P]
If a neutral judge determines that what TWA received is, indeed, fair and equitable then I will accept that decision. It does not mean I'll be satisfied, but [STRONG]I will accept it[/STRONG].[/P]
If this judge rules in favor of the TWA employees, will you be so gracious?[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]
1st of all this is a lawsuit between the twa f/a's and APFA. Not all the TWA'ers are included in this lawsuit. And to answer your question, yes I will have to accept it. But I can not speak on behalf of the other 22,000 f/a's here.
----------------
On 10/19/2002 2:30:04 PM Striker wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 2:01:30 PM MiAAmi wrote:
So if the judge rules against you, you will finally be satisfied?[/P]
----------------[/P]
Satisfied, no. What AA's unions have done to TWA's employees is flat out wrong. I'll never change my opinon on that. However, before you get all excited, I want to expand on my response a bit.[/P]
All I've ever wanted to see is a neutral third party to decide this matter. There's a major conflict of interest when one side of the equation unilaterally determines what it considers to be fair and equitable. What really needs to occur is a neutral arbitrator to handle these matters. Absent that, the court system is another venue.[/P]
If a neutral judge determines that what TWA received is, indeed, fair and equitable then I will accept that decision. It does not mean I'll be satisfied, but [STRONG]I will accept it[/STRONG].[/P]
If this judge rules in favor of the TWA employees, will you be so gracious?[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
[/blockquote]
1st of all this is a lawsuit between the twa f/a's and APFA. Not all the TWA'ers are included in this lawsuit. And to answer your question, yes I will have to accept it. But I can not speak on behalf of the other 22,000 f/a's here.
TWAnr
Veteran
- Aug 19, 2002
- 1,003
- 0
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 11:25:47 AM MiAAmi wrote:
[P]What could APFA have possibly done?[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]It is clearly stated in the DFR law suit:[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: center; mso-pagination: none align=center][B style=mso-bidi-font-weight: normal][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-weight: normal][SPAN style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]COUNT I[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/B][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN][SPAN style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]Comes now Plaintiffs and for their cause of action against Defendant APFA state as follows:[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]17.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]On or about [?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags /][st1:date Year=2001 Day=9 Month=1]January 9, 2001[/st1:date] American Airlines entered into an agreement to purchase all of the assets of TWA, Inc.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]18.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]American Airlines then formed TWA, LLC for the purposes of operating and owning TWA, Inc.’s assets.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]The purchase agreement was finalized on [st1:date Year=2001 Day=10 Month=4]April 10, 2001[/st1:date] and at that time all of TWA, Inc.’s employees including its flight attendants became employees of American, through TWA, LLC.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]19.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]On [st1:date Year=2001 Day=17 Month=12]December 17, 2001[/st1:date], American Airlines and APFA entered into an “Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters between American Airlines, Inc. and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants†(attached as Exhibit A) hereinafter “Agreementâ€).[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]20.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Under the terms of the Agreement [st1lace]St.[/st1lace] Louis based TWA[SPAN class=GramE],LLC[/SPAN] flight attendants would retain their “relative†seniority as to each other while based in [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] for purposes of bidding and transfer rights.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]21.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Under the terms of the Agreement, American Airlines flight attendants who formerly worked for TWA and now work for American through TWA, LLC[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN](Hereafter the St. Louis Flight Attendants)[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]can only transfer/ bid for flights not based in St. Louis if the opening has already been bid by those American Airlines flight attendants who do not now work for American Airlines through TWA, LLC (hereafter the non-St. Louis Flight Attendants) and there are no non-St Louis Flight Attendants on furlough status.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]Section VIII(B) reads in full:[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 1in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]B.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]A flight attendant who is able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority date as set forth in paragraph VI may transfer/proffer to fill a vacancy in and fly trips assigned to an AA base at a location other than at St. Louis in accordance with the provisions for transfer/proffer provided in the CBA, utilizing the flight attendant’s AA occupational seniority as provided under paragraph III of this Agreement, in the event the opening has been offered for bidding by all [Non-St. Louis Flight Attendants] and there are no [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] on furlough status.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice /][o] [/o][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -1.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]1. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]Following transfer by a [St Louis Flight Attendant] from a St. Louis base to an AA base at a location other than at St. Louis in accordance with paragraph VIII.B., the [St. Louis Flight Attendant’s] AA occupational seniority, as provided under paragraph III of this Agreement, shall be applicable for all purposes for which occupational seniority applies under the AA-APFA collective bargaining agreement, except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.2.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o] [/o][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -1.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]2. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]The following terms will apply to a [St. Louis Flight Attendant] who transfers during the existence of TWA-LLC operations to an AA base at a location other than St. Louis and who thereafter during the existence of TWA-LLC operations transfers/proffers to fill a vacancy in and fly trips at a St. Louis base.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o] [/o][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 2in; TEXT-INDENT: -2in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 3] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]a. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]If the first such transfer/proffer back from an AA base to St. Louis has an effective date that is within two years following the effective date of the initial transfer from St. Louis to the AA base, the flight attendant will be able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority date for such transfer/proffer and at the St. Louis base for bidding purposes determined by occupational seniority as long as the flight attendant thereafter remains based at St. Louis, provided that this exception to paragraphs VIII.A. [SPAN class=GramE]and[/SPAN] VIII.B. [SPAN class=GramE]and[/SPAN] B.1. [SPAN class=GramE]shall[/SPAN] not apply during any period of time in which any [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] are on furlough status.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o] [/o][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 2in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]b. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]If the first transfer back to a St. Louis base does not have an effective date that is within two years following the effective date of the initial transfer from St. Louis to the AA base, the flight attendant will not be able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority rights for any purposes, including for transfer/proffer to a St. Louis base or for bidding purposes at a St. Louis base.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o] [/o][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 2in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]c. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]If, by application of paragraph VIII.B.2., the flight attendant is able to again use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority following an initial transfer back to a St. Louis bas, the flight attendant will only be able to continue to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority so long as she/he continues to be based at St. Louis.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o] [/o][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]22.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA became the certified representative of all American Airlines Flight Attendants, including the TWA, LLC flight attendants, on or about May 2002 following its demand, and a national mediation board determination, that TWA, LLC and American be considered a “single carrier†as defined under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]23.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Under its Constitution, the APFA is charged with protecting the individual and collective rights of the [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] members and the members are entitled to due process and equal representation. The governing body of the APFA is its Board of Directors. [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]24.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]On or about [st1:date Year=2002 Day=13 Month=8]August 13, 2002[/st1:date], Defendant American Airlines announced that effective [st1:date Year=2002 Day=1 Month=10]October 1, 2002[/st1:date] flights from [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1:City][st1lace]Honolulu[/st1lace][/st1:City] and [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1lace]Maui[/st1lace] and effective November1, 2002 flights from [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to London Gatwick which are TWA, LLC flights based out of [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] would be worked by Non-St Louis Flight Attendants.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]25.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]At the same time, American Airlines announced that it would have to furlough 950 St. Louis Flight Attendants due to insufficient [st1:City][st1lace]St Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] based flights.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]26.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT] [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Notwithstanding the announced furlough, American Airlines acknowledged that 220 of those St Louis Flight Attendants who would otherwise be furloughed could escape furlough if they were trained and/or transferred to fill positions on [SPAN class=SpellE]the“International[/SPAN]†flights from St Louis to Gatwick, St Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]27.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]In order for those 220 positions to be made available to such St Louis Flight Attendants so that they would not have to be furloughed[SPAN class=GramE],[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]American[/SPAN] Airlines requested that the APFA remove from Section VIII(B) of the Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters the term “and there are no [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] on furlough status†(hereinafter referred to as[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]“the Section VIII(B) clauseâ€).[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]28.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Pursuant to the APFA Constitution, the removal of the aforementioned Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause could be authorized by a majority vote of the board of directors of the APFA.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]29.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The elimination of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause would allow 150 St. Louis Flight Attendants to transfer to [st1:State][st1lace]New York[/st1lace][/st1:State], thereby reducing the number of furloughed St. Louis Flight Attendants by the same number.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]Those 150 flight attendants would be the most senior St. Louis Flight Attendants thereby improving Plaintiff Cooper’s and other St Louis Flight Attendants’ relative seniority.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]30.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Plaintiff Cooper is a member of the Board of Directors of the APFA and has offered a resolution which would authorize the removal of the [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]31.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA, however, has refused to consider the resolution, to vote on the resolution, or to consider the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause in any other resolution, vote,[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]manner or fashion.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]32.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA has not articulated, and has refused to articulate,[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]its reason for its failure to act on the clause to Plaintiffs or any other St. Louis Flight Attendant[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]33.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The non-action by the APFA regarding the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause is arbitrary, discriminates against the St Louis Flight Attendants who are members of the APFA and is in bad faith.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]34.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] failure to remove the transfer restriction discriminates against St. Louis based Flight Attendants in that senior St. Louis based Flight Attendants will be denied the opportunity to transfer to other locations while junior (furloughed) St. Louis based Flight Attendants will be forced to either relocate to bases other than St. Louis or give up all employment rights at American Airlines.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]35.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]No additional American Airlines attendants (whether St Louis or Non-St Louis Flight Attendants) will be furloughed as a result of the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause and no American Airlines flight attendants currently on furlough status (whether St Louis or Non-St Louis Flight Attendants)[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]will be harmed in that American Airlines flight attendants currently on furlough status are junior in seniority to the St. Louis Flight Attendants currently on furlough status and, pursuant to the integration agreement,[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]cannot be recalled until such time as all St. Louis Flight Attendants are recalled.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]36.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Accordingly, removing the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause would benefit the St Louis Flight Attendant members of the APFA, including Plaintiffs, and would not harm or cause any detriment to any other member of the APFA.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]37.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]There is thus no rational basis for the [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] refusal to consider or authorize the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]38.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The failure and refusal of Defendant APFA to remove the [SPAN class=SpellE][SPAN class=GramE]SectionVIII[/SPAN][/SPAN][SPAN class=GramE]([/SPAN]B) clause is a discriminatory practice against current St. Louis Flight Attendants.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]39.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA has failed to take any action to challenge American Airlines decision to use Non-St. Louis flight attendants on the [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1:City][st1lace]Honolulu[/st1lace][/st1:City], [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1lace]Maui[/st1lace] and [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1:City][st1lace]London[/st1lace][/st1:City] (Gatwick) flights despite the fact that the use of Non-St. Louis flight attendants on those flights is a violation of the aforementioned “Agreementâ€. In addition the [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] failure to demand that American Airlines train St. Louis Flight Attendants for the international flights is a breach of its duty to duty to represent the St. Louis Flight Attendants.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]40.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]By reason of Defendant [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer extreme hardship and actual and impending irreparable damage in that Plaintiffs will be unable to bid for or work the “international†flights referenced above.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]41.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law for the above-mentioned conduct of the Defendant APFA for reason that American Airlines has announced that the 220 positions will be filled by Non-St Louis Flight attendants unless an agreement is reached on the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause and American Airlines has begun to fill the international flights with Non-St. Louis based flight attendants.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]42.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Plaintiffs have exhausted all internal remedies available to them under the APFA Constitution.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN][SPAN style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to [SPAN class=SpellE]Fed.R.Civ.P[/SPAN]. 65 ordering Defendant APFA to vote to approve the removal of the “Section VIII(B) clause†from the “Agreementâ€; to take whatever action is necessary to allow St. Louis Flight Attendants to bid for/work the TWA, LLC flights from St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui; issue a permanent injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining Defendant APFA from preventing the TWA, LLC flight attendants from working the flights from St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui; award Plaintiff its costs and attorney’s fees and for any further relief the Court deems appropriate.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 11:25:47 AM MiAAmi wrote:
[P]What could APFA have possibly done?[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]It is clearly stated in the DFR law suit:[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: center; mso-pagination: none align=center][B style=mso-bidi-font-weight: normal][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-weight: normal][SPAN style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]COUNT I[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/B][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN][SPAN style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]Comes now Plaintiffs and for their cause of action against Defendant APFA state as follows:[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]17.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]On or about [?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags /][st1:date Year=2001 Day=9 Month=1]January 9, 2001[/st1:date] American Airlines entered into an agreement to purchase all of the assets of TWA, Inc.[/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]18.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]American Airlines then formed TWA, LLC for the purposes of operating and owning TWA, Inc.’s assets.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]The purchase agreement was finalized on [st1:date Year=2001 Day=10 Month=4]April 10, 2001[/st1:date] and at that time all of TWA, Inc.’s employees including its flight attendants became employees of American, through TWA, LLC.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]19.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]On [st1:date Year=2001 Day=17 Month=12]December 17, 2001[/st1:date], American Airlines and APFA entered into an “Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters between American Airlines, Inc. and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants†(attached as Exhibit A) hereinafter “Agreementâ€).[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]20.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Under the terms of the Agreement [st1
lace]St.[/st1lace] Louis based TWA[SPAN class=GramE],LLC[/SPAN] flight attendants would retain their “relative†seniority as to each other while based in [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] for purposes of bidding and transfer rights.[/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]21.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Under the terms of the Agreement, American Airlines flight attendants who formerly worked for TWA and now work for American through TWA, LLC[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN](Hereafter the St. Louis Flight Attendants)[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]can only transfer/ bid for flights not based in St. Louis if the opening has already been bid by those American Airlines flight attendants who do not now work for American Airlines through TWA, LLC (hereafter the non-St. Louis Flight Attendants) and there are no non-St Louis Flight Attendants on furlough status.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]Section VIII(B) reads in full:[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 1in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]B.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]A flight attendant who is able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority date as set forth in paragraph VI may transfer/proffer to fill a vacancy in and fly trips assigned to an AA base at a location other than at St. Louis in accordance with the provisions for transfer/proffer provided in the CBA, utilizing the flight attendant’s AA occupational seniority as provided under paragraph III of this Agreement, in the event the opening has been offered for bidding by all [Non-St. Louis Flight Attendants] and there are no [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] on furlough status.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice /][o] [/o][/FONT][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -1.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]1. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]Following transfer by a [St Louis Flight Attendant] from a St. Louis base to an AA base at a location other than at St. Louis in accordance with paragraph VIII.B., the [St. Louis Flight Attendant’s] AA occupational seniority, as provided under paragraph III of this Agreement, shall be applicable for all purposes for which occupational seniority applies under the AA-APFA collective bargaining agreement, except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.2.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o
] [/o][/FONT][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -1.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]2. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]The following terms will apply to a [St. Louis Flight Attendant] who transfers during the existence of TWA-LLC operations to an AA base at a location other than St. Louis and who thereafter during the existence of TWA-LLC operations transfers/proffers to fill a vacancy in and fly trips at a St. Louis base.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o
] [/o][/FONT][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 2in; TEXT-INDENT: -2in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 3] [/SPAN][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]a. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]If the first such transfer/proffer back from an AA base to St. Louis has an effective date that is within two years following the effective date of the initial transfer from St. Louis to the AA base, the flight attendant will be able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority date for such transfer/proffer and at the St. Louis base for bidding purposes determined by occupational seniority as long as the flight attendant thereafter remains based at St. Louis, provided that this exception to paragraphs VIII.A. [SPAN class=GramE]and[/SPAN] VIII.B. [SPAN class=GramE]and[/SPAN] B.1. [SPAN class=GramE]shall[/SPAN] not apply during any period of time in which any [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] are on furlough status.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o
] [/o][/FONT][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 2in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]b. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]If the first transfer back to a St. Louis base does not have an effective date that is within two years following the effective date of the initial transfer from St. Louis to the AA base, the flight attendant will not be able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority rights for any purposes, including for transfer/proffer to a St. Louis base or for bidding purposes at a St. Louis base.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o
] [/o][/FONT][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 2in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt][SPAN style=mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]c. [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN]If, by application of paragraph VIII.B.2., the flight attendant is able to again use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority following an initial transfer back to a St. Louis bas, the flight attendant will only be able to continue to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority so long as she/he continues to be based at St. Louis.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][o
] [/o][/FONT][/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]22.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA became the certified representative of all American Airlines Flight Attendants, including the TWA, LLC flight attendants, on or about May 2002 following its demand, and a national mediation board determination, that TWA, LLC and American be considered a “single carrier†as defined under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]23.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Under its Constitution, the APFA is charged with protecting the individual and collective rights of the [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] members and the members are entitled to due process and equal representation. The governing body of the APFA is its Board of Directors. [/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]24.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]On or about [st1:date Year=2002 Day=13 Month=8]August 13, 2002[/st1:date], Defendant American Airlines announced that effective [st1:date Year=2002 Day=1 Month=10]October 1, 2002[/st1:date] flights from [st1:City][st1
lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1:City][st1lace]Honolulu[/st1lace][/st1:City] and [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1lace]Maui[/st1lace] and effective November1, 2002 flights from [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to London Gatwick which are TWA, LLC flights based out of [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] would be worked by Non-St Louis Flight Attendants.[/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]25.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]At the same time, American Airlines announced that it would have to furlough 950 St. Louis Flight Attendants due to insufficient [st1:City][st1
lace]St Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] based flights.[/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]26.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT] [SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Notwithstanding the announced furlough, American Airlines acknowledged that 220 of those St Louis Flight Attendants who would otherwise be furloughed could escape furlough if they were trained and/or transferred to fill positions on [SPAN class=SpellE]the“International[/SPAN]†flights from St Louis to Gatwick, St Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]27.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]In order for those 220 positions to be made available to such St Louis Flight Attendants so that they would not have to be furloughed[SPAN class=GramE],[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]American[/SPAN] Airlines requested that the APFA remove from Section VIII(B) of the Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters the term “and there are no [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] on furlough status†(hereinafter referred to as[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]“the Section VIII(B) clauseâ€).[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]28.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Pursuant to the APFA Constitution, the removal of the aforementioned Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause could be authorized by a majority vote of the board of directors of the APFA.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]29.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The elimination of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause would allow 150 St. Louis Flight Attendants to transfer to [st1:State][st1
lace]New York[/st1lace][/st1:State], thereby reducing the number of furloughed St. Louis Flight Attendants by the same number.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]Those 150 flight attendants would be the most senior St. Louis Flight Attendants thereby improving Plaintiff Cooper’s and other St Louis Flight Attendants’ relative seniority.[/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]30.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Plaintiff Cooper is a member of the Board of Directors of the APFA and has offered a resolution which would authorize the removal of the [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]31.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA, however, has refused to consider the resolution, to vote on the resolution, or to consider the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause in any other resolution, vote,[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]manner or fashion.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]32.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA has not articulated, and has refused to articulate,[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]its reason for its failure to act on the clause to Plaintiffs or any other St. Louis Flight Attendant[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]33.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The non-action by the APFA regarding the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause is arbitrary, discriminates against the St Louis Flight Attendants who are members of the APFA and is in bad faith.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]34.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN][SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] failure to remove the transfer restriction discriminates against St. Louis based Flight Attendants in that senior St. Louis based Flight Attendants will be denied the opportunity to transfer to other locations while junior (furloughed) St. Louis based Flight Attendants will be forced to either relocate to bases other than St. Louis or give up all employment rights at American Airlines.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]35.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]No additional American Airlines attendants (whether St Louis or Non-St Louis Flight Attendants) will be furloughed as a result of the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause and no American Airlines flight attendants currently on furlough status (whether St Louis or Non-St Louis Flight Attendants)[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]will be harmed in that American Airlines flight attendants currently on furlough status are junior in seniority to the St. Louis Flight Attendants currently on furlough status and, pursuant to the integration agreement,[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN]cannot be recalled until such time as all St. Louis Flight Attendants are recalled.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]36.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Accordingly, removing the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause would benefit the St Louis Flight Attendant members of the APFA, including Plaintiffs, and would not harm or cause any detriment to any other member of the APFA.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]37.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]There is thus no rational basis for the [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] refusal to consider or authorize the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause.[SPAN style=mso-spacerun: yes] [/SPAN][/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]38.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The failure and refusal of Defendant APFA to remove the [SPAN class=SpellE][SPAN class=GramE]SectionVIII[/SPAN][/SPAN][SPAN class=GramE]([/SPAN]B) clause is a discriminatory practice against current St. Louis Flight Attendants.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]39.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]The APFA has failed to take any action to challenge American Airlines decision to use Non-St. Louis flight attendants on the [st1:City][st1
lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1:City][st1lace]Honolulu[/st1lace][/st1:City], [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1lace]Maui[/st1lace] and [st1:City][st1lace]St. Louis[/st1lace][/st1:City] to [st1:City][st1lace]London[/st1lace][/st1:City] (Gatwick) flights despite the fact that the use of Non-St. Louis flight attendants on those flights is a violation of the aforementioned “Agreementâ€. In addition the [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] failure to demand that American Airlines train St. Louis Flight Attendants for the international flights is a breach of its duty to duty to represent the St. Louis Flight Attendants.[/P][P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]40.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]By reason of Defendant [SPAN class=SpellE]APFA’s[/SPAN] actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer extreme hardship and actual and impending irreparable damage in that Plaintiffs will be unable to bid for or work the “international†flights referenced above.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]41.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law for the above-mentioned conduct of the Defendant APFA for reason that American Airlines has announced that the 220 positions will be filled by Non-St Louis Flight attendants unless an agreement is reached on the removal of the Section [SPAN class=GramE]VIII([/SPAN]B) clause and American Airlines has begun to fill the international flights with Non-St. Louis based flight attendants.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; TEXT-INDENT: 0in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-list: Ignore]42.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 2] [/SPAN]Plaintiffs have exhausted all internal remedies available to them under the APFA Constitution.[/P]
[P class=MsoNormal style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-pagination: none][FONT face=Times New Roman size=3][SPAN style=FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%][SPAN style=mso-tab-count: 1] [/SPAN][SPAN style=LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt]WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to [SPAN class=SpellE]Fed.R.Civ.P[/SPAN]. 65 ordering Defendant APFA to vote to approve the removal of the “Section VIII(B) clause†from the “Agreementâ€; to take whatever action is necessary to allow St. Louis Flight Attendants to bid for/work the TWA, LLC flights from St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui; issue a permanent injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining Defendant APFA from preventing the TWA, LLC flight attendants from working the flights from St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui; award Plaintiff its costs and attorney’s fees and for any further relief the Court deems appropriate.[/SPAN][/SPAN][/FONT][/P]
I wonder if the judge will consider the fact that the loss of STL-LGW STL-HNL etc. is temporary until cross training is complete? And what exactly APFA has to do with who fly's what routes? The decision to retire the TWA equipment was made by management. It is also managements decision when to do cross training. Where APFA fits into this is beyond me.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 3:18:46 PM Striker wrote:
I never said I was referring only to [STRONG]this [/STRONG]lawsuit. My statements, while they do apply here, are not directed [EM]specifically [/EM]at this particular lawsuit.[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well then my deepest apologies to you. I thought we were refering to the APFA lawsuit.
----------------
On 10/19/2002 3:18:46 PM Striker wrote:
I never said I was referring only to [STRONG]this [/STRONG]lawsuit. My statements, while they do apply here, are not directed [EM]specifically [/EM]at this particular lawsuit.[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well then my deepest apologies to you. I thought we were refering to the APFA lawsuit.
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 2:52:06 PM MiAAmi wrote:[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Not all the TWA'ers are included in this lawsuit. [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR][BR]I never said I was referring only to [STRONG]this [/STRONG]lawsuit. My statements, while they do apply here, are not directed [EM]specifically [/EM]at this particular lawsuit.[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 2:52:06 PM MiAAmi wrote:[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Not all the TWA'ers are included in this lawsuit. [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR][BR]I never said I was referring only to [STRONG]this [/STRONG]lawsuit. My statements, while they do apply here, are not directed [EM]specifically [/EM]at this particular lawsuit.[/P]
TWAnr
Veteran
- Aug 19, 2002
- 1,003
- 0
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 3:39:19 PM MiAAmi wrote:[BR][BR]I wonder if the judge will consider the fact that the loss of STL-LGW STL-HNL etc. is temporary until cross training is complete? And what exactly APFA has to do with who fly's what routes? The decision to retire the TWA equipment was made by management. It is also managements decision when to do cross training. Where APFA fits into this is beyond me.[BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]The point is that, by its intransigence, the APFA [STRONG][FONT color=#ff0033]BLOCKED[/FONT][/STRONG] the integration training that was slated to take place in September and October which would have allowed St. Louis based flight attendants to continue staffing those flights.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
Let's get back to the original topic, shall we?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 6
39 PM TWAnr wrote:
The point is that, by its intransigence, the APFA [STRONG][FONT color=#ff0033]BLOCKED[/FONT][/STRONG] the integration training that was slated to take place in September and October which would have allowed St. Louis based flight attendants to continue staffing those flights.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Before you start posting false information, you should get your facts straight. APFA did not and does not have the power to block cross training for the STL based f/a's. And for the life of me I don't even know why you think they would want to block cross training. It doen't benefit anyone to have STL not cross trained. Whenever the company needs f/a's to be trained in a certain area, ie equip, service etc. they send out a proffer. If they don't get enough volunteers to take the proffer then they draft the most junior f/a at that base. If the company wanted the STL base trained all they have to do is start it. I think your mixing up the company wanting to save $$$ on training with your own agenda with APFA.
----------------
On 10/19/2002 6
39 PM TWAnr wrote: The point is that, by its intransigence, the APFA [STRONG][FONT color=#ff0033]BLOCKED[/FONT][/STRONG] the integration training that was slated to take place in September and October which would have allowed St. Louis based flight attendants to continue staffing those flights.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Before you start posting false information, you should get your facts straight. APFA did not and does not have the power to block cross training for the STL based f/a's. And for the life of me I don't even know why you think they would want to block cross training. It doen't benefit anyone to have STL not cross trained. Whenever the company needs f/a's to be trained in a certain area, ie equip, service etc. they send out a proffer. If they don't get enough volunteers to take the proffer then they draft the most junior f/a at that base. If the company wanted the STL base trained all they have to do is start it. I think your mixing up the company wanting to save $$$ on training with your own agenda with APFA.
I think you need to ask your spouce a few more questions about his/her job. It wasn't APFA that retired the 767's required to fly to LGW, HNL and OGG. And your conspiracy theory about John Ward doesn't really hold water since most APFA'ers think of John as the one who pulled our contract out of the hat. Regardless of what STL votes for, they are seriously out numbered by the original AA'ers. (original AA'ers aprox 22,000 to ex-TWA'ers aprox 3000.) LGW HNL and OGG will go back to STL base as soon as the Company decides to train STL f/a's on that equip. With the notice that 28 additional ex-TWA aircraft are to be parked (oh I think we are back on topic here) it is in the companies best intrest to start cross training again. Again APFA has nothing to do with it lawsuit or not.
TWAnr
Veteran
- Aug 19, 2002
- 1,003
- 0
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/21/2002 4:39:37 PM MiAAmi wrote:[BR][BR][BR]Before you start posting false information, you should get your facts straight. APFA did not and does not have the power to block cross training for the STL based f/a's. And for the life of me I don't even know why you think they would want to block cross training. It doen't benefit anyone to have STL not cross trained. [BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]MiAAmi,[BR][BR]Had you taken the time to read the complaint in the DFR suit, posted above, you'd understand how this fraternal association blocked the integration training. The benefits of transferring those flights to the nAAtives have been debated ad nauseam. However, I just learned of one significant benefit for John Ward as a result of having ISL decrease in size. Both the base' duly elected chair and vice chair were displaced to domestic as a result of the change. Guess what? Those are two fewer votes that John Ward has to worry about on the Board of Directors. Any appointed representative has no vote in board meetings.[BR][BR]You don't have to accept my word about the point of contention between the company and the union over the integration training; any APFA board member will corroborate it.
AC AA LA FA
Veteran
Getting rid of aircraft,training,or crew allowcation has NEVER been a part of APFAs role at AA..As a union, it protects the rights of its members and genealy has a reactionary response to the company as it impacts its flight attendants or individuals..the idea that the company and union are in bed together regarding these accusations in insane..I have been here and I know that for a fact, have you?...there is all the evidence in the world to support it too...Mgmt. has an airline to manage..cutting flying/aircraft is their perogitive and right It is a different ballgame at AA vs TWA...re: the formentioned and more...
- Status
