hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
The MEC still doesn't get it. One, a blue ribbon panel should have either been earlier or their negotiators. Two, Nicolau was the solution to the problem, it isn't the problem.
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
AAA ALPA Thread 10/12 to 10/18
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
The MEC still doesn't get it. One, a blue ribbon panel should have either been earlier or their negotiators. Two, Nicolau was the solution to the problem, it isn't the problem.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
ALPA National has more problems if they don't either get the East MEC to accept Nicolau and move on or doesn't do a trusteeship. Why? Because of all the other ALPA members from all the other airlines are potentially going to have negative consequences because of the actions, or non-actions, of the East MEC.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Where do I sign up or who do I send my resume to be a trustee???
If it weren't for that darned conflict of interest, this would be the East MEC Trustee dream team: Prechilill, AWA320, Junebug, electricjet, Tiger1050, and of course, yours truly! Almost as good as the '92 Olympic BB team!St. Nic cometh in December boys and girls and some of you have been very very naughty. . .
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
And Don Burr as his sidekick.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Cactus737
Advanced
- Jun 15, 2007
- 188
- 0
Gladly.
First, I don't think your age argument is fair because the average age difference between the active pilots on each certified list is only 6 years (<4 years including furloughed & CEL pilots), and you're providing an extreme example. Also, similar disparities in age can exist within a single new-hire class, where in some cases there's a 20 year age difference between the oldest and youngest pilot. So I'll keep the argument focused on the disparate lengths of service, i.e. why Colello with 16 years LOS should be below Odell with 2 months LOS.
Why Colello should be junior to Odell:
1) Odell brought a job to the merger and Colello didn't.
2) There were people actually hried to be junior to Odell, but no plans of recalling Colello were even being contemplated by the company.
3) Since the merger was announced, Colello has been recalled from furlough and moved up 500 numbers, holding a position that he cannot be bumped out of. Odell still remains the most junior pilot at AWA. IE Colello has already benefited more from the merger than Odell has. Keep in mind that Colello was only recalled as a direct result of the merger, and his recall took place 18 months AFTER the merger.
4) Colello will gain 3 to 4 times the financial benefit from a new contract than Odell will.
5) Because that's what the arbitrator decided.
What's unfair is that after 16 years of service, Colello was furloughed with no hope of a recall. I wouldn't wish that on anybody, because it could happen to anybody. But that's a condition that existed before the merger was announced, and is certainly not the fault of Odell or any other AWA pilot. Even though the chances of Colello beingt recalled without the merger were slim to none, the *best* case scenario for him was to be recalled to the bottom of the active list. That's exactly where he was placed.
Colello's years of service are in no way disregarded, they just don't automatically entitle him to leapfrog ahead of pilots who brought jobs to the merger. Since the travel bennies have switched from first come first served at AWA to year-of-hire at US Airways, Colello retains a decent boarding prioirity while Odell has lost almost any chance at non-reving anymore. Whereas Odell would have had little problem non-reving to Hawaii prior to the merger, now Colello and his whole family get to go to Hawaii while Odell gets to watch the plaane push back from the terminal.
Also, although Odell is senior to Colello, Colello will enjoy much higher pay and much more vacation than Odell for doing the same job. That's fine, Colello earned that by being with the company for 16 years. But his 16 years don't earn him the right to return from furlough, and then remain employed while Odell goes to the street.
There are many pilots here at AWA who have lived through situations similar to Colello's. Our pilots who came from Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, Trans-American and Frontier were none too happy about starting over again pulling gear for guys younger to them. Of course, it was easier for them to accept because their immediate alternative was unemployment. I'm certain that any one of these guys would much have preferred Colello's circumstances.
So is it fair that Odell was in high school with Colello was hired? I don't imagine that Colello will ever think that's fair as long as that is the only fact that he looks at. Odell probably doesn't think it's fair that pilots who were on furlough from US Airways when he was in new-hire class at AWA are making captain while he remains the junior pilot. BTW - did you know that there are pilots at CAL making captain who were hired at CAL AFTER Odell was hired at AWA? If AWA merged with CAL tomorrow, do you think that Odell should be senior to those captains even though he's never advanced off of the bottom of the list at AWA? I wouldn't think that's fair, and I doubt Odell would either.
Cactus737
Advanced
- Jun 15, 2007
- 188
- 0
AWARD
The date of hire method of seniority integration proposed by the U.S. Airways Dispatchers is awarded.
RICHARD I. BLOCH, ESQ. April 26, 2007
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:
____________________________
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 545
AND TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 542
Hearing Held October 30, 2006
Before Robert B. Harris, Esq.[1]
[Arbitrator Harris subsequently withdrew from the case for health reasons. The parties agreed to present the record to Richard I. Bloch Esq. for decision.]
Appearances:
For the Local 542: Regina C. Hertzig Esq.
For the Local 545: Steven K. Hoffman Esq. Katie B. Feiock Esq.
OPINION
Facts
This proceeding arises by agreement of Locals 542 and 545 of the TWU to resolve the question of how the respective seniority lists of Flight Dispatchers of U. S. Airways, Inc. and America West Airlines, Inc. are to be combined so as to result in a “fair and equitable†merged list.[2] The so-called Allegheny-Mohawk labor protective provisions have been incorporated in both locals’ collective bargaining agreements[3]. The America West (hereinafter “AWAâ€, occasionally) workforce is composed of 37 active Dispatchers whose employment conditions were established under a collective bargaining agreement between Local 542 of the Transport Workers Union of America and America West. The U.S. Airways (“Airwaysâ€) workforce consists of 130 active Dispatchers operating under a contract between that company and TWU Local 545.[4] As will be discussed in further detail below, the merged workforce will operate under the U.S. Airways/Local 545 collective bargaining agreement.
The Respective Proposals[5]
Locals 542 and 545 (also “West†and “East,†respectively, for ease of reference) present dramatically differing versions of a merged seniority list. West contends that, but for AWA’s having merged with U.S. Airways and thereby bringing a host of new investors, Airways could not have survived. In furtherance of its argument that Airways would have been liquidated, with a consequent loss of all bargaining unit jobs, West proposes an algorithm[6] that results, generally, in West Dispatchers being slotted in after every third or fourth east Employee. [7] East, for its part, says a straight date of hire methodology is fair, equitable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Standard of Integration
It is surely true, as West argues, both that this case requires a determination of “fair and equitableâ€, under the circumstances, and that “dovetailing†(the shorthand employed in this case for integration by date of hire) is not always fair and equitable.[8] In this case, however, the record reflects a history (1) of two carriers whose merger worked to the relative advantage of each, and (2) of respective bargaining unit members, both of whose employment situations were bettered by the combination. If, on the one hand, Airways Dispatchers were the beneficiaries of new life in general, it is also true that the AWA inherited a labor agreement that treats them better; in many cases, substantially so. Without question, a date of hire approach will, as noted below, operate to the disbenefit of West workers. In part, however, that is the natural result of the fact the East unit is manifestly more senior. And, adoption of the West algorithm results in a marked windfall for West employees, featuring seniority advances that are nowhere justified by the record in this case. [9]
The Financial Picture
From the evidence, it is clear enough that the merger with AWA was a meaningful factor in U.S. Airway’s emergence from bankruptcy. Together, the two companies were able to attract investments that, operating alone, they might not have secured. However, West’s claim that U.S. Airways emerged from bankruptcy “only because it [was] acquired by a stronger enterpriseâ€[10] is reflected neither in the KPMG audit report (cited by West)[11] nor in any other portion of the evidence. Instead, each carrier had something to contribute. Airways, for example, was much larger. It served almost twice as many destinations as AWA and carried twice the number of passengers.[12] Airways has substantially more cash on hand, following the merger agreement. AWA, for its part, brought relative success as a low cost carrier operation with a meaningful presence in the Western United States.
Airways’ “fresh startâ€[13] included a series of steps designed to strengthen Airways’ financial situation. Among other things, it entered into concessionary bargaining with its unions, ultimately securing some $1 billion dollars per year in cost reductions. [14] Termination of certain existing defined benefit and other post-retirement benefit plans generated substantial savings.[15] A 35 percent decrease in labor cost[16] taken together with other cost saving measures, resulted in a positive net operating income for the second and third quarters of 2005, prior to approval of the merger agreement in September of 2005. [17] AWA, for its part, while not in bankruptcy, was attempting to confront what it regarded as a troubled and potentially perilous future, absent the merger, in the face of rising fuel costs and depressed unit revenues as a result of over capacity, among other things. It, too, needed cash.
West characterizes the merger decision on AWA’s part as a one-way economic bailout. But there is no support for this in the record; surely, the respective companies did not endorse that view. AWA concluded, according to the statements of its CEO, that “…when we looked out at our future, what we saw wasn’t good…. Assuming we couldn’t go out and restructure or raise cash, it is possible that AWA would have been facing its own Chapter 11 at some point. Employees may like to think we “saved†US but the fact is we saved each other…[18]
The June 10, 2005 issue of “Plane Dealâ€, an AWA publication, touted some of the benefits of joining fleet forces:
When merged, the combined airline will become the nation’s 5th larges airline, as measured by domestic available seat miles (ASMs). The combined airline is expected to operated a mainline fleet of 361 planes (supported by 239 regional jets and 57 turbo props for feed into the mainline system), down from a total of 419 mainline aircraft operated by both airlines at the beginning of 2005….[19]
In the context of a “Town Hall†Q&A , the company noted the prospect of a combined airline was more enticing to investors:
The money is being raised for the combined airline, because investors see the value in the merged entity. Frankly, airlines in their current state don’t look appealing to investors, who are savvy to know industry change needs to take place. The proposed merger represents the kind of change that investors believe will be successful. So, unfortunately, we wouldn’t garner this kind of interest if we were seeking funding for America West “as is.â€[20]
Much of West’s claimed superiority over East, in terms of what it brought to the merger, is speculative. There is, for example, scant support for West’s claim that, post-merger, “the focus of lender anxiety is clearly on the side of U.S. Airwaysâ€[21] or that, following the merger, with the AWA CEO assuming the helm in Phoenix, “the predator king gets to have the top job, to grant fiefs to his chieftains, and to fly the flag over his castle!â€[22] Rather, what appears from the evidence is that, post-merger, the companies adopted a mixed management team and that, significantly, they adopted the US Airways collective bargaining agreement as applicable to the combined TWU force. Thus, setting aside the respective claims of who came with what, the hard evidence as to what was achieved shows significant parity as between carriers, each of which contributed complementary elements to a combined operation.
Most meaningful are the gains realized by West Dispatchers when operating under the US Airways labor agreement. It is, by most measures, the more generous document of the two. According to the record, AWA Dispatchers, prior to the merger, were the lowest paid among major carriers and worked the greatest number of annual hours.[23] Following implementation of a transition agreement, work hours for AWA Dispatchers will be cut by 133 hours per year. Work days will be reduced from 10 to 8 hours.[24] The East contract includes a profit sharing plan in addition to the 401(K) profit sharing; the West agreement has none. Wage rates under the U.S. Airways cba are more generous; AWA Dispatchers will reach top of scale in eleven years instead of fifteen and will enjoy wage gains ranging from 16% to 52%.[25] On the average, AWA Dispatchers will gain a 36% salary increase.[26]
Additionally, the Airways contract incorporates special “Planning Unit†positions that provide salary overrides of up to $300 per month. Significantly, these positions, which were not part of the AWA bargaining unit, may, after three years Dispatcher experience, be bid on without regard to seniority.[27] There are other contract elements, including bidding schedules and sick leave banks (accumulating 150 days that can be paid out upon leaving employment, contrasted with AWA’s 40 day maximum, with no pay out) that add to the overall attractiveness of AWA employees’ new contract situation. The West claim that similar gains might have been realized in renegotiating the AWA contract is speculative and ultimately unconvincing.
Finally, one must consider, in terms of fairness and equity, the resulting shape and impact of the merged seniority list. The equities, in this regard, favor the East group. As indicated earlier, the U.S. Airways Dispatchers are considerably more senior then their West counterparts. The arithmetic placement proposed by Local 542 would devitalize the existing Airways seniority list by granting substantial, and in some cases monumental seniority leaps that cannot be justified by the record in this case. For example, senior-most AWA Dispatcher Brenda Cozzen has an A.D. (occupational) date of January 1985. By the West proposal, she would be slotted directly above an East employee with almost six years greater seniority. This pattern is repeated down through position #81, where Dispatcher Lopez would gain more than ten years’ advantage over his counterpart, and so it continues through to the end of the list, with West employees receiving twelve, thirteen and fourteen year advantages. [28] As the East notes, [29] the junior-most West employee did not begin work as an AWA Dispatcher until November of 2005, after both execution and approval of the merger agreement.
There are other equity considerations. According to the evidence, West Dispatchers were, under their previous agreement, accorded seniority as of their Occupational Dates rather then their date of hire into the class or craft. However, under the Airways contract, and under East’s integration proposal, they will receive dates consistent with their date of hire into the class or craft. As such, the first nineteen workers on the AWA seniority list will receive more seniority than they had pre-merger, in some cases as much as thirteen years. [30]
In summary, based on these findings, the conclusion is that fairness and equity in this case militates strongly toward a date of hire list. On the one hand, this outcome may consign certain West employees to furlough and will, of course, make them more vulnerable, based on their relative seniority, to later displacements. But that is, after all, the essence of length-of-tenure based seniority, which, in this particular case, heavily favors the older U.S. Airways work force.
That the date of hire approach has been adopted by other unionized groups in both companies is, in and of itself, by no means dispositive; the facts and relative equities of each of the affected groups ultimately are what will determine a given outcome. In this case, those elements favor the East group, for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, the finding is that the date of hire method is more fair and equitable and it is hereby awarded.
AWARD
The date of hire method of seniority integration proposed by the U.S. Airways Dispatchers is awarded.
RICHARD I. BLOCH, ESQ. April 26, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Arbitrator Harris subsequently withdrew from the case for health reasons. The parties agreed to present the record to Richard I. Bloch Esq. for decision.
[2] See Joint Ex. 7, which poses the Issue Presented as “How are the respective seniority lists of the flight dispatchers of U.S. Airways Inc. and America West Airlines, Inc. to be ‘combined’ or ‘merged’ in a manner that is ‘fair and equitable?’â€
[3] See Article 1, Section D in both local 545’s and 542’s CBA.
[4] See Joint Ex. 2 and 3.
[5] U.S. Airways, the surviving contract signatory, has no dog in this fight. It has, however, set forth curtain restrictions applicable to the integration, and the two Locals have accepted them. As such, the integration:
a. May not cause any furloughed Employee to bump/displace any active Employee;
b. May not cause any active Employee to bump/displace any other active Employee except through the normal processes associated with reduction in force; and
c. May not endtail or “staple†all the Employees of one Airline Party to the bottom of the seniority list of the other Airline Party. (See Joint Exhibit 6).
[6] 1/37 times the current rank on the West seniority rank times 157 (the total number of Dispatchers on the combined list.) By limiting the bargaining unit member count to active employees, the West approach ensures that all its members are placed on the currently active work rolls.
[7] “…[L]ocal 542 submits that the currently furloughed East Dispatchers should not be placed on the seniority list in a sequence that would allow them to be recalled ahead of currently Employed West Dispatchers in the event of any future furloughs.†Were this to occur, it is argued, “it would be paramount to a seniority windfall for the East furlougheds.†West post hearing brief, at p. 2.
[8] See West brief, p. 4.
[9]. This is not to say one could not construct some sort of mid-ground that would attempt to incorporate a methodology utilizing both a mechanical and a date of hire approach. Several factors militate against this. First, these are relatively small units. The West group is comprised of 37 individuals. The East local has 120 active employees with 32 currently on furlough (as of the date of the hearing.) It is logistically difficult to mold a hybrid list, given this small a unit. Moreover, unlike pilot mergers, which often involve companion considerations including aircraft types, differing status and categories and a variety of additional distinctions, the instant case is considerably more basic. These employees, on the other hand, perform the same functions, in essentially the same manner and will operate under a combined agreement that features no fence or any of the other arcane elements peculiar to pilot cases.
[10] West post-hearing brief, p. 8.
[11] West Ex. E.
[12] Joint Ex. 1.
[13] See the various references to the accounting and reporting techniques involved with this assumption, in the “Notes to the Financial Statementsâ€, Ex. E, pp. 212 et seq.
[14] See transcript, p. 79.
[15] See n. 7(a) to the Financial Statement, West Ex. E p. 239, for example.
[16] See Local 545 ex. 1, p. 24, 43.
[17] West Ex. E, at 208.
[18]about Us, November 25,2005. Local 545 ex. 5, p. 5. The quote is derived from CEO Doug Parker’s published answer to a question of why it was necessary for AWA to integrate when “it wasn’t AWA that needed the merger in order to survive?†At the hearing, Arbitrator Harris properly overruled AWA’s hearsay objection. The about US publication is not, as East counsel suggests, a business record. However, the statement may be accepted not for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted - - that AWA was facing imminent bankruptcy -- but rather, that AWA Executives perceived a rocky future as justification for pursuing the merger.
[19] West Ex. 3, p. 2.
[20] Id., p. 3.
[21] West post hearing brief, p. 6.
[22] Id., p. 12-13.
[23] Tr., p. 231.
[24] East Ex. 11.
[25] East Ex. 12.
[26] Id.
[27] Tr. 38-39, 42-43.
[28] Because the West proposal considers, as a community, only the active employees, the last, and least senior West employee is placed on the work rolls ahead of more than thirty furloughed East employees, all with five years’ additional seniority. See Local 542 Ex. J, at p.5.
[29] See East closing brief, pp. 22-26.
[30] See Tr. 138-139 and the Local 545 integration proposal (p. 3, n. 1).
The date of hire method of seniority integration proposed by the U.S. Airways Dispatchers is awarded.
RICHARD I. BLOCH, ESQ. April 26, 2007
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:
____________________________
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 545
AND TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 542
Hearing Held October 30, 2006
Before Robert B. Harris, Esq.[1]
[Arbitrator Harris subsequently withdrew from the case for health reasons. The parties agreed to present the record to Richard I. Bloch Esq. for decision.]
Appearances:
For the Local 542: Regina C. Hertzig Esq.
For the Local 545: Steven K. Hoffman Esq. Katie B. Feiock Esq.
OPINION
Facts
This proceeding arises by agreement of Locals 542 and 545 of the TWU to resolve the question of how the respective seniority lists of Flight Dispatchers of U. S. Airways, Inc. and America West Airlines, Inc. are to be combined so as to result in a “fair and equitable†merged list.[2] The so-called Allegheny-Mohawk labor protective provisions have been incorporated in both locals’ collective bargaining agreements[3]. The America West (hereinafter “AWAâ€, occasionally) workforce is composed of 37 active Dispatchers whose employment conditions were established under a collective bargaining agreement between Local 542 of the Transport Workers Union of America and America West. The U.S. Airways (“Airwaysâ€) workforce consists of 130 active Dispatchers operating under a contract between that company and TWU Local 545.[4] As will be discussed in further detail below, the merged workforce will operate under the U.S. Airways/Local 545 collective bargaining agreement.
The Respective Proposals[5]
Locals 542 and 545 (also “West†and “East,†respectively, for ease of reference) present dramatically differing versions of a merged seniority list. West contends that, but for AWA’s having merged with U.S. Airways and thereby bringing a host of new investors, Airways could not have survived. In furtherance of its argument that Airways would have been liquidated, with a consequent loss of all bargaining unit jobs, West proposes an algorithm[6] that results, generally, in West Dispatchers being slotted in after every third or fourth east Employee. [7] East, for its part, says a straight date of hire methodology is fair, equitable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Standard of Integration
It is surely true, as West argues, both that this case requires a determination of “fair and equitableâ€, under the circumstances, and that “dovetailing†(the shorthand employed in this case for integration by date of hire) is not always fair and equitable.[8] In this case, however, the record reflects a history (1) of two carriers whose merger worked to the relative advantage of each, and (2) of respective bargaining unit members, both of whose employment situations were bettered by the combination. If, on the one hand, Airways Dispatchers were the beneficiaries of new life in general, it is also true that the AWA inherited a labor agreement that treats them better; in many cases, substantially so. Without question, a date of hire approach will, as noted below, operate to the disbenefit of West workers. In part, however, that is the natural result of the fact the East unit is manifestly more senior. And, adoption of the West algorithm results in a marked windfall for West employees, featuring seniority advances that are nowhere justified by the record in this case. [9]
The Financial Picture
From the evidence, it is clear enough that the merger with AWA was a meaningful factor in U.S. Airway’s emergence from bankruptcy. Together, the two companies were able to attract investments that, operating alone, they might not have secured. However, West’s claim that U.S. Airways emerged from bankruptcy “only because it [was] acquired by a stronger enterpriseâ€[10] is reflected neither in the KPMG audit report (cited by West)[11] nor in any other portion of the evidence. Instead, each carrier had something to contribute. Airways, for example, was much larger. It served almost twice as many destinations as AWA and carried twice the number of passengers.[12] Airways has substantially more cash on hand, following the merger agreement. AWA, for its part, brought relative success as a low cost carrier operation with a meaningful presence in the Western United States.
Airways’ “fresh startâ€[13] included a series of steps designed to strengthen Airways’ financial situation. Among other things, it entered into concessionary bargaining with its unions, ultimately securing some $1 billion dollars per year in cost reductions. [14] Termination of certain existing defined benefit and other post-retirement benefit plans generated substantial savings.[15] A 35 percent decrease in labor cost[16] taken together with other cost saving measures, resulted in a positive net operating income for the second and third quarters of 2005, prior to approval of the merger agreement in September of 2005. [17] AWA, for its part, while not in bankruptcy, was attempting to confront what it regarded as a troubled and potentially perilous future, absent the merger, in the face of rising fuel costs and depressed unit revenues as a result of over capacity, among other things. It, too, needed cash.
West characterizes the merger decision on AWA’s part as a one-way economic bailout. But there is no support for this in the record; surely, the respective companies did not endorse that view. AWA concluded, according to the statements of its CEO, that “…when we looked out at our future, what we saw wasn’t good…. Assuming we couldn’t go out and restructure or raise cash, it is possible that AWA would have been facing its own Chapter 11 at some point. Employees may like to think we “saved†US but the fact is we saved each other…[18]
The June 10, 2005 issue of “Plane Dealâ€, an AWA publication, touted some of the benefits of joining fleet forces:
When merged, the combined airline will become the nation’s 5th larges airline, as measured by domestic available seat miles (ASMs). The combined airline is expected to operated a mainline fleet of 361 planes (supported by 239 regional jets and 57 turbo props for feed into the mainline system), down from a total of 419 mainline aircraft operated by both airlines at the beginning of 2005….[19]
In the context of a “Town Hall†Q&A , the company noted the prospect of a combined airline was more enticing to investors:
The money is being raised for the combined airline, because investors see the value in the merged entity. Frankly, airlines in their current state don’t look appealing to investors, who are savvy to know industry change needs to take place. The proposed merger represents the kind of change that investors believe will be successful. So, unfortunately, we wouldn’t garner this kind of interest if we were seeking funding for America West “as is.â€[20]
Much of West’s claimed superiority over East, in terms of what it brought to the merger, is speculative. There is, for example, scant support for West’s claim that, post-merger, “the focus of lender anxiety is clearly on the side of U.S. Airwaysâ€[21] or that, following the merger, with the AWA CEO assuming the helm in Phoenix, “the predator king gets to have the top job, to grant fiefs to his chieftains, and to fly the flag over his castle!â€[22] Rather, what appears from the evidence is that, post-merger, the companies adopted a mixed management team and that, significantly, they adopted the US Airways collective bargaining agreement as applicable to the combined TWU force. Thus, setting aside the respective claims of who came with what, the hard evidence as to what was achieved shows significant parity as between carriers, each of which contributed complementary elements to a combined operation.
Most meaningful are the gains realized by West Dispatchers when operating under the US Airways labor agreement. It is, by most measures, the more generous document of the two. According to the record, AWA Dispatchers, prior to the merger, were the lowest paid among major carriers and worked the greatest number of annual hours.[23] Following implementation of a transition agreement, work hours for AWA Dispatchers will be cut by 133 hours per year. Work days will be reduced from 10 to 8 hours.[24] The East contract includes a profit sharing plan in addition to the 401(K) profit sharing; the West agreement has none. Wage rates under the U.S. Airways cba are more generous; AWA Dispatchers will reach top of scale in eleven years instead of fifteen and will enjoy wage gains ranging from 16% to 52%.[25] On the average, AWA Dispatchers will gain a 36% salary increase.[26]
Additionally, the Airways contract incorporates special “Planning Unit†positions that provide salary overrides of up to $300 per month. Significantly, these positions, which were not part of the AWA bargaining unit, may, after three years Dispatcher experience, be bid on without regard to seniority.[27] There are other contract elements, including bidding schedules and sick leave banks (accumulating 150 days that can be paid out upon leaving employment, contrasted with AWA’s 40 day maximum, with no pay out) that add to the overall attractiveness of AWA employees’ new contract situation. The West claim that similar gains might have been realized in renegotiating the AWA contract is speculative and ultimately unconvincing.
Finally, one must consider, in terms of fairness and equity, the resulting shape and impact of the merged seniority list. The equities, in this regard, favor the East group. As indicated earlier, the U.S. Airways Dispatchers are considerably more senior then their West counterparts. The arithmetic placement proposed by Local 542 would devitalize the existing Airways seniority list by granting substantial, and in some cases monumental seniority leaps that cannot be justified by the record in this case. For example, senior-most AWA Dispatcher Brenda Cozzen has an A.D. (occupational) date of January 1985. By the West proposal, she would be slotted directly above an East employee with almost six years greater seniority. This pattern is repeated down through position #81, where Dispatcher Lopez would gain more than ten years’ advantage over his counterpart, and so it continues through to the end of the list, with West employees receiving twelve, thirteen and fourteen year advantages. [28] As the East notes, [29] the junior-most West employee did not begin work as an AWA Dispatcher until November of 2005, after both execution and approval of the merger agreement.
There are other equity considerations. According to the evidence, West Dispatchers were, under their previous agreement, accorded seniority as of their Occupational Dates rather then their date of hire into the class or craft. However, under the Airways contract, and under East’s integration proposal, they will receive dates consistent with their date of hire into the class or craft. As such, the first nineteen workers on the AWA seniority list will receive more seniority than they had pre-merger, in some cases as much as thirteen years. [30]
In summary, based on these findings, the conclusion is that fairness and equity in this case militates strongly toward a date of hire list. On the one hand, this outcome may consign certain West employees to furlough and will, of course, make them more vulnerable, based on their relative seniority, to later displacements. But that is, after all, the essence of length-of-tenure based seniority, which, in this particular case, heavily favors the older U.S. Airways work force.
That the date of hire approach has been adopted by other unionized groups in both companies is, in and of itself, by no means dispositive; the facts and relative equities of each of the affected groups ultimately are what will determine a given outcome. In this case, those elements favor the East group, for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, the finding is that the date of hire method is more fair and equitable and it is hereby awarded.
AWARD
The date of hire method of seniority integration proposed by the U.S. Airways Dispatchers is awarded.
RICHARD I. BLOCH, ESQ. April 26, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Arbitrator Harris subsequently withdrew from the case for health reasons. The parties agreed to present the record to Richard I. Bloch Esq. for decision.
[2] See Joint Ex. 7, which poses the Issue Presented as “How are the respective seniority lists of the flight dispatchers of U.S. Airways Inc. and America West Airlines, Inc. to be ‘combined’ or ‘merged’ in a manner that is ‘fair and equitable?’â€
[3] See Article 1, Section D in both local 545’s and 542’s CBA.
[4] See Joint Ex. 2 and 3.
[5] U.S. Airways, the surviving contract signatory, has no dog in this fight. It has, however, set forth curtain restrictions applicable to the integration, and the two Locals have accepted them. As such, the integration:
a. May not cause any furloughed Employee to bump/displace any active Employee;
b. May not cause any active Employee to bump/displace any other active Employee except through the normal processes associated with reduction in force; and
c. May not endtail or “staple†all the Employees of one Airline Party to the bottom of the seniority list of the other Airline Party. (See Joint Exhibit 6).
[6] 1/37 times the current rank on the West seniority rank times 157 (the total number of Dispatchers on the combined list.) By limiting the bargaining unit member count to active employees, the West approach ensures that all its members are placed on the currently active work rolls.
[7] “…[L]ocal 542 submits that the currently furloughed East Dispatchers should not be placed on the seniority list in a sequence that would allow them to be recalled ahead of currently Employed West Dispatchers in the event of any future furloughs.†Were this to occur, it is argued, “it would be paramount to a seniority windfall for the East furlougheds.†West post hearing brief, at p. 2.
[8] See West brief, p. 4.
[9]. This is not to say one could not construct some sort of mid-ground that would attempt to incorporate a methodology utilizing both a mechanical and a date of hire approach. Several factors militate against this. First, these are relatively small units. The West group is comprised of 37 individuals. The East local has 120 active employees with 32 currently on furlough (as of the date of the hearing.) It is logistically difficult to mold a hybrid list, given this small a unit. Moreover, unlike pilot mergers, which often involve companion considerations including aircraft types, differing status and categories and a variety of additional distinctions, the instant case is considerably more basic. These employees, on the other hand, perform the same functions, in essentially the same manner and will operate under a combined agreement that features no fence or any of the other arcane elements peculiar to pilot cases.
[10] West post-hearing brief, p. 8.
[11] West Ex. E.
[12] Joint Ex. 1.
[13] See the various references to the accounting and reporting techniques involved with this assumption, in the “Notes to the Financial Statementsâ€, Ex. E, pp. 212 et seq.
[14] See transcript, p. 79.
[15] See n. 7(a) to the Financial Statement, West Ex. E p. 239, for example.
[16] See Local 545 ex. 1, p. 24, 43.
[17] West Ex. E, at 208.
[18]about Us, November 25,2005. Local 545 ex. 5, p. 5. The quote is derived from CEO Doug Parker’s published answer to a question of why it was necessary for AWA to integrate when “it wasn’t AWA that needed the merger in order to survive?†At the hearing, Arbitrator Harris properly overruled AWA’s hearsay objection. The about US publication is not, as East counsel suggests, a business record. However, the statement may be accepted not for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted - - that AWA was facing imminent bankruptcy -- but rather, that AWA Executives perceived a rocky future as justification for pursuing the merger.
[19] West Ex. 3, p. 2.
[20] Id., p. 3.
[21] West post hearing brief, p. 6.
[22] Id., p. 12-13.
[23] Tr., p. 231.
[24] East Ex. 11.
[25] East Ex. 12.
[26] Id.
[27] Tr. 38-39, 42-43.
[28] Because the West proposal considers, as a community, only the active employees, the last, and least senior West employee is placed on the work rolls ahead of more than thirty furloughed East employees, all with five years’ additional seniority. See Local 542 Ex. J, at p.5.
[29] See East closing brief, pp. 22-26.
[30] See Tr. 138-139 and the Local 545 integration proposal (p. 3, n. 1).
Cactus737
Advanced
- Jun 15, 2007
- 188
- 0
I posted the dx award because I thought it might inject some balance into our otherwise polarized discussions. I'm sure each of us will separate out the parts of this award that we think strengthens our own points of view, but hey, at least we'll all have some new material.
One of the most interesting things I noticed is that this arbitration only took one day. I believe ours was 14 or more days.
As in our case, the East group was larger and more senior than the West. Also, the DOH versus ratio and "financial picture" arguments all look familiar.
Some of the differences are interesting:
- The East dx contract pays alot more than the West (opposite from our situation)
- The arbitrator makes reference to the fact that DOH would not work for pilots because of the different paying jobs
- Since SOC was moving East, hardly anybody from West was interested in moving (a fact of the case, but it's not in the award)
- DOH put 13 of the AWA dispatchers in a better relative position than they were in their own list. The same would not have been true for the pilots.
One of the most interesting things I noticed is that this arbitration only took one day. I believe ours was 14 or more days.
As in our case, the East group was larger and more senior than the West. Also, the DOH versus ratio and "financial picture" arguments all look familiar.
Some of the differences are interesting:
- The East dx contract pays alot more than the West (opposite from our situation)
- The arbitrator makes reference to the fact that DOH would not work for pilots because of the different paying jobs
- Since SOC was moving East, hardly anybody from West was interested in moving (a fact of the case, but it's not in the award)
- DOH put 13 of the AWA dispatchers in a better relative position than they were in their own list. The same would not have been true for the pilots.
usabusdriver
Advanced
- Aug 12, 2007
- 205
- 113
fatherabraham
Veteran
- Sep 27, 2002
- 814
- 354
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
Just heard this over the weekend. Is it true that save Dave quit and went to FedEx? If true, great for him!! So who is the next in line above Colello?
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
I think that is below your standards. Don't you?
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,513
- 0
Actually I'm curious. My list is on another computer that has "Problems" at this time. Seems a TSA goon decided to assist me with it over the weekend and it has problems starting now. Oh well.
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
I have heard that too. But I have also heard that it is rumor and that he is still here.
And I forgot to put the wink after my last comment, sorry...
- Status
