Airbus Ruling
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
DCD said:
If you are asking what I think you are asking...
The difference here is that all labor groups were given cost targets to achieve for active employees. Unlike managment, labor did not get cost credit for furloughs. In fact management would not give credit for job loses for any producftivity enhancements they sought.
That was a given.
Manement, however, decides now to take that credit and run around in the media to say they will reduce payroll by 20%. Well, if you eliminate postions and consolidate, guess what, your overall effect on payroll creates adecrease.
Simple math.
The company also stated in the Press release that their VP ranks went from 34 to 26. Its been 23 since 2003, and 1 was just hired in late Aug. 2004 from the outside, (making 24) and two got promoted to VP from within making it 26. He's the VP of the "transformation plan". What the hell are the other VPs for?
They played the numbers, like they play all of us. However, the media does get it. They know its another managment sham. And the judge will soon find out too.
Iminent liquidaton my ###.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #200
IAM / US AIRWAYS UPDATE
To All US Airways Mechanic & Related Employees:
System Board of Adjustment Decision on Airbus Farmout
The IAM today received the complete Airbus arbitration award, which is posted on the District 142 web site:
Airbus Arbitration Decision
On October 6, 2003, the Company announced its decision to contract out heavy maintenance work (hereinafter, “HMV†or “S-Checksâ€) on Airbus narrowbody aircraft, beginning in October 2003. Upon learning of the Company’s decision, the Union filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction. The District Court issued an injunction prohibiting the subcontracting. On appeal, however, the decision was reversed, although the Appellate Court made no finding on the ultimate merits of the case. In keeping with the Court’s decision, the parties presented the contractual question concerning the propriety of the subcontracting to the system Board of Adjustment.
The Decision
The Company is ordered to cease and desist from the practice of outsourcing Airbus narrowbody heavy maintenance checks. Affected employees are to be made whole.
The matter of making affected employees whole is remanded to the parties. The Board will retain jurisdiction as to disputes, if any, arising over that portion of the remedy.
The company has made public remarks that they will ask the bankruptcy court to continue subcontracting our members’ work in violation of our collective bargaining agreement. US Airways is now trying to get from the bankruptcy court what it failed to achieve through negotiations and arbitration. Be assured that the IAM will fight in any court to defend this award and protect your jobs.
The membership will be advised of any further developments as they occur.
Sincerely and fraternally,
William O'Driscoll
PRESIDENT-DIRECTING
GENERAL CHAIRMAN
District Lodge #142
To All US Airways Mechanic & Related Employees:
System Board of Adjustment Decision on Airbus Farmout
The IAM today received the complete Airbus arbitration award, which is posted on the District 142 web site:
Airbus Arbitration Decision
On October 6, 2003, the Company announced its decision to contract out heavy maintenance work (hereinafter, “HMV†or “S-Checksâ€) on Airbus narrowbody aircraft, beginning in October 2003. Upon learning of the Company’s decision, the Union filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction. The District Court issued an injunction prohibiting the subcontracting. On appeal, however, the decision was reversed, although the Appellate Court made no finding on the ultimate merits of the case. In keeping with the Court’s decision, the parties presented the contractual question concerning the propriety of the subcontracting to the system Board of Adjustment.
The Decision
The Company is ordered to cease and desist from the practice of outsourcing Airbus narrowbody heavy maintenance checks. Affected employees are to be made whole.
The matter of making affected employees whole is remanded to the parties. The Board will retain jurisdiction as to disputes, if any, arising over that portion of the remedy.
The company has made public remarks that they will ask the bankruptcy court to continue subcontracting our members’ work in violation of our collective bargaining agreement. US Airways is now trying to get from the bankruptcy court what it failed to achieve through negotiations and arbitration. Be assured that the IAM will fight in any court to defend this award and protect your jobs.
The membership will be advised of any further developments as they occur.
Sincerely and fraternally,
William O'Driscoll
PRESIDENT-DIRECTING
GENERAL CHAIRMAN
District Lodge #142
NeedForSpeedNFS
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 517
- 0
Piney, this post was probably the MOST sensible one I have seen on here in a long time!! Very well said 
Thank you!!!
Thank you!!!
Smartest Loser
Senior
- Jun 20, 2003
- 313
- 0
From what I can find...
A BK judge doesn't have the authority to throw out judgment from a system boards decision. Image what would happen if he did, company’s that had decisions go against them would run to BK just for that one reason. He won’t do that…!!
What U's next move will be...Complete REJECTION OF THE ENTIRE CBA.
SL
A BK judge doesn't have the authority to throw out judgment from a system boards decision. Image what would happen if he did, company’s that had decisions go against them would run to BK just for that one reason. He won’t do that…!!
What U's next move will be...Complete REJECTION OF THE ENTIRE CBA.
SL
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
PineyBob said:
Hey Piney instead of stirring pot and maybe making a fool of yourself why don't you just let it play out? I mean no one including yours trully knows exactly what this victory holds. So why not wait and see instead of asking questions nobody knows the answers too? Why not give your opinion and well Shut Up? lol
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
PineyBob said:
Again Piney all those questions how does anyone know the answers until it all plays out? You remind me of USA320PILOT you just want to stir the pot calling people fools because you think you know future.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
But I think I see a double bind, here.
If U's obligation in the award is pre-petition, since it's a liability inspired by events prior to filing bankruptcy, then get in line with other creditors. If it's a post-petition liability, because the ruling came down after filing Ch. 11, then the harm will be mooted by abrogation.
So, the mechs might be able to 'fold in' some kind of settlement consideration into a new negotiated agreement, but it's all relative. So, instead of a 15% cut in pay negotiated down from the company's position of 18%, IAM gets a 15% cut in pay negotiated down from the company's 19% ask with one percent earmarked for making the mechs whole for the airbus farmout.
If U's obligation in the award is pre-petition, since it's a liability inspired by events prior to filing bankruptcy, then get in line with other creditors. If it's a post-petition liability, because the ruling came down after filing Ch. 11, then the harm will be mooted by abrogation.
So, the mechs might be able to 'fold in' some kind of settlement consideration into a new negotiated agreement, but it's all relative. So, instead of a 15% cut in pay negotiated down from the company's position of 18%, IAM gets a 15% cut in pay negotiated down from the company's 19% ask with one percent earmarked for making the mechs whole for the airbus farmout.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #206
All pre-petition grievances that were filed with the court were paid in full. Employees who had outstanding monetary awards in the process were paid in full in the last bankrutpcy. The employees under BK law are protected.
