You're right...I just read about the base updates on our website (thanks jalbalpa for the list, too)
For Delta FA's...
Opening of PDX base
Additional staffing in SEA
DTW & MSP bases to be announced in Jan.
For NW FA's...
ATL & SLC bases
Thanks
Airplanes repositioned on international routes...starting 2009!
- Thread starter jalbalpa
- Start date
You're right...I just read about the base updates on our website (thanks jalbalpa for the list, too)
For Delta FA's...
Opening of PDX base
Additional staffing in SEA
DTW & MSP bases to be announced in Jan.
For NW FA's...
ATL & SLC bases
Thanks
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #32
That is correct, however thats not the message Delta management is trying to portray. Delta mangement is sending out the messages to make it seem as you won't be flying all this until your seniority is in place. Anyone who is not on top of things such as us does not understand the process and will easily believe what management tell them. Divide and conquer, works everytime!
Our JFK base has been working the VAST international trips at Delta for MANY years now...
So we'll be more than willing to share...lol!
Besides, we'll be looking forward to flying some of the newer destinations coming up...
like the return of our Tokyo...
and trips like Buenos Aires, Valencia, and now possibly Guam
So the way I see it...it's a win-win situation!
There will be plenty of "new" flying for both groups...
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #34
Actually it does matter. You see, Delta flight attendants are not uninized and do not have a contract. There will be an election to see if the combined group wants a contract, this will happen once the NMB finds that Delta and Northwest are a single transportation system (different from SOC). From what we are hearing, the election should be sometime in March. So, 1st we need to figure out if we are going to have representation...because that will lead to other things such as seniority integration. AFA has a policy in place, and thats DOH. So you take care of one, and the other falls into place...understand?
You try and figure out seniority now before you resolve those issues and then AFA wins the election and everything you just did is a big waste of time and effort.
Pan Am 001
Newbie
- Dec 16, 2008
- 2
- 0
JFK-BOG, JFK-BON all start on Dec 18. The NYC base also gains EWR-AMS with the realignment in spring, and BOM will most likely come back to NYC albeit as a JFK/EWR-AMS-BOM trip.
I just dont know about that!
I firmly believe representation and seniority are two separate issues and will continue to be so, even with a successful representational election.
I do not feel a policy will override a law.
while many may support representation, does not necessarily mean they will also embrace the D.O.H. policy and I believe that law can enable a majority after a successful representation to still petition further seniority integration after the fact...if...a majority supports and chooses to do so.
that does not mean it will happen, but I believe it could.
assuming seniority integration will be a closed deal after the fact(with a law sitting out there that gives a majority a right) is just that an assumption.
both sides should resolve this seniority integration issue as soon as relatively possible in 2009 because, I just do not feel it will be all said and done even if the election is successful.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #37
If you look at the pilot integration you wil know that if our seniority goes to arbitration it will have pretty close to the same outcome as theirs. For the most part the pilot seniority was to keep relative seniority the same. Someone that is 1/2 way up the list at NW would be 1/2 up the list at the new Delta. Yes they were arguing for DOH but didnt get it because they are so much more senior than the Delta guys.
Most of the pilots I have talked to have either stayed where they are at in %...or lost up to 2%.
The 2 to 1, 3 to 1 etc...will never happen, just like the same ruling with the PanAm that the top 3000 aren't touched will never happen.
If you look at the seniority brackets you will see that in about 90% of the cases Delta flight attendants are a little more senior than Northwest.
If you do DOH, Northwest flight attendants know they will lose 1-2% relative seniority...but they are ok with it, because in arbitration it could be better...but also worse, same goes fro DL flight attendants.
I don't agree with everything AFA does, but I also don't agree with everything Obama stands for...I just happen to agree with him alot more than McCain, so I voted for him. Same will go with the AFA election.
Sit down, take a piece of paper. On one side write the pros, on the other the cons of having union representation.
My piece of paper had more pros than cons...so thats where I stand.
"What divides us pales in comparison to what unites us." - John F. Kennedy
Most of the pilots I have talked to have either stayed where they are at in %...or lost up to 2%.
The 2 to 1, 3 to 1 etc...will never happen, just like the same ruling with the PanAm that the top 3000 aren't touched will never happen.
If you look at the seniority brackets you will see that in about 90% of the cases Delta flight attendants are a little more senior than Northwest.
If you do DOH, Northwest flight attendants know they will lose 1-2% relative seniority...but they are ok with it, because in arbitration it could be better...but also worse, same goes fro DL flight attendants.
I don't agree with everything AFA does, but I also don't agree with everything Obama stands for...I just happen to agree with him alot more than McCain, so I voted for him. Same will go with the AFA election.
Sit down, take a piece of paper. On one side write the pros, on the other the cons of having union representation.
My piece of paper had more pros than cons...so thats where I stand.
"What divides us pales in comparison to what unites us." - John F. Kennedy
its not about pros and cons of representation....I am referring to this comment..
I do not believe it is a waste of time because I do not believe the policy is the final say regarding integration(after the law was enacted) and that is what I was referring.
what I believe is possible(if both sides do not come to agreement on exactly how seniority is to be determined and that quite possibly is D.O.H) after...a union representation election that comes first, the other pre-merger group has a ..right to continue ask for seniority integration meeting supported by that newly enacted law, if they choose to do so.
the majority may well indeed support representation, but then turn around and request seniority meetings to proceed until both sides have come to a full agreement regarding a final seniority list for bidding purposes.
the law to my understanding is to prevent any policy from overriding the majority view..so what is the point of the law if a policy can still rule the outcome for the combined group?
I believe even if two groups represented under the same association...going forward in a future merger could still enact arbitration if they choose to do so(because of that law).
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #40
>> Nonunion employees
The CAB mandated integration procedures for employees affected by transactions regardless of whether they were unionized. Similarly, the recent legislation would apply to any employee covered by the RLA, not just unionized employees. So, if a nonunion carrier either acquires or is acquired by a unionized carrier, all employee groups would receive these integration procedures.
Again, though, nonunion employees would not have any successorship protections (they don’t have to be hired by the successor) nor would they have any right to negotiate over their other terms of employment. The seniority integration procedures would only apply if they were hired and then would not protect any other term of employment.
Even as it relates to seniority integration, there is a fair question as to just what “seniority†nonunion employees can have. The federal courts have stated repeatedly that seniority is solely a creation of contract (i.e., collective bargaining agreements.) If you don’t have a contract, do you really have seniority? And do you have seniority entitlements (for example, in the ordering of a list) that would be enforceable in an integration arbitration?
So while this legislation covers nonunion employees, it, at most, provides only limited protection and even that protection is open to question.
Interesting piece....this is why I dont want it to go to arbitration!
The CAB mandated integration procedures for employees affected by transactions regardless of whether they were unionized. Similarly, the recent legislation would apply to any employee covered by the RLA, not just unionized employees. So, if a nonunion carrier either acquires or is acquired by a unionized carrier, all employee groups would receive these integration procedures.
Again, though, nonunion employees would not have any successorship protections (they don’t have to be hired by the successor) nor would they have any right to negotiate over their other terms of employment. The seniority integration procedures would only apply if they were hired and then would not protect any other term of employment.
Even as it relates to seniority integration, there is a fair question as to just what “seniority†nonunion employees can have. The federal courts have stated repeatedly that seniority is solely a creation of contract (i.e., collective bargaining agreements.) If you don’t have a contract, do you really have seniority? And do you have seniority entitlements (for example, in the ordering of a list) that would be enforceable in an integration arbitration?
So while this legislation covers nonunion employees, it, at most, provides only limited protection and even that protection is open to question.
Interesting piece....this is why I dont want it to go to arbitration!
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #41
Now to the actual "fair and equitable law!
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
(B) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘covered air carrier’’ means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘covered employee’’ means an employee who—
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
© APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION.–This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
(B) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘covered air carrier’’ means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘covered employee’’ means an employee who—
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term ‘‘covered transaction’’ means—
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
© APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION.–This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.
thank you, I clearly see what (1) implies.. but how does that relate to a pre-merger group that
has not previously been covered by that representative.. when a CBA is not in place for the previous "pre-merger" non represented group? can (1) be challenged?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #44
A CBA does not have to be in place, this is in the AFA constitution.
This is what happens.
1. The NMB declares Delta a single carrier (has not happened yet)
2. AFA has 2 weeks to submit a “showing of interest†of at least 35% support from employees of the combined unit to trigger an election.
3. The NMB will conduct a representation election among the employees of the combined employee group. If the union prevails in that election (by receiving 50%+1 votes of all eligible employees in the unit), then the NMB will issue a new certification of representation for the combined unit.
4. The union wins the elction.
5. Interim officers are appointed by Pat Friend & Veda Shook.
6. Seniority is integrated
7. The workforce will receive survey to find out what Delta flight attendants feel is most important and should have in a new CBA.
8. An election will be held within the first 6 months to determine who the LEC & MEC officials will be.
9. Work begins on a JCBA
There is only 1 thing that would actually need to be discussed in regards to seniority. All NW flight attendants have their seniority date as the first day in training. Delta flight attendants vary, most recently they used the first day in the base. Then changed in 2008 back to the first day in training to be able to include all trainees on the active flight attendant list.
Now, if it does not pass...
NW flight attendants will not agree to anything, it goes to arbitration after 30 days.
What can happen in arbitration?
Here is an article in regards...
Even as it relates to seniority integration, there is a fair question as to just what “seniority†nonunion employees can have. The federal courts have stated repeatedly that seniority is solely a creation of contract (i.e., collective bargaining agreements.) If you don’t have a contract, do you really have seniority? And do you have seniority entitlements (for example, in the ordering of a list) that would be enforceable in an integration arbitration?
So while this legislation covers nonunion employees, it, at most, provides only limited protection and even that protection is open to question.
You see why arbitration is bad?
Something else that could happen is Delta management could agree with AFA on seniority integration and you could ultimately lose alot! Remember, the seniority integration committee doesn't determine what Delta flight attendants will get. They can only make a recomendation to Delta management who will ultimately will be the one representing you in an arbitration hearing.
where does it actually state that in this situation of non-representation/representation that a CBA does not need to be in place and the policy will ultimately determine actual seniority integration because the pre-merger group would still be working under their policy manual? the law does not seem to be very clear in that regard and may be challenged. laws are sometimes taken and interpreted in different ways, that is why I am wondering where is it that says no CBA is acceptable and will supercede the right to arbitration(if so desired by the pre-merger group) regardless of representation.
for example, the policy instead of supporting DOH could in fact be "by the birthdate of employee" or the policy could be "staple to the bottom" even though the policy is DOH(which I agree with) it seems the law is useless if it allows a policy to be enforced without any recourse of arbitration, if in fact a majority supports representation but does not agree with the policy.
I feel that law can be interpreted another way.
Similar threads
