August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion

[mike33]

19 year anniversary with iam representation!
As proud union members we can lay hold of a .15 cents yearly pay raise. A net retirement loss. 62 lost stations
All since our members voted in the iam.

Thank you iam! A fine organization that should make all non union employees jump at signing an iam card!

What's your point Tim ? It's hard to understand where ur coming from. Does the remark have something in it that we don't already know? Or are you actually negative Iam or negative company? I think it should be the other way around. I'm for a better contract. The administrator whomever it may be reqs our help to make it so. I'm no Cheerleader for anything but a new contract Fair and Equitable for all. No politics involved. That's why I've always said ill wait to see what is brought to the table by the NC Before I talk politics because they need to know where I stand. And that's behind them! Period!

 

[700UW]

I guess 9/11, fuel prices, sars and two chapter 11 filings have nothing to do with it.

I guess ALPA, AFA, IAM, AMFA, TWU, and the CWA all took concessions at most of the major airlines for the heck of it.

Grow up.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Mike,
We should all support the nc current stance to stand tall and get a leading industry contract and not even bother with a fence agreement.
But the 19 year anniversary remains true and it would be less than wise to turn a blind eye towards the service we have received.
Thus my support of them is not some naive support. Im watching the nc like a hawk. Lets hope they dont betray us and sign a fence agreement kicking off a betrayal.

The iam141 eboard said the same thing at united. At any rate, its good to remind the leadership what is expected and that we know what happened at united.

Not sure what politics have to do with objectiveness. Nobody as far as i know is soliciting another union.

 

[Tim Nelson]

700,
Fleet doesnt have a bankruptcy contract. The twu and cwa have done much better though, even though the twu contract is a sucky bankrupt contract with an airline that lost 1.2 billion last year. Hell, parker even stuck another 4.3% in their pockets.
700, given the piss clam representation by the iam at nw, ua, and us, this decade, give me one reason why any ceo would respect them and not just try to push the iam over and watch the leaders take monumental "down goes frazier" falls.
Lets hope the iam doesnt F things up again, as the association on fleet means clear section 6 sailing.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Mike, my worldview takes a more broad view of our craft and i have been engaged with our craft at many airlines and not just the small world of usairways.
I have taken on the iam at both airtran and united, as well as usairways, and in each case it has been the enemy we have had to fight. I can sense another fight coming on usairways although im hopeful they clean their act up and are down taking beatings. Im on their arse and will be until they get a fair contract and stop bull s everyone.

Management is management. We definately can blame them but at least they are not blowing smoke as the iam has in the broader world of our craft.

 

[mike33]

Noted ................

 

[robbedagain]

as for the job the cwa has done tim i do agree with you that they have done a better job. for ex they have their own members at us cities they got their snap backs in either 2010 or 11 profit sharin checks etx but they do not have a pension

iam 141 2008 contract crappy sick (50%) first 3 days.. loss of more cities primarily out west... granted the hp people were put up to our standards.. at the expense and cost of our fellow union bros n sis top pay of 20.57 after 12 yrs

usairways making money over money to the tune of 537million in 2012 alone esp with the bag fees mgmt looking fwd to merging with aa offers aa union employees bigger pay in return for support of the merger yet they cannot seem to strike deals with their own union folks

now with both iam groups formally asking to be released and no word on that answer and i would not expect any answer given the slow pace... solidarity is now we must have solidarity need to be informed need to let mgmt know we are a force to be reckoned with
and its high flying time we get a much better contract with benes to go with it NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS ABOUT IT

 

[ograc]

"Within each social group, a feeling of solidarity prevails, a compelling need to work together and a joy in doing so that represent a high moral value". - Christian Louis Lange​

Within the Fleet Service Group at US and AA we desperately need to obtain a feeling of solidarity. We must recognize the importance of working together to obtain improvements to our common good. Focusing on shortfalls of past leadership teams and personal attacks is counter productive to obtaining the solidarity the group desperstely needs at this time and IMO... yearns for. Once again... I respectfully request the focus to be on our collective future, our current negotiations and free from personal squabbles and attacks.

 

[robbedagain]

completely agree orgac

 

[Tim Nelson]

Robbedagain
I think the cwa % sucks but lets do the math.
A full timer who is not a lead but topped out and getting the .30 longevity pay, with just an avg equalization of a modest 4 overtime hours a week has a greater contribution from the company than any full timer who has an iam logo. And a part timer who is topped out upstairs has a much greater contribution from the company than any iam employee. We can talk all day about whats guranteed or how to invest, but all the company cares about is its cost going into a retirement.
Remember, the cwa 401 is cumulative, based on lead pay, ot, longevity, etc. but the iampf is just based on regular hours.
I myself would prefer the way uniteds iampf is worded, ie, 6.5% of everything. Then when you get a pay raise, your pension benefit goes up automatically.

 

[Tim Nelson]

As far as im concerned. Put the additional .85 in the wage instead of trying to chase more money into the iampf just to make up for what the iamp trustees robbed from us. Imo, it makes absolutely no sense to divert increased benefits into the control of the pension trustees. Put in increases in wage, benefit or scope since everything is a dollar figure. Either that or base the iampf on a % like at united. The iampf trustees ripped our members off once so dont worship the iam and bow down to further increases into the iampf. Btw, cb, how many members quit before the finish their fidth year?
I t is better for those peeps if they had a 401 because we should rather they get to keep their money instead of the iam.
Gosh i hope reagan isnt going to get you guys to bite on tossing more into the iampf without recognizing the 401.

 

[robbedagain]

tim i did not know ual or the cwa retirement but yes i think 6.5% that ua has we should get something like that or higher and when we get raises let it go up that way too. i was under the impression that the cwa does not have a retirement let alone a 401k but thanks for the infor. i sure hope cb or p rez can post a list of cities with the dates n or times that theyll be visiting to build solidarity

 

[john john]

Do you all not understand what happened?

It is apparent you dont understand bankruptcy and Section 1113 C of the code which outlines the procedures for collective bargaining agreements in chapter 11.

KATZ'S ON "SELP-HELP"

Daniel M. Katz (VSB # 18022)
KATZ & RANZMAN, P.C.
1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 659-4656 (Telephone)
(202) 659-3145 (Facsimile)
Attorney for the Communications Workers

The reference to “work slow-downs or other service disruptions,”
moreover, apparently constitutes an attempt to interfere with CWA’s right to engage in self-help
guaranteed under the RLA. As we demonstrate, infra, should the Court impose contractual
modifications to which CWA has not agreed, CWA would be free, under the RLA, to engage in
self-help and strike. The Norris- LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101, forbids the issuance of
injunctions against such lawful strikes. The Company’s proposal relating to outsourcing appears
designed to penalize the CWA and its members for exercising their right to engage in lawful
strike activities. Any court order embodying such a provision would therefore run afoul of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act.
Under the NLRA, unions retain the right to resort to self- help in support of their
bargaining positions upon bankruptcy court modification of their collective bargaining contracts
pursuant to § 1113. Crowe & Assoc., Inc. v. Bricklayers Local No. 2, 713 F.2d 211 (6th Cir.
1983) (vacating injunction against strike called to back up union’s demand that debtor pay
12 It is noteworthy that the carrier never even raised the issue in the hotly contested Continental Airlines
bankruptcy, in which all of the carrier’s unionized work groups went on strike when the airline repudiated its
collective bargaining contracts. See In re Continental Airlines Corp., 901 F.2d 1259 (5th Cir. 1990); ALPA v.
O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991). Nor did the courts issue an injunction against the pilots of the bankrupt Eastern
Airlines for engaging in a sympathy strike. Although the pilots’ contract was not rejected pursuant to Section 1113,
the strike was held lawful. Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. ALPA, 1989 WL 205343 (11th Cir.); IAM v. Eastern Airlines,
Inc., 121 B.R. 428, 431 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), affirmed, 923 F.2d 26, 27 (2d Cir. 1991).
33
money into union pension fund); Briggs Transp. Co. v. Teamsters, 739 F.2d 341 (8th Cir.), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 917 (1984) (strike to protest modification of collective bargaining agreement is
labor dispute that cannot be enjoined due to Norris LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101); In re
Petrusch, 667 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1981); In re Third Ave. Transit Corp. v. Quill, 192 F.2d 971, 973
(2d Cir. 1951); In re Kentucky Truck Sales, Inc., 52 B.R. 797, 806 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1985). See
also Teamsters v. IML Freight, Inc., 789 F.2d 1460 (10th Cir. 1986) (reversing and remanding
order approving rejection because bankruptcy court did not consider, inter alia, the likelihood
that the employees would strike). The Company does not contend otherwise, instead ignoring
the issue on the apparent assumption that airline employees should have fewer rights to respond
to the abrogation or modification of their collective bargaining contracts under § 1113 than
trucking or manufacturing workers.
To be sure, the RLA is a statute designed to deter premature resort by employers or
unions to self- help, and to encourage the parties to resolve their bargaining impasses by utilizing
mediation and voluntary arbitration, as opposed to strikes and lock-outs. So, too, however, is the
NLRA, which asserts as its first finding, in 29 U.S.C. § 151: “The denial by some employers of
the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of
collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the
intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce. . . .” Akin to the findings
and declarations of policy in the RLA, the NLRA further states as a declaration of national labor
policy in 29 U.S.C. § 171 a and B that:
(a) sound and stable industrial peace and the advancement of the general
welfare, health, and safety of the Nation and of the best interests of employers and
employees can most satisfactorily be secured by the settlement of issues between
employers and employees through the processes of conference and collective
bargaining between employers and the representatives of their employees;
34
b- the settlement of issues between employers and employees through
collective bargaining may be advanced by making available full and adequate
governmental facilities for conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid
and encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to reach and
maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and
to make all reasonable efforts to settle their differences by mutual agreement
reached through conferences and collective bargaining or by such methods as may
be provided for in any applicable agreement for the settlement of disputes. . . .
Thus, the RLA and the NLRA do not differ significantly on the primary point on which we
expect the Company to rely.
What distinguishes the RLA from the NLRA in this regard is not the overall aim of the
legislation, but rather the means by which that aim is realized. Under the NLRA, by and large,
the obligation of a union not to strike, and the obligation of an employer not to resort to self-help,
is created by the parties' contract, as interpreted in light of the aims of the statute. See Mastro
Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 350 U.S. 270, 280-83 (1956). Under the
RLA, the restriction against self- help dur ing the term of a contract is written expressly into the
statute. At the same time, the RLA contemplates that, once the parties have entered into a
collective bargaining relationship, that relationship continues indefinitely; that is, RLA contracts,
unlike NLRA contracts, do not have fixed terms, but rather come up for amendment periodically,
and remain in effect until amended. See, e.g., Bhd. of Ry. and S.S. Clerks v. Florida East Coast
Ry. Co., 384 U.S. 238 (1966) (contract terms that the employer did not specifically seek to
modify during collective bargaining negotiations continue in effect); Trans World Airlines v.
Indep. Fed’n of Flight Attendants, 809 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1987) (same), aff’d mem. by an equally
divided Court, 485 U.S. 175 (1988). And, it is against this backdrop that the RLA’s regulation of
employer and union self-help operate.
35
Before unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment described in a
collective bargaining agreement, a carrier must follow the detailed procedures specified in the
RLA for amending such an agreement. Section 2, Seventh of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152,
Seventh, provides: “No carrier, its officers or age nts shall change the rates of pay, rules, or
working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner
prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title.” See, e.g., RLA Section 6, 45
U.S.C. § 156, concerning written notice of the change. See also Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 378 (1969) (summarizing the Act’s major
dispute resolution procedures). As the Supreme Court held in Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks v. Florida East Coast Ry., 384 U.S. 238, 247 (1966), “The processes of
bargaining and mediation called for by the Act would indeed become a sham if a carrier could
unilaterally achieve what the Act requires be done by the other orderly procedures.”
The significance of the RLA’s major dispute resolution procedures for present purposes
is this: The statute contemplates that a CBA, once entered into, does not expire on its own
terms, thus provid ing a trade-off between the right to self- help, on the one hand, and the stability
afforded by the continuing agreement, on the other. The RLA endeavors to secure this balance
by mandating a series of specified procedures before permitting an employer unilaterally to
impose changed terms and conditions on its employees or allowing a union to call a strike in
order to pressure an employer to agree to terms and conditions more favorable to employees.
Section 1113 disrupts this regime by allowing an employer, with Bankrup tcy Court approval, to
reject or modify a CBA without regard to RLA procedures. Thus, § 1113, like the RLA itself,
creates a process—albeit a comparatively accelerated process—for arriving at an impasse and
allowing employer self- help. There is accordingly only one logical way to reconcile the RLA
36
and the Bankruptcy Code, and to prevent the unfair consequences of permitting only one
collective bargaining party to engage in self- help in support of its bargaining position. That is to
understand § 1113 as the functional equivalent of the major dispute resolution procedures of the
RLA. We submit that the Court should therefore recognize, just as every court to have
considered the question under the NLRA has held, that rejection or modification of a CBA,
followed by an employer’s unilateral imposition of terms and conditions, triggers the right to
strike on the part of employees.
Moreover, if the CWA were to strike, it would do so specifically in order to “maintain”
the collective bargaining agreement, as required under Section 2, First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. §
152, First, not to undermine it. RLA Section 2, First provides: “It shall be the duty of all
carriers, their officers, agents and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and
maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions ….” Section 2, First
therefore supports the Union’s position that the Bankruptcy Court should leave all of the
provisions of the contract intact, exactly as the parties agreed to them.
In addition, Section 2, First is inextricably linked to other provisions of the RLA, which
provide for an orderly, but drawn out process for the negotiation and modification of collective
bargaining contracts. By obtaining the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of its modification of the
CWA contract, over the CWA’s objection, US Airways would be sidestepping the RLA’s
detailed procedures for contract formation and amendment. Having itself eschewed the RLA
processes, US Airways would have no equitable basis from which to contend that the RLA itself
prevents the Union and its members from striking on the theory that they are under a duty to
“make and maintain” their collective bargaining agreement, even though the Company is
purportedly at liberty to modify it.
37
Any attempt by US Airways to enjoin a strike, moreover, would be doomed to fail. As
the Supreme Court emphasized in Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 772 (1961), “AThe Norris-
LaGuardia Act [29 U.S.C. ' 101 et seq.]. . .expresses a basic policy against the injunction of
activities of labor unions.” Prior to the enactment of the Norris- LaGuardia Act in 1932, federal
courts routinely issued injunctions against peaceful strike activity in spite of the fact that the
Clayton Act, 29 U.S.C. § 52, expressly forbade such injunctions. Burlington Northern R.R. v.
Maintenance of Way Employees, 481 U.S. 429, 437-39 (1987). Congress enacted the Norris-
LaGuardia Act in order to halt this pattern. Id. at 438.
In light of the fact that Congress rejected an amendment to the Norris-LaGuardia Act that
would have exempted the railroad industry from its reach, id. at 439-40, an exception to the antiinjunction
directive of the Norris-LaGuardia Act based on alleged violations of the RLA “is
necessarily a limited one.” Id. at 446. Its prohibitions, to be sure, are not absolute: “In certain
limited circumstances the Norris- LaGuardia Act does not prevent a court from enjoining
violations of the specific mandate of another labor statute.” Id. at 444. However, the Supreme
Court has cautioned:
Even when a violation of a specific mandate of the RLA is shown, “[c]ourts should
hesitate to fix upon the injunctive remedy ... unless that remedy alone can effectively
guard the plaintiff’s right.” Machinists, supra, 367 U.S., at 773, 81 S.Ct., at 1802.
Burlington Northern, supra, 481 U.S. at 446. The RLA contains no specific mandate against a
strike by airline employees whose collective bargaining agreement has been modified by a
Bankruptcy Court. The Norris-LaGuardia Act thus adds another layer of protection to the right
of airline employees to match their employer’s self- help in securing the modification of their
agreement with corresponding self-help actions in support of their agreement.
38
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, CWA respectfully requests that the Court refer the matter for
arbitration before the US Airways-CWA System Board of Adjustment, or, in the alternative, that
this Court dismiss or deny US Airways’ Motion to modify its collective bargaining agreement
with CWA pursuant to Section 1113(e).

Respectfully submitted,
____/s/ Daniel M. Katz_____________
Daniel M. Katz (VSB # 18022)
KATZ & RANZMAN, P.C.
1015 18th Street, N.W., Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 659-4656 (Telephone)
(202) 659-3145 (Facsimile)
Attorney for the Communications Workers
of America, AFL-CIO

 

[Tim Nelson]

Robbed, the iam pollyannas like to say the cwa doesnt have a retirement but a 401k is a retirement plan. Again, the benefit is measured by the objective math of what is contributed to the plan. The iam can make all sorts of pie in the sky guarantees with their iam math of what your benefit might look like in 30 years. But the viability and cost of a plan is largely determined on how much money is going into it.

 

[ograc]

tim i did not know ual or the cwa retirement but yes i think 6.5% that ua has we should get something like that or higher and when we get raises let it go up that way too. i was under the impression that the cwa does not have a retirement let alone a 401k but thanks for the infor. i sure hope cb or p rez can post a list of cities with the dates n or times that theyll be visiting to build solidarity

robbedagain,
I ask that everyone please consider the following regarding current contract negotiations: With going through 2 BKs and a Transition Agreement the Fleet Service has a long list of needed improvememts. With that being said... anyone who implies all of these improvements will or should be achieved through one Section 6 contract agreement is either misleading or naive. Granted... this may be the last contract for many. The unfortunate truth for many is they will never get back the concessions of the past. There is so much to get back it will not be achieved in one contract. The NC must focus on building repair damage one foundation block at a time. It starts with protecting the work we have through better scope language. there are so many needs of repair the NC needs to prioritize.