Change of Control Update

[lithuanian]

Tom Brickner has his hand on the resent posting on the 141.

 

[The Bagfather]

Take off the negative glasses.

If you havent realized the grievance is also an M&R Grievance and there has been no negotiations in months for the M&R group, and has never been a T/A, 142 is standing strong.

700. You desearve a lot of credit. You've been consistent
your belief about the CIC for some time..Thank You

 

[Tim Nelson]

Take off the negative glasses.

If you havent realized the grievance is also an M&R Grievance and there has been no negotiations in months for the M&R group, and has never been a T/A, 142 is standing strong.

700, I don't think some of these posters are referencing M & R when they speak poorly of the IAM. THere are big differences between the two. Fleet service IAM reps apparently decided since fleet service has only been paying dues for 7 years that fleet service wasn't 'tenured' enough for the IAM to spend the additional monies fighting the COC. Unlike 141, the M & R have been paying dues for centuries and are 'tenured' and valued more than fleet service therefore instead of throwing the COC in parker's toilet with toilet tissue, your district has stood strong on it.

I agree with your opinion that it is the IAM's stance that the IAM's M & R are 'tenured' and it 'takes time to get what you need in a contract'. I don't think justice tenures anything of the sort but nonetheless, I agree the IAM treats the two groups differently. The COC is one fine example.
regards,

 

[lithuanian]

I just said, Mr. Brickner, has his hand on the recent posting.

 

[The Bagfather]

My two cents for what thier worth, probably two cents:

The Company states : Quote- ''The CIC provisions only apply in the event there is a sale
of ''assests'' or the ''then outstanding'' ''common stock'' of group. Neither has occured
hence and, as a result , the CIC provisions were not triggered.''

The IAM states : All stock in USAIR was canceled and new stock was issued. 20% going
to AW, 56% to New Equity Investors, 11% to Unsecures Investors, and 13% to Public
sale.

Alright, now to determine what exactly occured is for Mr. Bloch to decide. There is one point
though that is very important in the Unions argument. The company in thier final briefs constantly
refer to past cases and rulings similar to the current arguments, but these references are based
on an agreement made in a specific language agreement. The language in the agreement agreed
upon by the Union and the Company is based in the ''World of Corporate Transactions'' and not
in the ''Labor Management World''.

This means if this agreement had been agreed upon in the ''Labor Management World'' and not
how it was agreed upon which was the "World of Corporate Transactions'' all them references
would be valid but since the it was not presented and agreed upon in that particular language
all the company's references the company has asked Mr. Bloch to refer to should be discarded....

We'll see....and thats' my two cents but reading the briefs my two cents could be worth
considerably more soon.

Thanks

Perv: But don't they argue even within the wrong context that the argument doesn't hold?

 

[PHX PHLyer]

Let me encourage you to expedite your letter.

The central contention seems to be whether or not the IAM had an obligation to bring up the COC matters in bankrupcty as a result of having a board member or being on a committee.

I would say that the central contention is whether there was actually "a sale of all or substantially all of the assets or then common stock outstanding to a single group or a group acting in concert". That is the issue that gets the IAM their snap-back.

After reading both of those, I think the company made the strongest point.

1. No assets were sold
2. The "then" outstanding stock was cancelled
3. Even if you consider that all stock was sold...it was not to a single group or group acting in concert.
3a) America West shareholders received 20% of new stock
3b) All of the rest of the equity investors received less than 20% each
3c) 8.5 million shares were distributed in an IPO
4) Then if you want to claim that America West and all of the equity investors acted as a group in concert...then
4a) The groups were not acting in concert...they had different motivations and intentions unrelated to eachother
4b) One investor was the Air Wisconsin people who got an express contract out of it.
4c) One was Air Canada that got maintenance contracts
4d) Some asked for certain Board privileges while some did not
4e) They did not all commit to finance on the same date....they acted independently of others' decisions
4f) No investor filed with the SEC (which they would have had to do) that they were acting in accordance or in a group with other investors


I think that the IAM should get a better contract then they have now....don't get me wrong...I just don't think that the central issue, "the sale of all or substantially all of assets or common stock to a single investor or group of investors", was actually met

And its too bad that the IAM didn't try this during the 1st bankruptcy when 72% of the company went to one investor....that was a MUCH stronger case for CIC....but they didn't think that was CIC then.....but now they do...and this is a much weaker case.

A merger does not necessarily mean a sale....it involves an exchanging of stock....of which America West received only 20% of the new company in the deal

 

[lithuanian]

Funny! Everyone has an educated opinion. Get over yourselves!

 

[Henderfuzz]

Henderfuzz

Lets be realistic....I am sending am email to the arbitrator concerning my situation and about 15 other of my fellow furloughed employees....with an open mind, do you consider my circumstance a change in control acording to the tems of my CBA.

I am furlough and don't exercise my options b4 the 60 day rule.
I get Hired by America west b4 the merger.
The merger happens and I am now a Usairways employee again in my furloughed station.
Under the CBA, do I not work for the same company as when I was furloughed ?
IF YES THEN:

1. The Company should recognize my USAURWAYS seniority.
2. THERE SHOULD BE NO HIRING OFF THE STREET till all the furloughed employees have been offered recall in their station PERIOD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. Is that happening NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF NO THEN:
all of the above should have appllied a long time ago.........................


MY point is sometimes the simplest of events dictate the truth. All that lawyer garbage is just that...F them

sunofsamsonite

If you were furloughed under the East contract and rehired under the west contract than I dont see what your b*** ing about. They had different language in them. When you went to work for HP we were not under one certificate yet nor had we joint contracts. This is why this is so stupid we are still here talking about this. I work in a station with east and west employees and both still have different issiues with there current contracts. We still cant work each others flights one side constantly works short handed because were not allowed to do each others work.
I still dont understand why you keep saying the T/A was a consession, other than giving up the CIC we were offered more pay, maybe not the big raise we all would like but it was better pay.
I still dont get why you would ever see this as a consession. The way I see it never ever ever turn down a pay increase when you get that chance. Its just bad bussiness for all.
As Freedom has said before this industry has changed and its still changing. Take what you can when you can get it. Many of us who have 20 or more years would like to get what we can before we retire.

 

[The Bagfather]

I just said, Mr. Brickner, has his hand on the recent posting.

I don't get the gist of your post. Too cryptic. Please explain.

 

[lithuanian]

Why! Waste the effort. Wait it out. Everyone on this site, including the cohorts that will take US by storm need to go Dancing with the Stars. It ain't about the company, we seem to be absorbed, or Self absorbed with the results of a STUPID airline industry that is STRUGGLING to survive against the ARAB countries. Get! a real existence. Have, a HAPPY THANKSGIVING! Give thanks to any family you have left. And create! a life around them.

 

[pjirish317]

I still dont understand why you keep saying the T/A was a consession, other than giving up the CIC we were offered more pay, maybe not the big raise we all would like but it was better pay.
I still dont get why you would ever see this as a consession. The way I see it never ever ever turn down a pay increase when you get that chance. Its just bad bussiness for all.

Fuzz,
How about giving back profit sharing, then there is the trashing of the "CIC". No snapbacks untill the end of 2012. 1/2 day of sick time back. And that "BIG" raise. $19.00 is a joke. The I AM MANAGEMENT ENDORSED THIS FOR THEIR BENEFIT not ours. When are you going stop complaining about what you didn't get. I am glad that you though that the TA was a good deal. The majority of your Fleet Service brothers and sisters thought otherwise. Give up that TA already it is a dead issue. "That's all I got to say about that"

 

[lithuanian]

Bagfeather! The director of IAM Tom Brickner has decided it was important to update everyone on the Briefing. Apparently he has discovered the groups under and responsible for contracts for IAM are no doing their jobs. Do remember (their) is the correct spelling. I hate the fact blogs donl't include spelling. Told you I was not internet Savvy!

 

[PHX PHLyer]

The way I see it never ever ever turn down a pay increase when you get that chance. Its just bad bussiness for all.

Man, you need go to University of Phoenix's webpage and sign up for a Negotiations 101 class. I think the IAM can definitely hold out for a better offer than they were given. Play hard ball.....stand up for yourself....fight tooth and nail for yourself and your group....don't just accept something because it seems better than what you have now....fight for THE BEST....not something thats simply better

 

[Tim Nelson]

US AIRWAYS top attorneys state as one of their 3 founding arguments that the IAM's omission of COC talk while in bankrupcty with full knowledge fo the pending merger shows that the IAM didn't think there was a change of control. Ironically, the fact that the IAM kept its mouth shut is indicative that it fully believed there was a change of control. The action immediately after bankruptcy confirmed the IAM's belief.

I think the IAM"s ommissions were intentional and a weak argument for the company. Also a weak argument for the company regarding 'group of purchasors'. Another weak argument is that there was no asset sale because the name 'usairways' was still the same [in essance this was the argument].

IAM's argument is weak regarding the creditor's committee IMO. And discouting definition of terms by saying such terms should be left undefined outside of the actual written text in the contract. Clearly, the terms will be defined from previous meanings.

I do believe the IAM's case in totality is very convincing as it appears that the company attorneys are resting their case primarily on facts of IAM ommission and previous 2003 bankruptcy COC that it said were similar. Regarding the previous bankruptcy emergence, they were not similar at all. RSA had 71% of the voting stock but I don't remember them obtaining all or substantially all of the company. Wasn't it something less than 50% with 71% voting rights?

Anyways, funny how US AIRWAYS attorney appeared to be hiding things by saying 'assets' were "airplanes, desks and stuff like that". I found that humorous but weak. OTOH, IAM's attorney makes the case to avoid definitions outside the agreement but I don't see that happening at all.

From this novice, but educated reader, I'd say the IAM presented a strong case.
regards,

 

[mike33]

If you were furloughed under the East contract and rehired under the west contract than I dont see what your b*** ing about. They had different language in them. When you went to work for HP we were not under one certificate yet nor had we joint contracts. This is why this is so stupid we are still here talking about this. I work in a station with east and west employees and both still have different issiues with there current contracts. We still cant work each others flights one side constantly works short handed because were not allowed to do each others work.
I still dont understand why you keep saying the T/A was a consession, other than giving up the CIC we were offered more pay, maybe not the big raise we all would like but it was better pay.
I still dont get why you would ever see this as a consession. The way I see it never ever ever turn down a pay increase when you get that chance. Its just bad bussiness for all.
As Freedom has said before this industry has changed and its still changing. Take what you can when you can get it. Many of us who have 20 or more years would like to get what we can before we retire.

My #### is......I work for the same company I got layed off from. In the same station...now we have one certificate an we are no longer an outsourced station. It's not about $$$. It's about CBA language. When do the furlough get call back to usairways ? After there are no positions left beause " The New Usairways " is hiring as we speak..........?????? They should be called back...