Congress Or Chaos May Await Us Airways

[USA320Pilot]

PitBull:

With all due respect, the majority of employees, as indicated by this weekend’s company performance, do not share your sentiment on this forum. Union press releases and rally's are nice, but management senior negotiators will not be intimidated because they have a mandate from the financial community, e.g., GECAS.

Furthermore, the bankruptcy court, the appellate court, the NMB, Congress, and the Bush Administration will likely not permit "self help" and the company fully understands this point.

Even Teddy Xidas recognized the GE deal (per her comments in the Post-Gazette) changes the game and US Airways' key financier has given management an even stronger hand to play against the AFA, CWA, and IAM.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if management's counterproposal to last weekend's AFA counter will be even worse.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[motnot]

Boeing Boy, that timeline appears to have some rather high hurdles. I would guess that they are not intended to be too high to reach, but rather represent the major changes necessary in order for the airline to attract private investment (even in the mild form of the GE "lifeline").

USA320pilot, it seemed your response to me didn't really address the specific points I previously made, but rather simply restated your views, with which most readers of this board already are familiar. So I am once again referencing my comments in hopes that you will continue the dialogue.

I don't expect Mitchell will abrogate any union contracts until after he's back from his holiday vacation in 2005. Because the guy is probably smart enough to know what union members will do if he makes that ruling.

USA320pilot, your insistence that a strike will be prohibited is, of course, speculation. By all accounts, it's a gray area in the law, as this situation has never happened. I expect the judge to spend a great deal of time researching the law on that very issue.

Whether the judge ultimately rules that a strike is legal or not, I think the odds are high that union members will strike regardless. Will Mitchell order thousands of people arrested for contempt of court? At that point, would it even matter to the survival of the airline?

I've not seen you once address, or even acknowledge, those possibilities. As an outsider, to me, the situation looks quite dire.

[post="204512"][/post]​

 

[deano]

PitBull:

With all due respect, the majority of employees, as indicated by this weekend’s company performance, do not share your sentiment on this forum. Union press releases and rally's are nice, but management senior negotiators will not be intimidated because they have a mandate from the financial community, e.g., GECAS.

Furthermore, the bankruptcy court, the appellate court, the NMB, Congress, and the Bush Administration will likely not permit "self help" and the company fully understands this point.

Even Teddy Xidas recognized the GE deal (per her comments in the Post-Gazette) changes the game and US Airways' key financier has given management an even stronger hand to play against the AFA, CWA, and IAM.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if management's counterproposal to last weekend's AFA counter will be even worse.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="204801"][/post]​

You and usfliboi are the twisted sisters getting their rocks off as employees get crushed by corporate America. If an employees shows any resistance or disdain over the blatant breaking of their contracts including long time employees who have retired losing their hard earned benefits both in money and healthcare you two scream with glee like two little girls. You two and your types make me sick and why there are wars fought to right severe wrongs in the world. You two are so far south of normal thinking humans it's a case study it twisted human behavior.

Curt EX cavalier

 

[700UW]

The NMB, Bush nor Judge mitchell can stop self-help, the Unions at CAL and EAL did do self-help and the NMB, the courts nor the President had the authority to stop it.

You keep posting false information time and time again and you have been informed of this numerous times and your own ALPA attorney who you annoited god-like status has even wrote a book on union's rights to seek self-help when a contract is abrogated.

So for the millionith time STOP posting FALSE information.

 

[ClueByFour]

Furthermore, the bankruptcy court, the appellate court, the NMB, Congress, and the Bush Administration will likely not permit "self help" and the company fully understands this point.

[post="204801"][/post]​

It's not a question of permission. It's a question of "when?"

 

[eolesen]

The NMB, Bush nor Judge mitchell can stop self-help, the Unions at CAL and EAL did do self-help and the NMB, the courts nor the President had the authority to stop it.

[post="204831"][/post]​

Wrong. If the contract is arbrogated, that doesn't arbrogate other contraints which are still in place under the RLA. This is new trail, in that there's never been a S1113 arbrogation done with an airline or railroad. EAL's contracts weren't arbrogated -- they were at the end of a cooling off period. In theory, Reagan could have ordered CAL's unions back to work when they struck in 1983, but he didn't.

In every other case where a contract has been arbrogated under S1113, the contract fell under the labor law constraints of Taft-Hartley, which does not have as many restrictions as the Railway Labor Act has in regard to when self-help can be used. Under the RLA, Bush can order a PEB . Under Taft-Hartley, there is no such thing as a PEB.

If the unions ignore that, a court (not Judge Mitchell) can issue a restraining order.

While that doesn't stop the unions from ignoring either order, but the authority is there for both Bush and the court.

Since the government has an investment in U, it isn't out of the question to think that a PEB would be declared. Then again, if there's sufficient cash or assets to repay the ATSB loan, it's just as possible for Bush to decline to convene a PEB.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wrong. If the contract is arbrogated, that doesn't arbrogate other contraints which are still in place under the RLA, so Bush can order a PEB and prevent self-help from continuing .

[post="204901"][/post]​

Can you cite the case law for that?

Jim

 

[700UW]

Go read the Railway Labor Act, those constraints are under Section 6, which are traditional negotiations.

Neither party under under section 6 negotiations.

Better go do some research.

Did they strike at CAL?

Yes!

 

[BoeingBoy]

OK,

My question still stands....

A PEB, if memory serves, comes at the end of the RLA process when no agreement has been reached, and it is a status quo measure. In short, while the PEB keeps the strike from happening, it alsos keep the company from imposing a contract.

So, in theory, a PEB could be convened but would effectively stay the contract abrogation.

"The President may create an emergency board to investigate and report on a dispute over the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Under the Railway Labor Act, the President may exercise his discretion to create an emergency board when the labor dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service."

Creation of an emergency board delays a strike, lockout or other form of self-help, generally for 60 days. The emergency board has 30 days to issue its report. Generally, emergency boards provide recommendations for settlement of the dispute. After the emergency board reports to the President, the parties to the dispute have another 30 day cooling off period to consider the recommendations of the emergency board and to reach an agreement.

If no agreement is reached at the end of the cooling off period, then the parties may engage in self-help, including strikes, lockouts and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment."

 

[eolesen]

Go read the Railway Labor Act, those constraints are under Section 6, which are traditional negotiations.

Neither party under under section 6 negotiations.

Better go do some research.

Did they strike at CAL?

Yes!

[post="204904"][/post]​

Oh, I've done my research. PEB's aren't only restricted to Section 6 negotiations.

TITLE 45 > CHAPTER 8 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 160

§ 160. Emergency board

If a dispute between a carrier and its employees be not adjusted under the foregoing provisions of this chapter and should, in the judgment of the Mediation Board, threaten substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Mediation Board shall notify the President, who may thereupon, in his discretion, create a board to investigate and report respecting such dispute.

The key words here -- if a disupute be not adjusted.

Historically, only a Section 6 negotiation would escalate to this extent, but as you cited, § 160 could have been invoked with Continental in 1983.

Reagan could have ordered them back to work. He chose not to.

And Bush may chose not to. But it does appear that he has the power, and there isn't any precedent to the contrary.

That's why this is grey area. The law appears to provide the power, but courts sometimes see it differently, and it won't be clarified until someone actually tries to apply it.

 

[700UW]

The RLA also states no party can violate the status quo, an abrogation violates the status quo. The dispute you talk about is traditional negotiations, did Bush 1 create a PEB at EAL? No, and he could have because they were in Section 6 negotiations, ALPA and TWU all struck and NO Federal Judge nor Bush 1 put them back to work.

What is Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act?
Section 6 is the provision of the Railway Labor Act which tells the carrier and union how to start and continue collective bargaining to amend the applicable rates of pay, rules and working conditions.

It places duty on the parties to meet and bargain in response to the other side’s “notice of intended change†that is, the “Section 6 notice.â€

The same duty applies when the parties are negotiating their initial agreement whether or not the negotiations are formally described as “Section 6 negotiation.â€

What is the “Status Quo†Obligation?
“Status Quo†is a phrase that was developed by the courts to describe the period of starting with the initiation of direct negotiations and include the period of mediation under the auspices of the National Mediation Board.

The Railway Labor Act says that from the start of direct negotiations until agreement is reached or until the end of the statutory negotiating process (i.e. through the end of the “cooling off periodâ€) the carrier cannot alter rates of pay, rules or working conditions -- the “status quo.â€

The courts have interpreted this obligation to apply to both carriers and unions. The status quo obligation also applies while a contract is in effect, between negotiations, by precluding unilateral changes in rates of pay or working conditions, which lack even an arguable basis under the collective bargaining agreement or established practices.

 

[eolesen]

The RLA also states no party can violate the status quo, an abrogation violates the status quo.

[post="204911"][/post]​

Under normal circumstances, you're absolutely correct. But these are not normal circumstances.

Bankruptcy law allows for any contract to be rejected provided that due process is followed. S1113 sets out the process for labor contracts.

When you have overlapping law, someone has to decide which takes precedence.

Case history exists under Taft-Hartley. It doesn't exist yet under the RLA.

Past practice (to quote the defense used most by union stewards in grievence proceedings...) is that the provisions of S1113 supercede labor law, by allowing the status quo to be changed if ordered by a judge.

 

[jack mama]

700,
Do the temporary cuts under 1113e change the status quo...no right to strike

Why would if be different under 1113c?

 

[Rico]

I think a lot of you are missing the point.

The Issue is NOT if a union will be denied their legal right to strike. No matter what happens, that constant in labor relations will remain.

The question instead is WHEN they will be allowed to strike, not IF.

With no specific precedent set, it then falls to argue the merits of the case. A judge would have to weigh the options avail. to determine what course to take. It comes down to an argument over if to:

1. Allow negotiations to continue (while the imposed conditions are in place) with the full weight of a worlk action avail to the union after the full negotiation/cooling off/release/Presidential Board process has been exhausted. (unions still have right to strike, but only after the usual drawn out process)

2. Allow the unions to strike or commit other work actions at will without restraint, and without release to do so from the NMB.


I tend to think that this particular situation is more akin to if a given work group ,at a given company organizes and elects to be represented by a union. In that situation, they have no contract, rather they continue to work under whatever was in place beforehand, and the negotiation process for a Collective Bargining agreement begins.

If you start a union at an airline, yet have no contract in place yet, you do not get to just go and strike, do you...?


The other thing to consider, is what is the intent of the 1113c process...? Is it to allow relief to the debtor, or to allow relief to the employees...?

Think in these terms, that a union being able to immediatley strike right after the abrogation nullifies the purpose of said abrogation. Any Company in dire enough straits to be able to obtain judicial relief would obviously collapse under the weight of any work action. Why be able to abrogate a labor contract if you cannot continue on afterwards...?

The fact is that if the Unions are forced to continue negotiations after the 1113c process, then they still retain the right to strike after exhausting the normal means to reach some form of agreement with management.

The ONLY ones that can release a union to strike is the NMB, not a BK Judge. No release, no strike, simple enough.


Like I said, high stakes poker...

 

[700UW]

Because 1113e is TEMPORARY change, not a permenant and permitted by 1113 it does not void your contract as 1113c does.