Congress Or Chaos May Await Us Airways

[Rico]

1113E...?

Where did that come from...?


Ummm, 1113c is the topic amigo, and like I said, the situation IMO after a contract has been abrogated is more like that at an airline that just had a union form, and thus have to begin the process to negotiate a new CBA...

Rather than your premise of a work group that works "at will", as if they had no representation in place whatsoever.

But the kicker is IMO, that since you DO represent your work groups, even without a contract you are still bound to the same rules as if you recently came onto the property.

And that means negotiation under the same ol RLA rules.

You no longer work "at will" if a union is in place in any normal situation, why would this be different?

You work under your last agreements in place (sound familiar), until a CBA can be ratified under the process of the RLA. A brand new union at an airline is NOT allowed to strike until they have gone through the entire negotiation/mediation/cooling off/release process...

So why would you, just because you are pissed about having had the 1113c process start you from square one all over again...?

The trade off of being able to organize, is that you have to follow the process. And that process is designed to force negotiations.

 

[700UW]

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

Why would if be different under 1113c?

[post="204921"][/post]​

Rico, learn to read the thread.

That is where it came from.

Even your ALPA lawyer Seltzer says workers can strike after an abrogation.

When a contract is abrogated you work under the condition imposed by the motion and it does NOT DECERTIFY the union representation under the NMB.

 

[Rico]

Even your ALPA lawyer Seltzer says workers can strike after an abrogation.

Gee, a union lawyer that writes a pro-unon opinion, That is a shocker...

No Duh... Unions will retain the right to strike after abrogation, it is the pillar upon which all union representation/contract negotiation rests.

That is not the question. The question is WHEN they can strike. You claim it is right after abrogation, but to claim such implies that you are not just without a contract, but without representation as well.

My point is, that AS SOON as you are certified as a union, representing a work group on an airline property, you are protected by, but subject to the RLA and rulings of the NMB.

The Judge is not decertifying the union, only the CBA you now have in place, taking you back to square one, just as if you recently arrived on the property

When a contract is abrogated you work under the condition imposed by the motion and it does NOT DECERTIFY the union representation under the NMB.

Which IS THE POINT

The judge cannot grant you release to strike, only the NMB can do that. No release = no strike.

Your notion of no contract = can strike is inncorrect, If you were not to show up to work at that point it is called "quitting".

 

[700UW]

You dont need the NMB's permission to strike, at CAL they struck. The NMB only has the power when you are in section 6, go read the steps in the RLA.

 

[Rico]

Oh, yeah, say, how did that "stirke" go...

Ummmm, yeah.

Thought so.

That situation was what brought on the 1113c process in the first place, not just to protect labor from getting lorenzo-ized, but IMO to lead the entire affair back to the negotiation table. Which is what the company (and IMO the unions want).

If it were as simple as "CAL was able to do it then, so we can do it now", then we would not even be where we are right now, would we...?

Like I said, it is a legal question now, that no one really knows the answer to.

It is a high stakes game of poker in which the outcome will determine what will happen for those to foillow. But that being the case, the choice between allowing Labor the ability to "just strike", or to keep them under the same restictions that have been in place is not that tough.

If it goes before a Rebublican Congress, and a Rebulican President (which it is most likely to end up) you know which choice will win.

 

[usfliboi]

700, if the contract is thrown out, theres no contrat. If youre free to strike over a contract you dont have, then the company is able to hire at will thousands of airline employees beggint to work . Makes nooo sense to me for this union or any union to threaten a strike. Reality hasnt set in but soon it will . Wait and see!

 

[700UW]

Yep thousands, who have to undergo a fingerprinting, background check, drug test.

And then there is the pesky FAA problem in regard to maintenance and F/As.

Do actual think about things before you post?

Yep they hired 50 part-time ramp in Charlotte and only 4 showed up.

 

[BoeingBoy]

like I said, the situation IMO after a contract has been abrogated is more like that at an airline that just had a union form, and thus have to begin the process to negotiate a new CBA...

[post="204929"][/post]​

Well, you've summed up the management argument....

The reality is that nobody knows the legalities, since they've never been explored. If Judge Mitchell bars a strike, the case will probably go before a circuit court. If he doesn't and there is a strike, the case will almost surely go before a circuit court. It's entirely possible that this could end up at the Supreme Court for the final decision.

The shortcoming in the argument that Rico presented is that negotiation of the first union/company contract on a property is done under status quo conditions - which doesn't exist if the contract is abrogated. Unless, that is, you are willing to accept that the BK law can allow a company to "stop time" just long enough to establish a new status quo with no recourse for the union's members.

The shortcoming of the PEB argument is twofold.

One, the RLA ignores the abrogation of an existing contract using BK laws. Since contract abrogation is clearly legal, the BK laws then clearly trump the RLA in this one context. To argue that the company can use BK to circumvent the RLA but that the unions cannot escape the provisions of the RLA under any conditions seems to be a stretch. Logic would seem to say that either both sides are bound by the RLA or neither side is.

Second, if you assume a PEB can be formed to postpone a strike, then a status quo condition is imposed. Abrogating the contract upsets the status quo, which violates the whole premise of the PEB. Again, you have to accept that the company can call a "time out" just long enough to abrogate the contract then call "time in" and force the union to deal with a new status quo imposed upon it.

The one thing I find interesting (or telling, perhaps) is that the company is apparently not sure that a strike following abrogation is illegal. USA320Pilot's claims notwithstanding, nowhere is the motion to abrogate the contracts or the proposed order to allow it is there a single mention of the RLA or strike. However, in the supplemental brief supporting the motion, the company says that a strike following abrogation is preferrable to not being able to abrogate the contracts.

Finally, there is some case law (not RLA related) that part of the "fair and equitable" test for abrogation is consideration of what effect a post-abrogation strike would have on communities, creditors, etc.

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

With all due respect, ALPA bankruptcy counsel Richard Seltzer did not say "workers can strike after an abrogation." In fact, he has indicated just the opposite and repeatedly told ALPA's RC4 to cut a deal because S.1113© imposition would be worse.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

With all due respect, ALPA bankruptcy counsel Richard Seltzer did not say "workers can strike after an abrogation."

[post="204982"][/post]​

With all due respect, he did. It was in the context of BK1. I once posted the quote from him and a link to the source.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

OK, I found it....

--------

"Right to Strike upon Rejection.

Contract rejection gives the union the legal right to strike. Briggs Transp. Co. v. I.B.T., 739 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1984). In recent Section 1113 motions Midway II Airlines, United, and US Airways have challenged this conclusion in the context of the Railway Labor Act, without citing any applicable authority. No court has ruled on these arguments."

From a presentation titled
"ASSESSING EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND EMPLOYER WRONGS IN BANKRUPTCY - A UNION PERSPECTIVE "
by Richard M. Seltzer, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP.

The entire document is at
www.bnabooks.com/ababna/annual/2003/seltzer.doc

-------------

Jim

 

[insp89]

OK, I found it....

--------

"Right to Strike upon Rejection.

Contract rejection gives the union the legal right to strike. Briggs Transp. Co. v. I.B.T., 739 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1984). In recent Section 1113 motions Midway II Airlines, United, and US Airways have challenged this conclusion in the context of the Railway Labor Act, without citing any applicable authority. No court has ruled on these arguments."

From a presentation titled
"ASSESSING EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND EMPLOYER WRONGS IN BANKRUPTCY - A UNION PERSPECTIVE "
by Richard M. Seltzer, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP.

The entire document is at
www.bnabooks.com/ababna/annual/2003/seltzer.doc

-------------

Jim

[post="204991"][/post]​

Thanks Boeing Boy for looking this up..Things could get interesting........

 

[ClueByFour]

OK, I found it....

--------

"Right to Strike upon Rejection.

Contract rejection gives the union the legal right to strike. Briggs Transp. Co. v. I.B.T., 739 F.2d 341 (8th Cir. 1984). In recent Section 1113 motions Midway II Airlines, United, and US Airways have challenged this conclusion in the context of the Railway Labor Act, without citing any applicable authority. No court has ruled on these arguments."

From a presentation titled
"ASSESSING EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND EMPLOYER WRONGS IN BANKRUPTCY - A UNION PERSPECTIVE "
by Richard M. Seltzer, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP.

The entire document is at
www.bnabooks.com/ababna/annual/2003/seltzer.doc

-------------

Jim

[post="204991"][/post]​

So let's think this out:

It's happened (strike) before in the context of the RLA (notably CO and EA). It's happened and been cited in other instances. So, if Mitchell either runs with the existing precedent and bankruptcy laws, or adopts the RLA entirely, in which case GE's deadline is not met.

This based on the logic of an attorney who has been retained by ALPA.

With all due respect, ALPA bankruptcy counsel Richard Seltzer did not say "workers can strike after an abrogation." In fact, he has indicated just the opposite and repeatedly told ALPA's RC4 to cut a deal because S.1113© imposition would be worse.

Apparently, it depends upon audience, situation, day of the week, etc.

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

You dont need the NMB's permission to strike, at CAL they struck. The NMB only has the power when you are in section 6, go read the steps in the RLA.

[post="204940"][/post]​

Well, 700, wait for the NMB's permission to strike, then, GO ON STRIKE!!! YOU will be on the street, my friend!!! But, I'm sure that as the Sr VP of the "bad boys" club, you can stand in front of all your union brothers' and sisters', and declare......."VICTORY"!!!!!!!.....We showed them!! When CAL struck, it was a completely different ballgame. If it has not been brought to your attention recently, the rules are ...well lets just say the rules have changed since that strike!!!!! This Company is on the verge of COLLAPSE if things do not change! I do NOT like what is happenning to the labor groups, but your constant diatribes and chest pounding are really quite boring.......When there are 28,000 other employees on the unemployment line, get back to me, and pound your chest then, and brag about how much you "SHOWED 'EM"!!!! GOOD DAY!!!!!!!

 

[usfliboi]

I say those who want to legally strike , do it! I will not support it. Theres a time when you know theres a reason and a positive outcome, this isnt one of them . I hope those who take the position , that there is no longer a contrat, ie 700, that they are replaced in a timely manner. Youre doing nothing but hurting yourselves...... there is nor positive outcome, you cant fight reality, you can only hope that the industry changes, and that there will be another day to stand and fight...