DL 142 Change of Control Grievance Update

[Charlie_Tuna]

You keep posting from section 6 negotiations which is traditional bargaining, look under system board of arbitration.

The Grievance procedure has nothing to do with Section 6 which you keep posting from.

When a major dispute is declared the union is free to seek self-help and not contact the NMB and use them to negotiate something that is not in traditional bargaining, ie section 6.

Never has a major dipuste triggered negotiations.

You are mixing up the two.

That is why the IAM filed a grievance and now went to District Court instead of the NMB, just like in the airbus grievance.

Guess you don't read the DL 142 Updates when they mention self-help and all means available.

Geez man answer my questions with facts not your opinions

I am not looking for your propaganda from DL 142.

Never has a major dispute triggered a strike either. What the hell is your point that a major dispute never triggered negotiations? I already said a ruling of a major dispute in itself does NOT trigger negotiations and mediation. In fact I would imagine that a major dispute ruling would actually end the companies hope of making the change they wanted to because the only way they could change it would be through negotiations and mediation. And with a CBA in place for a set duration the union probably doesn't even have to agree to negotiate. (Though I am not sure about that when it relates to a major dispute ruling)

The grievance procedure has nothing to do with a major dispute only a minor dispute.

Why can't you provide ref to you positions? I know why because there are none. I provide facts you provide nothing. I provide links you provide nothing. You are all talk. You think you know everything and everyone else is wrong.

I am still waiting. I have disproved everything you have said. All you have done is talk and make a fool of yourself. Though I don't mind that at all.

 

[700UW]

You keep posting from Section 6, you have not disproved what I have said.

I have read the act, studied, not cut and paste like you have.

Sharon Levine and other attornies have gone over the major dispute you can strike when the court declares a major dispute.

Why don't you contact Alison Beck chief counsel for the IAM who presented to us at the chairman's conference about being able to strike after a major dispute.

You can contact Bob Bush, Ira Gottlieb and other labor attornies who have presented IAM cases in front of the courts.

 

[allstrike]

Charlie,forget the airbus dispute its just causing confusion.
Stick with the matter at hand.

The change of control grievance.

This has nothing to do with section 6.The grievance process is similar in the fact that it can go to mediation if not agreed to by both parties but that does not trigger sec 6 negotiations.

In this case the company has refused to allow it to be mediated by running to the court.They are not going by the grievance process they are trying to work around it.

The hopes are that the IAM filing will force them back to the table and allow an arbitrator to decide this.If there is no agreement there then if it is a major dispute its stikeable.

Yes there is a process but its not sec 6.Trust me 700 is right...the union is taking the proper course here,hard to believe for some but it is.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

You keep posting from Section 6, you have not disproved what I have said.

I have read the act, studied, not cut and paste like you have.

Sharon Levine and other attornies have gone over the major dispute you can strike when the court declares a major dispute.

Why don't you contact Alison Beck chief counsel for the IAM who presented to us at the chairman's conference about being able to strike after a major dispute.

You can contact Bob Bush, Ira Gottlieb and other labor attornies who have presented IAM cases in front of the courts.

You have provided nothing but talk. No proof at all

Provide link to the so called act you have studied and a cut and paste of the part that says the union can strike after a major dispute ruling. That shouldn't be so hard to do should it?

My cut and paste and links are much more powerful then your hearsay you provide.

 

[700UW]

Mechanics threaten US Airways with a strike


By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



Mechanics for US Airways are threatening a strike nearly certain to shut down the Arlington airline if it moves airplane renovation work out of its Pennsylvania maintenance facilities.
About 1,900 of US Airways' more than 5,000 mechanics work at the airline's Pittsburgh International Airport facility.
Unionized mechanics throughout the US Airways network say they also would walk off the job if there is a strike in Pittsburgh.
"It would be a nationwide dispute and a nationwide strike if it gets to that point," said Joseph Tiberi, spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
US Airways officials are trying to find ways to cut costs after emerging from bankruptcy March 31. The airline says it is carrying 3.7 percent more passengers per airplane than a year ago. However, the total number of passengers is down 13.6 percent since August 2002, many of them business travelers. US Airways blames a soft economy and overcapacity in the airline industry.
The dispute involves renovation of the airline's 121 Airbus planes. A manufacturer's maintenance schedule recommends "heavy maintenance" after five years of service.
US Airways began acquiring the Airbus planes five years ago. It has a fleet of 279 jets. The others were made by Boeing Co.
Heavy maintenance refers to rebuilding or replacing worn parts of the airplane engine, structure and major components. Routine maintenance refers to lighter work, such as ensuring engine fluids are kept at recommended levels or making certain moving parts work properly.
US Airways officials say their labor contract allows use of contractors for work not normally done by US Airways employees, such as the heavy maintenance on the Airbus planes.
"It's work we're not doing today," said David Castelveter, US Airways spokesman. "It's not a violation of our contract. It's not a major dispute. It's a matter of interpreting the existing language in the contract, which can be resolved through arbitration. It's not going to affect any of the jobs of our existing mechanics."
The union disagrees.
"The agreement says we do the heavy maintenance on the aircraft, regardless of what type of aircraft it is," Mr. Tiberi said.
For several months, the company has been doing an "economic feasibility study" on whether to give the heavy maintenance work to an outside contractor.
The work requires separate facilities, equipment and training from the routine maintenance, company officials said. If they do the work in-house, they would need to build a new facility, buy new equipment and hire and train new employees.
"If we decide we're going to do this with our own employees, were going to have to start from square one," Mr. Castelveter said.
Company officials plan to make a decision on whether to hire an outside contractor after the feasibility study is complete, which is expected soon.
"We're determining right now which path we want to do," Mr. Castelveter said. "We haven't put a time frame on it."
The union is awaiting the company's decision before taking further action. It also is rejecting efforts by US Airways to settle the dispute by arbitration.
The labor contract says minor disputes, which involve interpretation of contract terms, should be resolved through arbitration. If the union disagrees that the dispute is minor, a court can decide whether to classify the issue as minor or major.
Minor disputes are returned for an arbitration decision. Major disputes can lead to renegotiation of the contract, lawsuits or a strike.
"Arbitration is used if there is a question over interpretation of a contract," Mr. Tiberi said. "There is no question here. It is clearly a major dispute."
In an Aug. 4 letter to David Siegel, US Airways' chief executive officer, the machinists union made a clear threat to strike over the issue.
"Any attempt to subcontract this work, which falls under the jurisdiction of the IAM-US Airways Agreement, shall be considered a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act," said the letter from Robert Roach Jr., the machinists union's general vice president.
Pittsburgh International Airport and Philadelphia International Airport are the second-largest operations hubs for US Airways.
Labor strife with the mechanics arises as US Airways announced another round of layoffs this week.
The airline plans to lay off another 190 flight attendants, according to the Flight Attendants Union. The company laid off 890 flight attendants in May and June to cut costs after war in Iraq reduced the number of customers.

 

[AP Tech]

Very powerful article, and just how many of the 1900 mechanic & related are still working in Pittsburgh? Yep, the IAM showed the company!!!!

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Charlie,forget the airbus dispute its just causing confusion.
Stick with the matter at hand.

The change of control grievance

I know exactly what is going down with the change of control grievance.

This has nothing to do with section 6.The grievance process is similar in the fact that it can go to mediation if not agreed to by both parties but that does not trigger sec 6 negotiations.

Can you explain that statement I couldn't make heads or tails what you are trying to say

In this case the company has refused to allow it to be mediated by running to the court.They are not going by the grievance process they are trying to work around it.

You may think it is a play of words but no this case is not being mediated it is being grieved and arbitrated. Yes the company trying to get around the grievance/arbitration procedure by going back to the BK court. They have the right to try anything they want until a court rules otherwise. Do I like it? Not at all

The hopes are that the IAM filing will force them back to the table and allow an arbitrator to decide this.If there is no agreement there then if it is a major dispute its stikeable

Oh course the hope is that the company will be forced, by the court, back into the grievance and arbitration procedure. I have no idea what you mean when you say "if there is no agreement" If it goes back to arbitration then the ruling there would be binding (there is a tiny chance that arbitrators ruling could be reviewed). If the BK court rules it has jurisdiction that will be bad news and the union won't be able to do anything it will just like all the other rulings in BK the unions hangs are tied. Not to say that the BK court could throw it out in which case I imagine the grievance procedure would continue. As far as the IAM's filings aren't they just trying to get a ruling on it not belonging in the BK court and sent back to arbitration? I may be wrong but as far as I know neither party has gone to court to have this ruled a major dispute. Also major disputes just don't drop out of the sky because there "is no agreement" as you seem to imply. The court has to rule on that. The whole point of the Airbus issue being brought up is in regards to major disputes and in that case the court clearly ruled the union cannot strike until the full negotiation and mediation process has been exhausted (that process is the same as section 6 type negotiations up to and including cooling off periods)

Yes there is a process but its not sec 6.Trust me 700 is right...the union is taking the proper course here,hard to believe for some but it is.

I agree the union is taking the right course here and do not find it hard to believe at all in fact it is the only course to take. But I disagree 700 is totally wrong on the process and strikes. No sorry I don't trust you on that because I know the truth.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Mechanics threaten US Airways with a strike
By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Major disputes can lead to renegotiation of the contract, lawsuits or a strike.

LOL thank you 700 you used the link I provided to prove your point that really proves mine.

First off it was only a threat. They always threaten. That isn't proof they can.

And second.. the quote you bolded out...That is what I have been saying all along. read and comprehend..

"can lead to renegotiation" (like I said a major dispute ruling in itself doesn't force negotiation the company has to get the ball rolling)

"or a strike" yup just like I said BUT only after a negotiation and mediation process. (The court has ruled on this process..the union is not allowed to strike until that process is complete)

By the way that article was before the ruling I think and if the union is never wrong (like being able to strike) wasn't this statement proved wrong in the end? "Arbitration is used if there is a question over interpretation of a contract," Mr. Tiberi said. "There is no question here. It is clearly a major dispute."

 

[lithuanian]

Hey! Instead of guessing what is happening with Change of Control, why not ask Mr. Canale. Here's his e-mail. Got it from a source. I really chringe with second hand information, don't you? DL141Desplanes@aol.com. Let me know if it works.

 

[fanlube]

Very powerful article, and just how many of the 1900 mechanic & related are still working in Pittsburgh? Yep, the IAM showed the company!!!!

What a great victory for the IAM got the airbus work but lost all the shops, 767,757,and 330 checks the IAM showed them

 

[700UW]

Hey Fan,

Guess you forgot the CBA was abrogated and the members ratified the final offer from the company and voted to let the work be outsourced.

Don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[awausairtech]

The change of control grievance! I see DP and the boys used a outsourced Law Firm(The verdict is in)You get what you pay for! Bet the lawyer that MISSED the Change Of Control Grievance will not be on the next BK LOL! The other thing is did DP think he had DELTA in the bag... Union Busting 101?????? And now The IAM is wise to their Bed Fellow??????

 

[awausairtech]

Not to belittle the east in any way we have seen this before back in 1995 before we were UNION. We missed the union vote by a few votes and they said they would take care of us and they did! Fired 500 techs shut down the hanger, outsourced c-cks, closed down back shops and the list goes on. We know who we are up against. They fired so many that AWA was fined by the FAA because No One tracked mandatory FAA compliance's.

 

[insp89]

Hey Fan,

Guess you forgot the CBA was abrogated and the members ratified the final offer from the company and voted to let the work be outsourced.

Don't let the facts get in your way.

700, Guess YOU forgot [as usual] to tell the WHOLE story,
Which is, the membership voted NO on the final offer, but that was not the answer the IAM wanted,
So, the IAM put on their 'scared and confused' campaign and convinced enough of the 'spineless' to vote the other way on a sleazy RE-VOTE on the same POS offer...[just in case no one forgets how it really went down...] :down:

 

[700UW]

Wrong,

Guess your memory and recollection of the facts is distorted.

During the first bankrupcty there was a revote during the 2nd bankruptcy the CBA was abrogated, and there was only one vote.

But hey we all know you are obsessed over something that happened 5 years ago anyhow.

Don't let the facts get in your way.