DL 142 Change of Control Grievance Update
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2005
- 661
- 0
The short answer is you can't get a court injunction against the company without also having the dispute being ruled as major. Unless that criteria is met then the dispute would be minor and status quo wouldn't apply. The dispute would have to be decided through normal grievance procedures possibly including binding arbitration if it got that far.
A perfect example is to look at the Airbus outsourcing case. The union got a tro to prevent to company from outsourcing the work. That was because the dispute was initially ruled as major and hense both the company and union had to maintain status quo. It was finally determined that court erred in ruling the dispute major and it was reversed to a minor dispute. That allowed the the tro to be lifted and the company to procede to farmout the Airbus work until the minor dispute was resolved through normal grievance/arbitration procedures. It was resolved in arbitration in the unions favor with damages but as everyone now knows the company used BK to erase those monies.
An even shorter answer the company can do whatever they want even if it is against the CBA until the dispute is ruled as major and an injuction is issued. But if the courts says nope it is a minor dispute then the only recourse the union has is the normal grievance/arbitration procedure under the RLA.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2005
- 661
- 0
Oh and to answer your question can the union strike. No. As I have shown many times in this topic. The union can only strike by following RLA rules. Those procedures only allow striking after ALL 6 things below happen.
1. major dispute ruled
2. opening of section 6 negotiations (this probably won't ever happen if there is already a CBA in place with an amendable date as both parties have to file a section 6 but neither are required to)
3. Negotiation/mediation fails
4. 30 days cooling off period expires with no agreement
5. No Presidential intervention (Presidential EmergencyBoard PEB)
6. Parties released to engage in self help.
There are no exceptions to this process. None.
If #1 happens and #2 doesn't and the union wins the major dispute then a permanent injunction would be issued to stop the company from making those major changes and the union would be entitled to any damages. But unless all 6 of the above things happen the union and the company cannot legally engage in self help.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2005
- 661
- 0
More info cut and pasted lol
Case law
26. The RLA governs labor relations in the railroad industry. The principal purpose of the RLA is to “avoid any interruption to . . . the operation of any carrier . . . .†45 U.S.C. § 151 a(1); see also, e.g., Texas & New Orleans R.R.Co. v. Bdh. of Ry. and SS Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 565 (1930) (“[T]he major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was ‘to provide a machinery to prevent strikes.’â€).
27. To avoid interruptions to railroad operations and encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes between carriers and unions, the RLA established two separate mandatory dispute resolution procedures, one for “minor disputes,†and one for “major disputes.†The terms “minor dispute†and “major disputeâ€are not found in the RLA itself, but are shorthand terms developed by the courts to describe the RLA’s dispute resolution procedures. See generally Consolidated RailCorp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“Conrailâ€).
28. A “major dispute†is a dispute over contract formation or amendment of a collective bargaining agreement. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711 (1945). Parties cannot engage in self help until after they have exhausted the RLA’s major dispute procedures. 45 U.S.C.§§ 152 First, 152 Seventh, 156. As explained previously, the “major dispute†procedures can be initiated by the service of a bargaining notice under Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, as long as such notices are not barred by moratorium provisions in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co.,776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6thCir. 1985). The RLA “major dispute†procedures include conference,negotiation, and mediation between the parties. Until these procedures have been exhausted, the parties are bound by the RLA’s “status quo†requirements. See e.g., Conrail, 491 U.S. at 302-03;45 U.S.C. §§ 152 First, 152 Seventh, 156. Once the RLA’s major dispute procedures have been exhausted, the parties are free to engage in self-help.
29. In contrast, a “minor dispute†is a disagreement growing out of the interpretation or application of an existing collective bargaining agreement rather than an effort to reach new agreement terms. See e.g., Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303; Henegar v. Banta, 27 F.3d 223, 225 (6thCir. 1994). A dispute is minor “f the dispute can be resolved by reference to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, i.e., if it is ‘arguably comprehended within an already existing collective bargaining agreement.’â€Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n., 855 F.2d 1277, 1282 (7th Cir. 1988).
30. “Minor disputes†are required to be addressed by the parties first through conferences and handling “on the property.†45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Sixth, 153, First(i). If the interpretive dispute is not resolved through such handling, either party may submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration. Id. § 153, First(i); see also Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303
Case law
26. The RLA governs labor relations in the railroad industry. The principal purpose of the RLA is to “avoid any interruption to . . . the operation of any carrier . . . .†45 U.S.C. § 151 a(1); see also, e.g., Texas & New Orleans R.R.Co. v. Bdh. of Ry. and SS Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 565 (1930) (“[T]he major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was ‘to provide a machinery to prevent strikes.’â€).
27. To avoid interruptions to railroad operations and encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes between carriers and unions, the RLA established two separate mandatory dispute resolution procedures, one for “minor disputes,†and one for “major disputes.†The terms “minor dispute†and “major disputeâ€are not found in the RLA itself, but are shorthand terms developed by the courts to describe the RLA’s dispute resolution procedures. See generally Consolidated RailCorp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“Conrailâ€).
28. A “major dispute†is a dispute over contract formation or amendment of a collective bargaining agreement. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711 (1945). Parties cannot engage in self help until after they have exhausted the RLA’s major dispute procedures. 45 U.S.C.§§ 152 First, 152 Seventh, 156. As explained previously, the “major dispute†procedures can be initiated by the service of a bargaining notice under Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, as long as such notices are not barred by moratorium provisions in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n Local 158 v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co.,776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6thCir. 1985). The RLA “major dispute†procedures include conference,negotiation, and mediation between the parties. Until these procedures have been exhausted, the parties are bound by the RLA’s “status quo†requirements. See e.g., Conrail, 491 U.S. at 302-03;45 U.S.C. §§ 152 First, 152 Seventh, 156. Once the RLA’s major dispute procedures have been exhausted, the parties are free to engage in self-help.
29. In contrast, a “minor dispute†is a disagreement growing out of the interpretation or application of an existing collective bargaining agreement rather than an effort to reach new agreement terms. See e.g., Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303; Henegar v. Banta, 27 F.3d 223, 225 (6thCir. 1994). A dispute is minor “f the dispute can be resolved by reference to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, i.e., if it is ‘arguably comprehended within an already existing collective bargaining agreement.’â€Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n., 855 F.2d 1277, 1282 (7th Cir. 1988).
30. “Minor disputes†are required to be addressed by the parties first through conferences and handling “on the property.†45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Sixth, 153, First(i). If the interpretive dispute is not resolved through such handling, either party may submit the dispute to final and binding arbitration. Id. § 153, First(i); see also Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303
700, the west FS is in section 6 theyve been there since June of 05 with the old TWU and the IAM hasnt been negotiating a contract but instead going for a transition agreement. It does violate our contract as well, by taking responsiblities out of our control and into non-union hands. The company is also giving non-union employees on the west the jobs of the east IAM employees by having the west non-union employees do the work of OPS. therefore the company must stay status quo unless the union agrees to the changes. Once in section 6 the company shouldnt be able to do anything. The union should be trying to file an injunction and trying to get it ruled a major dispute. If its than ruled minor than take the grievance procedure. The union should be making the companies life miserable right now and do everything possible to stop whats going on.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2005
- 661
- 0
Nevada you are absolutely right the union should be doing something.
How does it work now what union do you file grievances through? Remember if you think the company is violating the contract you can file grievances. Of course it is up to the union to follow through on them.
How does it work now what union do you file grievances through? Remember if you think the company is violating the contract you can file grievances. Of course it is up to the union to follow through on them.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2005
- 661
- 0
Don't wait on the union. File grievances on each instance you think the company is violating the contract. Do it right away as soon as possible after each violation. Get the ball rolling. Snowball them.
UpAllNight
Member
- Feb 19, 2007
- 37
- 0
We are so off topic it's not even funny anymore. Welcome the the worderful world of the IAM
to steer this back onto the topic.. why did it take almost a month to put out this update????
We knew before the scheduled arbitration hearing what the company's plan was, it took a month to put this out to tell us nothing new
I swear these "updates" should be seinfelds, that is Seinfeld was the show about nothing, 30 mins of nothing...
my question is, with the state of judges anymore, what happens if the bk judge rules he has jurisdiction and allows the company to come back to his court and cut this out of the contract?????
We knew before the scheduled arbitration hearing what the company's plan was, it took a month to put this out to tell us nothing new
I swear these "updates" should be seinfelds, that is Seinfeld was the show about nothing, 30 mins of nothing...
my question is, with the state of judges anymore, what happens if the bk judge rules he has jurisdiction and allows the company to come back to his court and cut this out of the contract?????
Awa Contract
Veteran
- Oct 3, 2005
- 820
- 1
Then the guys in the east take it in the shorts again - and hopefully the IAM will appeal - in the meantime we work for peanuts. But one thing to keep in mind is once in the courts you have to play the games no matter who the union is, if you defy the courts they get even with you.
Then they need to make up their mind which snake oil they're selling.
When a strike isn't possible, they talk tough.
When a strike is possible, they come up with all the reasons they shouldn't.
I just had a thought. Given all the labor turmoil in aviation, when was the last effective strike that made management concede?
Hummmmmmm B)
NevadaHP,
Y'all need to elect a tough-minded SOB who's not afraid of management or union leadership, and knows how to put a case together, for grievance chair (GC).
That is the only way to get a grievance out of the station.
Then your GC needs to mail - return receipt - grievances (make sure the grievances are of substantive matters, not small change) to the assistant general chair and Canale, because that is where IAM fleet grievances go to die. Email follow ups to them weekly. Establish a paper trail!
You will not hear back from the company or the union within the timelines established in the contract. The company and the AGC's count on the "meetings can be postponed if mutually agreed upon" language.
Keep a file of your paper trail and contacts. When you think it's time, send a copy to Roach and Buffenbarger.
If that doesn't work (and it won't), have a chat with your local newspaper.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Sep 29, 2005
- 661
- 0
Approximately 163 strikes in the years 1947-2006
Airline Strikes 1947-2006
Anyone know which of these strikes were legal strikes as a direct result major dispute ruling that then didn't follow the full negotiation/mediation RLA process?
Airline Strikes 1947-2006
Anyone know which of these strikes were legal strikes as a direct result major dispute ruling that then didn't follow the full negotiation/mediation RLA process?
Has anyone heard anything lately about the 'change of control' grievance ?
The only thing I've heard is the sound of the company dragging their feet...
Pretty Pathetic, The company agrees to arbitration, then decides to crawl under the skirt of the judge, just to draggggggg it out.
Lack of Integrity ? Say it isn't so.... :down:
The only thing I've heard is the sound of the company dragging their feet...
Pretty Pathetic, The company agrees to arbitration, then decides to crawl under the skirt of the judge, just to draggggggg it out.
Lack of Integrity ? Say it isn't so.... :down:
