Kev3188
Veteran
Direct action is good.
IBT/UAL contract rejection, what does it mean to us at AA?
- Thread starter Bob Owens
- Start date
Kev3188
Veteran
If both "sides" have Amendable CBAs, wouldn't any JCBA talks by design be Section 6?ThirdSeatHero said:
What am I missing here?
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,533
- 5,262
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659360.pdf
And there are cases where the NMB has been taken to court.
"We The People"
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1957739249F2d490_1548.xml/LEEDOM%20v.%20KYNE
Sec. 24 (8) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 41 (8), gives the federal district courts "original jurisdiction" of all "suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce." We may assume that if any judicial review of the certificate of the Board could be had, the District Court would have jurisdiction by reason of that provision of the Judicial Code. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U.S. 201; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38; Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U.S. 350. But we do not think that that broad grant of general jurisdiction may be invoked in face of the special circumstances which obtain here.
If the absence of jurisdiction of the federal courts meant a sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress had created, the inference would be strong that Congress intended the statutory provisions governing the general jurisdiction of those courts to control. That was the purport of the decisions of this Court in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, and Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U.S. 515. In those cases it was apparent that but for the general jurisdiction of the federal courts there would be no remedy to enforce the statutory commands which Congress had written into the Railway Labor Act. The result would have been that the "right" of collective bargaining was unsupported by any legal sanction. That would have robbed the Act of its vitality and thwarted its purpose. Such considerations are not applicable here. The Act in § 2, Fourth writes into law the "right" of the "majority of any craft or class of employees" to "determine who shall be
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1943617320US297_1602/SWITCHMEN'S%20UNION%20v.%20BOARD
And there are cases where the NMB has been taken to court.
"We The People"
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1957739249F2d490_1548.xml/LEEDOM%20v.%20KYNE
Sec. 24 (8) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 41 (8), gives the federal district courts "original jurisdiction" of all "suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce." We may assume that if any judicial review of the certificate of the Board could be had, the District Court would have jurisdiction by reason of that provision of the Judicial Code. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U.S. 201; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38; Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U.S. 350. But we do not think that that broad grant of general jurisdiction may be invoked in face of the special circumstances which obtain here.
If the absence of jurisdiction of the federal courts meant a sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress had created, the inference would be strong that Congress intended the statutory provisions governing the general jurisdiction of those courts to control. That was the purport of the decisions of this Court in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, and Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U.S. 515. In those cases it was apparent that but for the general jurisdiction of the federal courts there would be no remedy to enforce the statutory commands which Congress had written into the Railway Labor Act. The result would have been that the "right" of collective bargaining was unsupported by any legal sanction. That would have robbed the Act of its vitality and thwarted its purpose. Such considerations are not applicable here. The Act in § 2, Fourth writes into law the "right" of the "majority of any craft or class of employees" to "determine who shall be
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1943617320US297_1602/SWITCHMEN'S%20UNION%20v.%20BOARD
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,533
- 5,262
Kev3188 said:
After 5 years and now a 93% rejection of a supposed final offer from the company and both individual CBA's have become amendable is not cause for the NMB to move on to the next step, I don't know what is? And the IBT should take their case to court and sue the Government agency if their release is not granted.
In that letter, McKeen admits that the NMB could release the pilots even though UA and both pilot groups were in the midst of negotiating a joint CBA.700UW said:
McKeen argued against releasing the pilots to strike because of all the progress that McKeen alleged had taken place during the meditated negotiations. Implicit in McKeen's arguments is an admission that the NMB possessed the legal power to release the pilots. If a release was prohibited, then McKeen would have simply pointed that out to the NMB, but he didn't.
Nowhere in that letter did McKeen claim that the NMB had no power to release the pilots. The UA pilot situation demonstrates that you're probably incorrect.
Everybody who knows anything about the RLA and airline unions knows that a release of the UA mechanics may not be very likely to occur. The last 16 years, particularly, demonstrates the futility of asking for a release.
But you're the lone voice repeating over and over that a release simply cannot occur because these section 6 negotiations have been co-extensive with negotiations for a joint CBA of the two mechanics groups. I'm not convinced that's an accurate statement of the law.
Yesterday, when I asked if there was a rule prohibiting section 6 negotiations at the same time as negotiations for a joint CBA, you admitted that there was no rule prohibiting it - only that it never happens that way, and by extension, cannot happen that way. That's not a very convincing means of persuasion.
That's essentially what I asked 700UW yesterday. Gotta figure the Teamsters provided management with the Section 6 notices on a timely basis. The Teamsters may not deliver high quality results for their members, but they've been to union negotiating school, too.Kev3188 said:
ASSociation Clown
Member
700UW said:
And yet again he turns to the company for a source
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
700UW said:
Sorry-your link doesn't back your story.
I see you posted the NMB case number already over on the UAL thread, why are you still arguing this when you know you're wrong?
Yes we are in JCBA negotiations, Yes we are negotiating under section 6
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Kev3188 said:
You're missing nothing Kev - 700 is wrong
We are in section 6 negotiations for a JCBA
xUT
Veteran
700UW said:
Where does it say the BS you are expounding?
B)
Link from IBT Local 19 concerning yesterdays picketing and next weeks System Wide Picketing Sat Feb 27.
http://www.teamsterslocal19.org/presidents%20messages/Picketing%2002192016.pdf
http://www.teamsterslocal19.org/presidents%20messages/Picketing%2002192016.pdf
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,533
- 5,262
I see the update mentions medical but isn't specific on the Teamcare and VEBA that from what I've read members are just as concerned about as other issues in the TA? It's one thing to picket the airline but how do the members send a clear signal to IBT leaders that they don't want the 2 items to be included in their next TA?D7571987 said:
Do they picket the IBT next with signs saying "No Teamcare, No VEBA"?
whoop whoop
Senior
- May 18, 2010
- 274
- 184
WeAAsles said:
The IBT is well aware the MAJORITY ( 93% ) do not want anything to do with teamcare or their veba scheme. They choose to ignore it because they desperately need our money in their failing pyramid schemes. I can GUARAAAAANTEEEEEE!!! there will never be a passed TA with teamcare or a veba in it.
Disclaimer: Unless UAL helps them out and throws money at us, then maybe.
conehead777
Veteran
- Dec 8, 2014
- 829
- 811
that makes me feel better the iam is there not . Let's see the iam that brought us air wages to American wages instead of going for ups wages at least as mechanics are concerned. The same iam that brought back a pos contract at Boeing to keep the 777x in Everett . That froze the pension without even being in bk. Also a contract that has horiable language after the Obama care tax on the high dollar plans kick in . This isn't the iam from eastern that fought for its members this is the iam that only cares about dues as we see in the Boeing case instead of the iam fighting Boeing they caved in to Boeing just like the twu and iam do at us and aa .700UW said:
conehead777
Veteran
- Dec 8, 2014
- 829
- 811
700UW said:
[SIZE=10pt]Section 10.10 Pension Accruals to Cease [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]17 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]10.10(a) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Pension accruals under The Boeing Company Employee [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]18 Retirement Plan (BCERP) will cease effective 11:59 p.m. on October [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]19 31, 2016. After October 31, 2016, no further benefits will accrue under [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]20 the BCERP. Benefits for current employees who are participants in the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]21 BCERP will be determined based on their pension accrual calculated as [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]22 of October 31, 2016, and no new participants will be added to the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]23 BCERP after October 31, 2016. This cessation of pension accruals will [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]24 not result in the loss of any pension benefits accrued through October [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]25 31, 2016. To the extent not vested pursuant to paragraph 10.10(c) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]26 below, BCERP participants shall be fully vested in their accrued benefit [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]27 effective October 31, 2016, to the extent required by law, and service [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]28 performed after October 31, 2016 will not be counted for any purpose [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]29 except for eligibility for disability retirement benefits and as otherwise [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]30 required by law. The benefits accrued as of October 31, 2016 will [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]31 remain obligations of the BCERP and its related trust on behalf of [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]32 existing BCERP participants and will be paid in accordance with the [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]33 terms of the BCERP. [/SIZE]
this is the iam Boeing contract on freezing pension
