James Little "Union Agreed to some job losses"

[BoeingBoy]

Once again, the Judge doesnt negotiate your CBA, he only rules on motions put before him.

How many times does this have to be explained?

But the judge, with a stroke of a pen, can change any contract...that's more than AA can do unless a 30-day cooling off period expires. Do you honestly believe that if AA doesn't get the cost savings they want they'll just say "Oh well, we tried" and not file an 1113 motion? You're arguing over the "how" when the outcome will be the same...

Jim

 

[700UW]

I never said that, but the company is required when then request an abrogation, they have to put forward the last and final offer that they offered the union in their motion to be enacted upon an abrogation.

They are acting like the judge sets the CBA and negotiates and thats the farthest from the truth.

I lived it, remember we had the M&R CBA abrogated in Chapter 11 part 2, and I was on the NC.

 

[strikeforce]

But the judge, with a stroke of a pen, can change any contract...that's more than AA can do unless a 30-day cooling off period expires. Do you honestly believe that if AA doesn't get the cost savings they want they'll just say "Oh well, we tried" and not file an 1113 motion? You're arguing over the "how" when the outcome will be the same...

Jim

I don't believe the outcome will be the same. If the employees don't voluntarily accept the term sheet, AA will certainly ask the judge for more. The 9% over 6 years....gone! Profit sharing....gone, and defined contribution plan....gone. probably close TUL and farm out 100% of maintenance. they're being gentile right now.....

I'm voting NO anyway.....I say vote no and have Jim Little spend the millions that the TWU has in the caymans....and bankrupt the TWU as well. He did say "he's going to fight like hell".....well, let's see what you can do Little Jimmy????

 

[700UW]

First of all the Term Sheet is a starting point, the company and the union must negotiate, if they fail to reach an agreement the company must provide the union with its last and best final offer, and that is what has to be presented to the judge to impose after an abrogation.

If the company doesnt come off its position at all, that would not be good faith bargaining.

 

[DNTULSA]

Once again, the Judge doesnt negotiate your CBA, he only rules on motions put before him.

How many times does this have to be explained?

The company will say to the judge; "We want to change some rules. United, Delta and Northwest were allowed to change them".

What will the judge say?

You have 3 guesses....

 

[700UW]

First of all you dont understand the Section 1113c process.

If the company and the union reach a TA in negotiations, the whole CBA is ratified by the membership, and approved by the Creditor's Committee and the Court.

If there is no agreement and the CBA is abrogated, the Company can only ask for the Final offer made to the union to be imposed.

DL and UA did not abrogate any CBAs and NW had an abrogation, but later negotiated a new deal with the AFA as they changed unions in the middle of the case.

DL only had the pilots and dispatchers CBAs, no other group is unionized then. Both UA and DL and NW reached TAs on a new cba.

 

[FWAAA]

If the company doesnt come off its position at all, that would not be good faith bargaining.

Are there abrogation cases where courts held that a party's failure to move proved an absence of good faith? Generally, the requirement to negotiate in good faith does not require the parties to move toward the position of the other.

 

[700UW]

There has only been a few abrogations in the airlines in Section 1113.

I know the definition of good faith means you have to negotiate and move off your positions some what. If you just continue to ask for the same thing over and over, thats not negotiating in good faith.

Negotiating means give and take, not just take take and take.

 

[AAOHNO]

The company will come off the "no PV's", then they bargained in good faith. <_<

 

[iluvaa]

They wont change s hit we will get the bull crap im glad I wont be here I dont want to work for a company that hates its best assets that much

 

[topDawg]

Praying for you guys. I really hope your union does good.

 

[BoeingBoy]

No, what they'll say is "That's the best we can afford and still successfully restructure. Here is our competitor's contracts and we're just asking for the same". Then the judge will sign the order abrogating the contracts that haven't been settled.

While I doubt that any but maybe a few think that the judge is going to sit at the table across from the unions and negotiate, the end effect is the same - management only has to check off the boxes showing that they tried to negotiate concessions and the judge will let them force a contract on any group that hasn't agreed to concessions. Not one thing in bankruptcy law says that management has to come off their initial position.

Jim

 

[700UW]

It says they have to bargain in good faith:

This section of the bankruptcy code provides the following parameters:

Prior to filing to reject a Contract, the debtor must make a proposal to the Union that details all of the modifications “necessary” to restructure while also assuring that all creditors and affected parties are treated “fairly and equitably.”

The debtor must provide the Union with relevant information necessary to evaluate the debtor’s proposal.

Both parties are required to meet, at a reasonable time, to confer in “good faith” in an attempt to reach mutual agreement on modifications to the Contract.

Once the debtor officially files a Section 1113(c) motion with the court, a hearing will be scheduled to occur within 14 days after the filing date unless the parties mutually agree to a later date or the court determines a need to extend the hearing date according to the circumstances of the case. The bankruptcy judge will make a ruling on the motion within 30-days of the hearing. Discussions between the company and the Union may continue in an effort to work toward a consensual agreement up to the date of the court ruling.

Absent a consensual agreement and assuming the debtor has met the parameters listed above, the court will approve the rejection of the Contract if:

the Union has refused to accept such proposal without “good cause” (as determined by the court including the parameters listed above); and
the court determines that the concessions of other constituencies in the bankruptcy is commensurate to those made by labor .

 

[BoeingBoy]

It says they have to bargain in good faith:

Show me where section 1113 defines "good faith" as agreeing to smaller concessions than the original proposal...

I'm in no way predicting what AA management will do, but merely pointing out what they can do. If AA feels that it's initial proposal is "necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably" then AA doesn't have to back off it's initial proposal.

I've said before that the unions can most likely negotiate changes - less vacation loss in exchange for bigger savings in something else. But if AA (or any company in the same situation) feels that it's initial proposal is necessary as written, nothing says they have to agree to changes. AA has already done the groundwork for just that argument by talking about the need for the changes it proposes (necessary) and tying them to their competitors costs (good faith).

In other words, if anyone thinks that negotiations in bankruptcy are just like any other negotiations - each side initially asking for more than they want and compromising in the middle - they're sadly mistaken. Let's just look at the requirements the judge has for allowing abrogation of a contract:

(1) the trustee [includes debtor] has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (B)(1) [necessary for successful reorganization]
(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and
(3) the balance of the equities [equal treatment of all affected parties] clearly favors rejection of such agreement.

I don't see "4. the final proposal must be less concessionary than the initial proposal" nor "5. the trustee must have bargained in good faith" in there...

Jim

 

[700UW]

Not coming off your initial position is not good faith.

Were you on the Negotiating Committee for ALPA during Section 1113 negotiations?

I was on the IAM M&R and our legal Counsel Sharon Levine explained it to us.

And when our CBA was abrogated, US came off their initial position, and that is why Judge Mitchell abrogated, I was in the court room, were you?

Here you go

From the explanation:

The debtor must meet with the union and negotiate in good faith.