New CS Rules?
- Thread starter Salty Dog
- Start date
D
DallasConehead
Guest
This is ridiculous and flies in the face of this:bigjets said:
http://me.aa.com/line/dfw/Policies/actCC.pdf
As usual, you base your opinion without having all the facts in hand.
DallasConehead said:
That's not my opinion, that's from the CS policy, and if you notice the date from that posting is from 2005, I do agree with you that this new policy does go against the contract, but the contract is violated everyday.
A very good reason why the company should have gotten together with Union and wrote a universal CS policy
Lighten up cone head, you're making people from Texas look bad.
D
DallasConehead
Guest
As usual, you people miss the point completely, the method for making stand in crew chiefs has been in effect and in use since the letter was written, ie it is still in effect. The company saying that a CC has to CS with a CC or Pre-qualed guy so he can be the CC flies in the face because, that guy may not be the guy that gets proffered as per the letter. Geeez.
You guys should be able to see that.
Anyway, just another example of the company running over Peterson and the weak impotent union and of course Peterson came out with the 4 page bloviation explaining why its not his fault.
You guys should be able to see that.
Anyway, just another example of the company running over Peterson and the weak impotent union and of course Peterson came out with the 4 page bloviation explaining why its not his fault.
DallasConehead said:
It was explained to me by management that even though the crew chief has to cs with another crew chief or A1 pre-qualified crew chief, that when it happens, the acting crew chief assignment will be given to someone in line with the PDF file you posted. I had never heard that the person doing the cs with the crew chief will be the acting crew chief. So calm down.
D
DallasConehead
Guest
Do you see what you are saying? So.. if what you say is true.. then why make the CC cs with pre-qual or CC?Slopoke said:
Which brings me back to my point of the weakness of the unions leadership.
not sure of all the rules and/or shifts for m&e, but if a double is defined as working two consecutive 8 hour shifts totaling 16hrs then theres an easy workaround done in fleet all the time. work both shifts, then badge out 15min early. or get a tl. or work shifts that have a built in 15min overlap. 2 16's and 2 15.7's and you only miss out on .6hrs…problem solvedbigjets said:
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
- Reaction score
- 2,242
Careful, or you will be accused of circumventing the heart of the rule and the rule itself and be recognized as the individual(s) and/or work group as to why the rules needed to be changed. Also, in Fleet, a Crew Chief can only CS off with a Crew Chief or someone who is qualified (D1) and that individual must do the job.lax said:
DallasConehead said:
Well, when I hired on in 86, IIRC crew chiefs were only allowed to C/S with another crew chief. When that changed I don't know, because I'm not a crew chief and do not pay attention to policies regarding them and why the company wants to limit the pool of people a crew chief can C/S with is beyond me.
When my crew chief is on vacation or C/Ss off, our crew follows the contract and if management forgets how it's supposed to work, they are quickly reminded of it and the acting crew chief spot is given to the person as spelled out in the contract. it is beneficial of all of us to know these specifics and if the company goes against it, we need to speak up on the spot and get it corrected. I'm not pro TWU or a TWU fan boy, but the C/S policy is company policy and the union can't do anything about it. The acting crew chief selection is contractual and we have to make sure that the contract is followed. So like I said before the C/S is company policy, the award of acting crew chief is contractual, two different sets of rules.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 1,065
If the new policy restricts CCs from CS'ing with AMTs because they must be qualified that's a contract violation. There is a process for CC temp upgrades if there is no CC on duty in the TWU CBA. First person to get denied a CS because they are not CC qualified should file a grievance.
Overspeed said:
Why does the C/S policy violate the contract? If the crew chief gets denied a C/S because the person that he or she is to C/S with is not A1 or a crew chief, where in section 12 paragraph (f) spells out that requirement? If it's there, I can't find it. Now if the crew chief is absent because he or she has a C/S off and the acting crew chief is not given to the person as spelled out in the contract, now it's a violation of the contract. Temporary crew chief and acting crew chief are two different things. Temporary is a long term vacancy not to exceed a year. Acting crew chief is day to day or not to exceed 60 days. The wording in the contract is below.
(e) Temporary Crew Chief
A Temporary Crew Chief may be selected for a special assignment or a known long term vacancy for a period not to exceed one (1) year, using the Automated Higher Capacity System. The Temporary Crew Chief position will be selected from candidates within the Basic Classification and station where the vacancy exists. The selection of the Temporary Crew Chief will be the same process as a posted Crew Chief vacancy.
(1) At the completion of the temporary assignment, the employee will be returned to his former Basic Classification and work unit/shop/dock.
(2) At the end of three hundred and sixty-five (365) calendar days the vacancy will become permanent and posted to the station using the on-line tool.
(f) Acting Crew Chief
In the absence of a regularly assigned Crew Chief or while in the process of filling an existing or newly created Crew Chief position, an Acting Crew Chief may be appointed to fill the vacancy from within the work unit/shop for a period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days. In the event a Crew Chief is not available, the appointment will be proffered to the senior pre-qualified employee regularly assigned to that work unit/shop/dock.
The Company may provide lists in each of its work unit/shop/dock at each station on which employees regularly assigned to that work unit/shop/dock may volunteer to be considered for the filling of Acting Crew Chief vacancies under this paragraph. The Company will periodically administer qualifying tests for the positions involved to the employees who have signed these lists and will maintain lists comprised of those
Page 96 of 272
employees who indicate a desire for pre-qualification and successfully complete the test. Employees who have successfully passed these qualifying tests will, if they are regularly assigned to that work unit/shop/dock, be assigned in order of their Occupational Seniority to fill acting vacancies. Additionally, an employee who has expressed a desire but has not been provided an opportunity to take the qualifications test since the date he transferred into the work unit/shop/dock will be considered to fill acting vacancies in accordance with his seniority, until he is provided an opportunity to test. An employee who refuses acting assignments three (3) times within a calendar year, will be removed from the pre-qualified list for a period of six (6) months.
(1) In the event there are no pre-qualified employees or volunteers, the most senior employee regularly assigned to that work unit/shop/dock will be required to fill the Acting Crew Chief vacancy.
(2) Employees selected to fill Acting Crew Chief vacancies will be entitled during the period so assigned to compensation at a rate not less than that at which the job is rated. An employee assigned to an Acting Crew Chief vacancy in a lower classification will not have his compensation reduced to that of the lower classification.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 1,065
Slopoke,
Easy. There is a contractual process for filling a CC vacancy on a shift is there not? If there is not CC on duty because of SK, VC, Training, LOA, etc... is the CC prevented from not being there for any of those reasons? No. The contract provides a process to fill vacancies on a day-to-day basis and it has been done that way for over 30 years that I know of CSing included. Is the CS policy at AA a privilege? Yes. Is the CC upgrade process a privilege? No. It's governed under the CBA including filling temporary vacancies. Denying a CS is an arbitrary restriction that overlooks the fact that the company can fill any CC vacancy daily and operate normally. The only reason the new mgmt is doing this is to test our resolve.
This CC restriction in a violation as it discriminates against a select group of members. Also a CBA violation. The company has a right to run the business and the existing language allows them to do that without restricting CS's to CCs.
Easy. There is a contractual process for filling a CC vacancy on a shift is there not? If there is not CC on duty because of SK, VC, Training, LOA, etc... is the CC prevented from not being there for any of those reasons? No. The contract provides a process to fill vacancies on a day-to-day basis and it has been done that way for over 30 years that I know of CSing included. Is the CS policy at AA a privilege? Yes. Is the CC upgrade process a privilege? No. It's governed under the CBA including filling temporary vacancies. Denying a CS is an arbitrary restriction that overlooks the fact that the company can fill any CC vacancy daily and operate normally. The only reason the new mgmt is doing this is to test our resolve.
This CC restriction in a violation as it discriminates against a select group of members. Also a CBA violation. The company has a right to run the business and the existing language allows them to do that without restricting CS's to CCs.
