New CS Rules?
- Thread starter Salty Dog
- Start date
Overspeed said:
This will be my last response on this. Like I asked before, where is the contract violation regarding the denial of a crew chief C/S because the person he or she wants to C/S with is not a A1 qualified AMT or a crew chief? I want to see the exact wording from the contract.
I read what you stated above and don't think you are correct. I know at my station if you are not qualified to taxi or Goldhofer and bid for and get awarded a bid on a days or swings hangar move crew, you have X amount of days to get qualified, if you don't you get pushed to terminal on your shift if your seniority would have taken you there. If not you go to nights. With your thought process regarding the C/S, this situation I just spelled out in your line of thought would be a violation of a person not being able to exercise his or seniority. I've seen people pushed to the terminal or worse, to nights from a days or swing move crew because they did not get qualified in the time specified on the bid policy and did not have the seniority to bid the applicable shift terminal slot.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 1,065
We are talking about CSing CC with an AMT. for the last 30 plus years when there has been no CC on duty for a shift where there is a regular bid CC slot what does the company do? They upgrade per the contract. That's my point. How can 30 years of past practice be thrown out the door without an argument? Now tp your point on towing or taxiing the contract is silent on a proces of what to do when an unqualified person is on duty. There is a point there that the company has a right to run its business. The company can make a good argument there but not when it comes to forcing someone to be CC qualified to CS. The company has a vehicle to deal with that per the contract. Denying a CS to a person because management is too lazy to run the temp CC list the day the CC CS's off is wrong. The company can and has dealt with that situation in the past.Slopoke said:
The TWU should fight for CCs to CS without restriction. The rule states senior most qualified. Not A1 when an upgrade is needed.
Overspeed said:
Ok, I'm going to respond even though I said my previous response was stated as being my last reply to this. For this I apologize.
Our management stated the crew chief or A1 qualified person that the crew chief does a C/S with will NOT automatically be the acting crew chief. The most senior A1 pre-qualified person normally on that crew will get the acting crew chief. If no one that is A1 pre-qualified wants the position, it will be offered by order of highest seniority to the people normally on the crew. If no one takes it, the most senior person working that day, normally on that crew will get it. The acting crew chief position will be given to a person as per the union contract.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 1,065
The qualifications issue should not be part of a CS policy for the most part IMO. If the regular bid AMTs must be qualified for moves per se, why would a couple of BC AMTs be prohibited from doing a one off CS on the move crew? Can't the park aircraft? Work a PS? Etc? If my kid has a special event and I need to CS with a terminal AMT and I'm a BC AMT normally you're saying I have to get ETOPs to work one day at the terminal? There are 20 some odd AMTs at D and one person CSi go on craters the operation so I can't CS one day? That sounds like we are run too thin of one AMT affects the operation that much? The new CS policy is nothing more than a power play by mgmt to divide us. The rules in place work if they are enforced and if a supervisor over 15 to 20 AMTs can't manage the CSing and how it impacts his operation he should be fired.
I heard you can do 26 cso's in a row if you want. You can do as many csw's as you want as long as you don't violate duty regs. Unfortunately the company will tell you what they want and then deny it and tell you policy is written so follow it. This is why we need the union and company to discuss all the issues and work out the potential problems before it goes down on paper.
1. Employees are allowed a maximum of twenty six (26) CS off (CSO) occurrences per quarter. Employees are allowed a maximum of four (4) CS work (CSW) per week. An employee cannot CS with himself.Salty Dog said:
2. Employees are permitted to work a maximum of two (2) double shifts per week as a result of a CS work (CSW). The two double shifts can be “back to back”. Employees cannot exceed two (2) consecutive double shifts per week.
3. The company may disapprove any back to back CS work (CSW) for any employee where the company finds that there is evidence the employee’s productivity, safety, or job performance is adversely affected. The employee’s supervisor shall discuss the concerns with the employee.
4. Back to back double shift CS work (CSW) will not be approved for any employee who is on a 1st Advisory, or higher for attendance.
5. Each employee is responsible for understanding, adhering to, and staying current with the CS policy.
6. This policy is applicable throughout Tech Ops and supersedes any existing local policy or practices. The Company will apply this policy to all eligible Tech Ops employees.
MetalMover
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,543
- Reaction score
- 2,410
Man oh man, I wish this passion over the CS policy took place when we had our pensions frozen and retiree medical taken away...Let alone, sick time, 10 holidays and double time and a half, shift differential, paltry longevity pay and vacation time to name a few. People are ready to do battle of CSing but slept like sheep when we were getting screwed.
MetalMover
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,543
- Reaction score
- 2,410
Easy there, they can only take so much punishment at once.1AA said:
