Gee, I wonder where he got that crazy idea from.
(Maybe from the name "Third Seat Hero" and a DC-10 in your avatar?)
NWA vs AFA
- Thread starter tech2101
- Start date
(Maybe from the name "Third Seat Hero" and a DC-10 in your avatar?)
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
With your breakroom lawyer reasoning and arguing skills, perhaps it's a good thing you're not working around aircraft anymore. Your union failed you at UAL, so now you're sitting here as a cheerleader hoping that someone else can take on the fight that you didn't take on... Sad.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Y-A-W-N
I'm oh so sorry if your assumptions have caused you embarassment, but thats your problem not mine.
BTW, your childish attempts to try and belittle what you(incorrectly again) believe is my position, only betrays your complete lack of "arguing skills".
However, you were right about one thing, my union did fail me.
Oh, and BTW when I left UAL.......the IAM was my union.
Have a nice day!
But thats only if the parties enter the mediation process with all its restrictions as far as status-quo.The RLA is clear as to what constitutes a major dispute and this is without doubt a major dispute.
"Sect 5. Functions of Mediation Board" states that "The parties, or either party, to a dispute,,,may invoke the services of the Mediation Board in any of the following cases,,,
(In this case niether party invoked the services of the NMB. They went straight to self help.)
(B)"no change in the rates of pay, rules or working conditions or established practices in effect prior to the time the dispute arose".
from lexis- US Code service, 45 usc@156 sect 33
RLA establishes certain proceedures that must be followed in direct bargaining proces, but once such proceedures are exhausted without settlement, either side is free to resort to economic self help to force settlement most favored to it.
34, Where carrier refuses to negotiate as required by RLA and union exhausts all proceedures of RLA it has the right to strike unfettered by stste court injunction. United Industrial Workers,etc vs Board of trustees(1968CA5 Tex). Union did not surrender right to strike by forebearance of such right while it pursued further efforts to reach peaceful settlement of labor dispute (REA Express INC vs Brotherhood of Railway (1973SDNY)
No matter where you go in the RLA if the carrier has resorted to economic self help, either unilaterally, through the courts, or after release from mediation, the workers are also free to exercise self help. There is nothing in the RLA that describes a condition where the company can impose new rates of pay (except for civil rights mandated adjustments) in other words excercise self help and the workers cant do the same. In order for the mediation board to invoke a 30 day cooling off period it must direct NWA to restore the status quo to the conditions outlined in their last agreement with the flight attendants that the NMB has on file.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Yet another post from someone who hasn't learned to read very well.
Yea, and you go tell your story walking.
The BK aspect is relevant in that it allowed the company to have the contract abrogated. Now what happens after that is up to the RLA. Show me any other case where the court told workers or any other creditor that it must accept terms into the future, on future business, that it did not agree to.
Where does the BK code grant the court the right to impose a new contract that is binding where the other party does not agree to those terms? It doesnt.
Again, could the court order Exxon to sell NWA fuel at 50 cents a gallon?
If you're arguing that the debtor cannot legally impose terms on the workgroup whose contract has been rejected under s 1113, then what do you propose as the next step following abrogation?
Nope. The bankruptcy code contains nothing permitting the court to order fuel sellers to sell cheap fuel to the debtor nor free airplanes nor even free lunches.
The debtor has rejected a contract - meaning it no longer has to carry out its obligations under that contract.
If EXXON had agreed to sell NWA a lot of fuel well into the future at $0.50/gal, then NWA could accept or reject that contract. I suspect NWA would accept it (duh!) and EXXON would have no say in that matter. It would be stuck with its prior contract.
If EXXON had agreed to sell NWA a lot of fuel at $3.00/gal well into the future, then NWA could accept or reject that contract. I suspect that NWA would reject that one, and there's nothing EXXON could do about it.
The NWA FAs, having had their contract rejected, are free to sell their labor elsewhere if the new imposed terms are unsatisfactory. And if they had any cojones, they would have done so the day their contract was abrogated. Either engage in self-help or move on.
Instead, they delayed and delayed until a court finally ruled (right or wrong, doesn't matter now) they could not take any self-help measures. Way to go, AFA! Might have looked like good strategy early on, but what a loser of an outcome.
So now, their options are to lie back and enjoy it or resign and work somewhere else. Apparently, they prefer the former. Sad. But hardly unexpected.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
Last time I checked, indentured servitude was outlawed. If you don't agree to the terms, don't show up for work.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #57
That is precisely what the F/A's should have done to begin with. This discussion would be long over with by now had the F/A's just struck the carrier.
Well "REA Express INC vs Brotherhood of Railway (1973SDNY)" covers that. The court ruled:Union did not surrender right to strike by forebearance of such right while it pursued further efforts to reach peaceful settlement of labor dispute.
So the flight atendants did not surrender their right to engage in self help because they delayed. Under the RLA they are still free to strike.
Now, BK code. If NWA decided to pay Exxon only 50 cents a gallon after the judge abrogated their $3/gallon contract and Exxon did not immediately cut off delivering fuel could the court force Exxon to continue to provide fuel at 50 cents/gallon? Would the fact that Exxon gave NWA a gallon of fuel at 50 cents a gallon imply that those were new binding terms? Or would Exxon be free to cut off delivery at any moment? While NWA could get away with paying 50 cents for fuel recieved during that period they have no right to force Exxon to continue to provide fuel at 50 cents a gallon and the BK code does not give the courts any such right to force Exxon to do so. But thats what the Judge is saying here! And just as the BK code does not provide the Judge the right to force Exxon to provide fuel at 50cents a gallon the BK code does not give the judge the right to block a strike by the NWA Flight Attendants.
So once again it goes back to a Judge making up his own rules with no basis in law, the RLA expressly gives the FAs the right to strike and the BK Code does not give the court the right to block a strike. Those who say that because they are in BK the RLA, or only part of the RLA no longer apply are simply adding things to the BK code that the authors of the code did not include, likely because it would be infringing upon the rights of others that are provided through other laws, in fact BK code repeatedly cites that it is not supposed to violate rights that are given in other statutes.
Your fuel example does not jive with reality. Yes, if we contracted at a specific price for fuel for a term period, then Exxon would be obligated to continue providing fuel at that price.
Fuel is not contracted at a set price, but rather is purchased at the market price. We may contract a certain volume, but we contract to pay the gulf coast price or some other market price at the time of each delivery. If we did have a set price contract (see the hedging discussion), then whover we purchased the hedge from would be obligated to fullfill the contract under BK. Your example is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how fuel is contracted, and thus does not help your case.
Fine, substitute fuel with widgets instead, the rationale and arguement is the same, can the court confiscate the property of others for the benifit of a company thats mismanaged? The fact is that the BK code does not grant the court such powers. It allows the court to terminate contracts but it does not give the court the right to impose new terms that are unfavorable to those who do business with the BK company. The court can write new terms but the other party still has the right to reject them.
