AWAPPA update:
1. AAA MEC Lawsuit Dismissed
AWAPPA has been informed that the attorneys representing both the AAA and AWA MECs have filed a joint stipulation dismissing the case in DC Superior Court, as the parties (namely the AAA and AWA MECs) to the proceeding no longer exist. Thus ends one challenge to the Nicolau Award.
2. Parker Informs Labor - No Joint Negotiations Until After Any Merger
AWAPPA volunteers have learned that at last week's quarterly labor meeting with US Airways senior management, Doug Parker did NOT acknowledge any direct discussions regarding any party to a merger, but instead told the labor representatives there (including USAPA) that if a merger took place, there would be no joint labor negotiations until after a merger transaction is closed for financial purposes. This is not unexpected as this was management's stance in our AWA/AAA negotiations (with the exception of the completion of our Transition Agreement). In this case, it is even possible that no transition agreement negotiations would be completed as the UAL and LCC pilots are represented by different unions.
We continue to carefully observe both management's actions, and USAPA's actions very closely as we have informed both parties that they will be named as defendants in a law suit if they agree to modify the Nicolau Award.
3. Watch Your Back
AWAPPA has received several reports of USAPA members attempting to create a hostile work environment for former AWA pilots by engaging them in debate designed to entrap them and then filing reports against them with management. In their reports to management, the USAPA members have deliberately added "spin" to their version of the confrontation to appear that they are the victim.
Frankly, this vile act is inexcusable and the culture that has created this environment should be immediately stomped out by senior management. We hope that senior management is going to adopt a zero tolerance approach to this "baiting" activity by some USAPA members who file these frivolous reports.
AWA pilots need to be especially careful not to be entrapped by these activities and avoid any and all confrontations with East pilots. AWAPPA recommends that if you are confronted, you should immediate remove yourself from the situation and find witnesses to bear evidence to any events that may have transpired. Document everything. And please be careful out there.
4. USAPA Claims All Expenses Germane
In a recent report, USAPA has claimed that all expenses their expenses are "germane" to the representational activities. As a reminder, those who pay agency shop fees in lieu of union dues are entitled to a refund of all fees that were not used for "germane" representational expenses. We guess that this recent announcement means that USAPA plans to go ahead and collect dues from pilots even though they have not delivered any contractual products yet. Additionally, USAPA has yet to clarify whether they are charging 1.95% or 2.95% dues, even though they have worked out a non-member dues check-off arrangement.
Thanks USAPA, but on behalf of the dissenters, we will wait until you mail us the bill.
5. Follow the FOM
The new US Airways FOM is designed to be permissive in nature as a result of liability experience from US Air's six major accidents. Our former Safety Committee folks highly recommend all pilots carefully follow the rules. With a new and untested union, and now that we are outside ALPA's accident and safety umbrella, it is up to every pilot to protect themselves. Fly by the book. If in doubt, file an ASAP and NASA report immediately.
6. McCaskill or ALPA Merger Policy - You Decide.
USAPA put out a recent update that asserted that as a result of the McCaskill Bill, Allegheny-Mohawk procedures would be used if we merged with UAL. The McCaskill Bill was enacted at the end of 2007 as a stop gap to protect labor from mergers like AMR/TWA where one employee group did not get access to a "fair and equitable" standard in an arbitration to integrate seniority. Importantly, the provisions of the Bill do not apply if the employees are represented by the same labor organization. Specifically, the law says: "if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section..."
Consider the following: Let's say LCC and UAL merge, the transaction closes this fall sometime, and subsequent to the closing there is an NMB single carrier determination and an election between the pilot groups. We are confident that ALPA would be reinstalled as the union for all UAL/LCC pilots after a relatively quick election (since no cards would have to be filed). Because the new law says that Allegheny/Mohawk arbitration only takes place if the employees are represented by different labor organizations, it is AWAPPA's view that ALPA's Merger Policy would be used because both LCC and UAL pilots would be in ALPA well before the merged seniority talks take place. (Remember how long it took our case to get through all the steps?) Here is the law's text for your review:
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION- With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that-
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.
(B) DEFINITIONS- In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) AIR CARRIER- The term `air carrier' means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER- The term `covered air carrier' means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE- The term `covered employee' means an employee who--
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION- The term `covered transaction' means--
(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of--
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.
© APPLICATION- This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION- This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.
But even if we are wrong about that scenario, since ALPA Merger Policy works similarly to the way that Allegheny-Mohawk works (i.e. a fair and equitable integration resulting from binding arbitration), the same substantive standards would apply. While some continue to argue that Allegheny-Mohawk means date of hire, nothing could be further from the truth as has been previously pointed out in a letter by Jeff Freund which explained that integration under Allegheny-Mohawk has infrequently resulted in a DOH integration of pilot seniority lists [note that the letter was written prior to the existence of the McCaskill Bill]. In any event, one thing is clear - if ALPA becomes the bargaining agent for both UAL and LCC pilots, it is unlikely that any assertion from the soon-to-be-former USAPA demanding that they are a party to this integration would prevail, since they will have no statutory right to represent any pilots.
