question about abrogation..

[BoeingBoy]

And it is because of Lorenzo, most Chapter 11, 1113 rules are what they are today..

All of section 1113 is a result of Lorenzo - it didn't exist when he took CO into chapter 11 back in the 1980's. At that time labor contracts were treated as any other contract that the debtor could ask the judge to reject. As I said a few weeks back in one of these threads, the word "abrogate" entered the lexicon of bankruptcy when section 1113 was added.

Jim

 

[Bob Owens]

All of section 1113 is a result of Lorenzo - it didn't exist when he took CO into chapter 11 back in the 1980's. At that time labor contracts were treated as any other contract that the debtor could ask the judge to reject. As I said a few weeks back in one of these threads, the word "abrogate" entered the lexicon of bankruptcy when section 1113 was added.

Jim

Look up "Bildisco Decision'. Surely Lorenzo was a factor but to say that all of 1113 is a result of Lorenzo isnt accurate and ther is no CBA, there are modified terms, not the same thing. If this was a modified CBA then there would be no reason to negotiate or ratify a new one.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Look up "Bildisco Decision'. Surely Lorenzo was a factor but to say that all of 1113 is a result of Lorenzo isnt accurate

What I mean is that there was no section 1113 before Lorenzo tore up the labor contracts at CO, That led to section 1113 being added to bankruptcy law. Have there been changes since it was added? Probably so but that's different than going from CBA's being like any other contract to having section 1113.

If this was a modified CBA then there would be no reason to negotiate or ratify a new one.

Unlike normal modifications to CBA's through negotiation, abrogation is court ordered. To get back to NMB rules after bankruptcy when bankruptcy rules don't apply, which don't have abrogation, negotiation reaches consensual agreements again. The question is when those negotiations take place,.

Jim.

 

[eolesen]

I don't remember that but I didn't keep up with the NW bankruptcy that closely - with DL, UA, and NW in bankruptcy at the same time it was too much to keep up with the day to day action. What NW did do is go through the section 1113 process and the FA's held a hard line so the judge allowed abrogating the contract. The FA's threatened to strike but NW filed suit to stop them and the 2nd Circuit appeals court ruled in NW's favor, reasoning that it was as though the previous contract had never existed. That left the amended contract standing and the FA's without a legal right to strike.

Jim

Jim, FWIW it does appear NWA did seek to toss out the flight attendant contract in its entirety; that was discussed within the ruling which barred the AFA from striking.

The subtle difference between what NWA did and what AMR appears to be doing is NWA was replacing a contract with a new agreement, and AMR is trying to modify only portions of the existing agreement (including the amenable date).

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim, FWIW it does appear NWA did seek to toss out the flight attendant contract in its entirety; that was discussed within the ruling which barred the AFA from striking.

My bad wording - "flight crew" to me includes pilots and FA's. As I said, the FA contract was abrogated but not the pilots' as I remember it.

Jim

 

[Anomaly]

All of section 1113 is a result of Lorenzo - it didn't exist when he took CO into chapter 11 back in the 1980's. At that time labor contracts were treated as any other contract that the debtor could ask the judge to reject. As I said a few weeks back in one of these threads, the word "abrogate" entered the lexicon of bankruptcy when section 1113 was added.

Jim

Good point

 

[Anomaly]

All of section 1113 is a result of Lorenzo - it didn't exist when he took CO into chapter 11 back in the 1980's. At that time labor contracts were treated as any other contract that the debtor could ask the judge to reject. As I said a few weeks back in one of these threads, the word "abrogate" entered the lexicon of bankruptcy when section 1113 was added.

Jim

Look up "Bildisco Decision'. Surely Lorenzo was a factor but to say that all of 1113 is a result of Lorenzo isnt accurate and ther is no CBA, there are modified terms, not the same thing. If this was a modified CBA then there would be no reason to negotiate or ratify a new one.

Congress enacted Section 1113 favoring voluntary collective bargained solutions after deregulation in response to the 1984 Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco. In Bildisco, The Supreme Court ruled that a debtor could reject a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) merely upon a showing of a business justification and without engaging in union contract negotiations and that such unilateral alterations by a debtor would not violate federal labor law. Congress believed that the process of collective bargaining is so important that it overruled the Supreme Court’s Bildisco decision by enacting Section 1113.

Just a year before, Frank Lorenzo took Continental into bankruptcy on September 23, 1983, after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a lower pay rate with labor unions. This saved the company from liquidation, but required substantial reorganization, which began immediately. Following bankruptcy, Continental was freed of its contractual obligations and imposed a series of new labor agreements on its union workers.

Airline unions fought Lorenzo and Continental at every step. In the Federal courts, they unsuccessfully sued to stop the company's reorganization. They were however successful in working to persuade Congress to pass the new bankruptcy law preventing bankrupt companies from terminating contracts as Continental had successfully done. The law was too late to affect Continental and the cost cutting and changes that had rescued it from liquidation.

Section 1113 was designed to level the playing field between labor and management by imposing procedural requirements that bankrupt debtors must satisfy in order to modify or reject a CBA. Those requirements, in a nutshell, require that bankrupt debtors provide all necessary information to unions and negotiate in good faith with these unions before seeking federal court approval to modify or reject the conditions of a CBA. Federal judges are supposed to hold the bankruptcy debtors’ feet to the fire and ensure that debtors do not unfairly or unnecessarily take such drastic steps as seeking to reject the contracts.

Unfortunately, the Section 1113 protections that Congress though it was providing to labor have not panned out, and bankruptcy debtors have continued to obtain court orders rejecting collective bargaining agreements without hardly breaking a sweat. This has especially been the case in the airline industry. In fact, another bitter irony related to Section 1113 is that Congress enacted it with full knowledge that the airline industry had horribly abused the bankruptcy rules in order to avoid their collective bargaining obligations in the years following deregulation. The industry has used Section 1113 to gut airline employee’s negotiated benefits, security, and wages.

I believe Boeing Boy is implying that Lorenzo was one of many to make challenges to the bankruptcy code and a very major reason for the implementation of section 1113. By definition, he may have helped to create the mess we live with today. I would tend to agree with his statement.

 

[Anomaly]

And it is because of Lorenzo, most Chapter 11, 1113 rules are what they are today..

Agreed, somewhat. Read my explanation above.

 

[enough already]

Anomaly
Today, 02:04 AM
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Anomaly. View it anyway?
Quote
Anomaly
Today, 02:16 AM
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Anomaly. View it anyway?
Anomaly
Today, 02:21 AM
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Anomaly. View it anyway?


It sure doesn't take long to read the board these days! :-D

 

[Buster CRC]

Yea the board ain't worth reading. The amfa/teamsters argument has gotten beyond OLD.

 

[TWU informer]

Yea the board ain't worth reading. The amfa/teamsters argument has gotten beyond OLD.

That is likely the goal.

Convolute the board with such childish and meaningless pickering nobody reads it anymore.
It is typical of Industrial Unionist, stop communications and prevent a vote.
How sad is that? And they wonder why the profession is going down the tubes!

No problem, a better tool to communicate coming soon.

 

[eolesen]

Yea the board ain't worth reading. The amfa/teamsters argument has gotten beyond OLD.

How do you think some of us feel after ten years of hearing how the TWU has to go, yet they're still around?....

If you don't like it, leave. We'll miss you. Maybe.

 

[Hopeful]

How do you think some of us feel after ten years of hearing how the TWU has to go, yet they're still around?....

If you don't like it, leave. We'll miss you. Maybe.

After ten years, you HAVEN'T learned anything about why the TWU is still around!

For decades, the TWU stronghold at the bases have kept them on the property. That's where the voting majority has been. Now that the TWU is unable to preserve what will be substantial job cuts at the bases, those in fear of losing their jobs are no longer happy with the TWU.
If you recall within the last TEN years, we tried the AMFA vote, and they dug up dead and retired people to include in the count.

So, THAT'S why the TWU is still around.