RIF dates

[TWU informer]

From RLA information I have been reading from another thread you posted after the company imposes terms that eliminates the status quo that action triggers Section2 Duty to make new agreements to make a new status quo but the problem is I see no forced timeline to make it happen. Now under the Section2 Duty it refers to a reasonable effort to negotiate terms but with uncertain contours (?) and goes on to say that the Duty under Section2 does not compel agreement between the employer and employees. So with this, how do you say they must have an agreement with the unions before the company can emerge from bankruptcy? Maybe you should bring your info and opinion to the big meeting to be held next Saturday, if your argument is true, it should be considered.

I didnt say they must have an agreement.

Im asking for anyone to show a case that POR was approved without consensual labor agreements in place.
I think it is, alhtough not mandatory, a signifcant and relevant factor in POR approval.

And to be clear, I wasted my last meeting appearance to a Local 514 gathering long ago.
Will never be out of order brother, or waste time voting on issue that the dictators control regardless of outcome.
i.e. Not paying Shop Stewards until end of meeting so they didn't just get their cash and leave. And the building of the new union hall.

And that is just two. you go right ahead and attend Mr. Kick over the Bee Hive.

And you still have not answered my question about your support of TWU Secrets?

 

[tech2101]

Do you think the court will approve any plan to emerge without Union Consensual Agreements?

Yes. If that is what it takes to get the best deal for the creditors within the timeframes set in the proceedings/law.

As 700UW has posted over and over, once there is an agreement, or abrogation, there will be no right to strike.

 

[TWU informer]

Yes. If that is what it takes to get the best deal for the creditors within the timeframes set in the proceedings/law.

As 700UW has posted over and over, once there is an agreement, or abrogation, there will be no right to strike.

How about you.

Can you cite a single case where this happened? And the company survived it?

 

[700UW]

US and NW both had CBA's abrogated.

The Judge in the US case held the ruling in abeyance and the members voted on the LBO.

 

[High Speed Steel]

I didnt say they must have an agreement.

Im asking for anyone to show a case that POR was approved without consensual labor agreements in place.
I think it is, alhtough not mandatory, a signifcant and relevant factor in POR approval.

And to be clear, I wasted my last meeting appearance to a Local 514 gathering long ago.
Will never be out of order brother, or waste time voting on issue that the dictators control regardless of outcome.
i.e. Not paying Shop Stewards until end of meeting so they didn't just get their cash and leave. And the building of the new union hall.

And that is just two. you go right ahead and attend Mr. Kick over the Bee Hive.

And you still have not answered my question about your support of TWU Secrets?

paper tiger...grrrrrr

 

[Bob Owens]

This is the part we disagree.
I believe there still is an agreement in place, it is just a modified agreement.
But approval of a plan to ermerge will not happen until consensual agreement is reached.
This is why negotiations begin after abrogation, not becuase there is no contract.

You really need to get a clear understanding of this becuase I feel you are being mislead on this issue.
Or I need a clear understanding of the purpose of the 1113 changes of 2005.

My understanding is that the changes of 2005 were to prevent not having an agreement in place and the distruptions that would take place while still under C11 protection you speak about.

I did find this interest PDF
http://www.restructuringamr.com/documents/1113_oal_outcomes_chart_4.16.12.pdf

Each of these list "consensual" agreement.

I still say without consensual agreements the court plan approval to emerge is not going to happen and that is where the leverage is for us and all Unions.

Under 1113 the debtor can file for interum relief, AA chose not to do that. Probably because if they had they would have showed profits since they have to get approval for expenditures from the court and would not have been able to hide the money. UAL did and in Jan of 2003, a month after filing, the court imposed a 14% paycut on their mechanics who at the time were the highest paid in the industry, In April UAL and the mechanics came up with a consensual agreement where they agreed to a 13% paycut. They got 1% back. Interum relief is temporary, until either a new agreement is reached or they abrogate the contract. Howver that same month, outside of BK we agreed to a 25% paycut and the creditors rejected the TA they had with the mechanics, they were told to get more, thanks to us.

Under the interum terms the rest of the contract remains in place. However if a new agreement cant be reached the company then files to abrogate, and shows the court the terms it claims it needs to emerge succussfully from BK, in the case of AA very successfully, they need the concessions so they can earn $3 billion a year in profits.

Now here is where it gets grey, is the company bound to follow the terms? We were told different things, initially we were told that the imposed terms were the new contract and that even if it said six years it was six years, then we were told it wasnt and for the last several weeks we were told if its abrogated we have no contract and they can walk in and start firing people for no reason at all.

So, we have to figure out for ourselves which way it is.

OK, what does "abrogation" mean? It means "to end an agreement or contract formally".

So, we have no contract if its abrogated, however nearly all companies even non-union have written policies they follow, and while they can change them even non-union workers can take legal action if they dont do as their policy states. AA presented terms to the Judge where they said the want the whole contract abrogated AND these are the terms they would put in place, the terms are a list of changes to the contract thats in place. So its no longer a union contract but company policy. So if they deviated from the terms they deviated from the basis upon which the court agreed to terminate our contract, so we should legally be able to take action, even if its not legal we should. The RLA is what really screws things up for Airline workers, SECT 1167 of C-11 simplifies things for Rail workers-their contracts can not be abrogated in BK, all they can do is jump into SECT 6 early and try and get concessions. The courts decided that does not apply to us however when Lorenzo abrogated the Pilots contract they were permitted to strike, the appelate court apparently missed that when they decided that the NWA Flight Attendants could not. The reasoning behind the different treatment under the law between airline workers and railroad workers is simple, they knew that if they tried to do to them what they are doing to us the Rail workers would tell them where they could stick their injunctions and shut down the rails.

700UW is confused because they reached consensual deals, the IAM did the same thing the TWU is doing, they met with the company, changed a few things from the original "ask' and put it before the membership and they ratified it.

From what I'm told consensual deals with labor are not a legal requirement for exiting BK however its unlikely the creditors would approve of a plan where they were not in place, of course if the operation was going to #### then there is no way they would. If that happens we have leverage, however if guys value their CS's and laptop time and overtime more than wages and benefits we are screwed.

 

[700UW]

The agreements don't have to be consensual for the por to be approved, that is why section 1113 exists after Lorenzo and CO.

There was no section 1113 when the courts abrogated the contracts at CO.

 

[Birdman]

US and NW both had CBA's abrogated.

The Judge in the US case held the ruling in abeyance and the members voted on the LBO.

Didn't they vote twice, no, then yes?

 

[TWU informer]

US and NW both had CBA's abrogated.

The Judge in the US case held the ruling in abeyance and the members voted on the LBO.

Thick Skull...

Can you cite a case in which the approval of POR happened without Consensual Labor Agreements in place?

Each of those cases consensual agreements were in place before approval of the POR.

Are you that hard headed or just being difficult?
Most teenagers are more able to comprehend such an easy question.

 

[700UW]

No, that was in the first chapter 11 case. The contract was abrogated in the second chapter 11.

 

[Bob Owens]

No, that was in the first chapter 11 case. The contract was abrogated in the second chapter 11.

Are you saying that you guys worked under terms that the membership never voted on from the second filing till 2008?

 

[tech2101]

How about you.

Can you cite a single case where this happened? And the company survived it?

Yes.

The Northwest Airlines Flight Attendants agreement was abrogated:

In addition to seeking interim relief from its CBA, Northwest sought in September 2005 to obtain permanent relief from its CBA pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1113. After the flight attendants rejected the March 1 Agreement, Northwest reiterated this request, and, this time, the bankruptcy court granted Northwest's motion to reject its CBA. The bankruptcy court explained:

8
[t]he Court would do the flight attendants and the Debtors' thousands of other employees no favor if it refused to grant the Debtors' § 1113 relief, and the Debtors joined the ranks of the many other airlines that have liquidated as a consequence of a Chapter 11 filing.

9
In re Nw. Airlines Corp., 346 B.R. 307, 330 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006). Along with this relief, the bankruptcy court permitted Northwest to impose the terms of the March 1 Agreement upon the flight attendants. Neither party appealed this decision.

10
The bankruptcy court conditioned its decision on Northwest's agreement to negotiate for an additional two weeks before it would allow the March 1 Agreement to take effect. Negotiations ensued, this time with the Association of Flight Attendants ("AFA"), which the flight attendants had elected as their new representative on July 7, 2006. On July 17, Northwest and the AFA reached another tentative agreement; again, however, on July 31, the flight attendants rejected the proposed agreement, this time by the narrower margin of 55-45%.

My link

I was an AMFA represented employee at the time (replaced after striking).

You can debate whether or not the company survived. They still live in the name of Delta. All the senior management is NWA.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes. If that is what it takes to get the best deal for the creditors within the timeframes set in the proceedings/law.

As 700UW has posted over and over, once there is an agreement, or abrogation, there will be no right to strike.

700UW is wrong.

Once there is an agreement there is no right to strike, true, Abrogation however triggers Sect 6 and if that process is unsuccessful it ultimately leads to either a strike, other forms of self help, Binding Arbitration, PEB or Congressional settlement-which is usually the recommendations of the PEB. Negotiations continue.

 

[TWU informer]

paper tiger...grrrrrr

Your responses speak for themselves. You are a true TWU cultist. Avoid answering and resort to childish behavior and idealogies.
Impressive.

Those are the same type of responses given when one attends a TWU meeting and ask questions that are not in direct agreeement with plan to implement the next round of industry leading concessions.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes.

The Northwest Airlines Flight Attendants agreement was abrogated:



My link

I was an AMFA represented employee at the time (replaced after striking).

And they reached a consentual agreement later that was ratified. Thats why they never tried to bring the appeal further up the process