Teamster Representation Questions

[ThirdSeatHero]

I have friends at US that are on Recall to United. Is it still lifetime recall rights or is it 10 years recall rights?

sUAL still has lifetime recall, but the ibt screwed some furloughees by introducing "Pay Seniority" into the CBA.

Before the ibt, if you got laid off before you reached top scale, and lets you were laid off 10 years, when you came back you were at top scale as you got credit for time laid off. Not anymore.

While you still have lifetime recall rights, now, you only accrue "Pay Seniority" for 90 days after furlough and thats it.

Just one of the many concessions some mechanics don't even know about.

 

[Anomaly]

sUAL still has lifetime recall, but the ibt screwed some furloughees by introducing "Pay Seniority" into the CBA.

Before the ibt, if you got laid off before you reached top scale, and lets you were laid off 10 years, when you came back you were at top scale as you got credit for time laid off. Not anymore.

While you still have lifetime recall rights, now, you only accrue "Pay Seniority" for 90 days after furlough and thats it.

Just one of the many concessions some mechanics don't even know about.

Unless you have topped out. Read it again TSH

The stop in "pay seniority" language only pertains to those who have not yet reached the top of the scale. There is no change to the lifetime recall language or to any "credit" as you put it. Under the existing IBT contract, many members are returning from closed stations such as Indy with ZERO loss of seniority and are getting paid at the pay representing their total time of service including the time on the street.

In other words, A Mechanic hired in 1993 and furloughed in 2003 then recalled in 2013 will receive top pay plus longevity pay at the 20 year rate. There are many examples of this now.

Nothing in this new contract limits lifetime recall or pay once top pay has been achieved.

TSH is referring to language which says basically, a mechanic who has worked at UA for 2 years and then furloughed, will receive only 90 days of additional "Pay Seniority". If he is recalled in 5 years he would then receive credit for 2 years and 90 days but not the full 7 years which includes his time on furlough. He would continue his pay scale at the adjusted rate. This again is for pay purposes only.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Maybe you should try reading my post again. (emphasis mine)

Before the ibt, if you got laid off before you reached top scale, and lets you were laid off 10 years, when you came back you were at top scale as you got credit for time laid off. Not anymore.

I was clearly talking about someone who was not topped out.

As for the rest of your post, your example of a 2 year UA mechanic furloughed, illustrates the teamster "Pay Seniority" concession perfectly.

Prior to the teamsters concessionary language - after 5 years on furlough, that mechanic came back to UAL, with 7 years at TOP SCALE.

After the teamsters concessionary language - after 5 years on furlough, that mechanic came back to UAL, still at year 2+ on the pay scale.

Thats a teamster concession.

 

[blue collar]

It is still a concession even though you re-iterated what tsh wrote.

 

[Anomaly]

Maybe you should try reading my post again. (emphasis mine)



I was clearly talking about someone who was not topped out.

As for the rest of your post, your example of a 2 year UA mechanic furloughed, illustrates the teamster "Pay Seniority" concession perfectly.

Prior to the teamsters concessionary language - after 5 years on furlough, that mechanic came back to UAL, with 7 years at TOP SCALE.

After the teamsters concessionary language - after 5 years on furlough, that mechanic came back to UAL, still at year 2+ on the pay scale.

Thats a teamster concession.

You were clearly trying to paint a picture that the IBT "screwed some furloughs". We all know your history, and expect this from you.

The question was "Is it still lifetime recall rights or is it 10 years recall rights?"

The simple answer is lifetime recall rights.

 

[Anomaly]

It is still a concession even though you re-iterated what tsh wrote.

I disagree. Call it what you will but many of the mechanics I have spoken with were made aware of this language and the change that occurred. Fair or not, self serving or not, we were fine with it and voted it in. To us, this was a simple issue. A person with less than 5 years is laid off, then is recalled to work and has to start where he/she left off plus 90 days credit. Why not? We all put in our 5 years. Of course those I have discussed this with including me have well over 20 years seniority and maybe this is a case of eating our young, but so be it.

It is not a concession if the members are for it. We ended up with a very good contract, pay increases, and cash bonuses. For this we gave up an item that most of us, excluding TSH, call fair. Like it or not, we really do not care what either of you think. Next question?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

You were clearly trying to paint a picture that the IBT "screwed some furloughs". We all know your history, and expect this from you.

The question was "Is it still lifetime recall rights or is it 10 years recall rights?"

The simple answer is lifetime recall rights.

I wasn't painting a picture, I was relaying the truth.

The very first line in my post .......sUAL still has lifetime recall...

This thread is about teamster representation, and the concession that is "Pay Seniority" is most definately on topic, as the ibt did ... as I said .... screw some furloughees.

Its an ibt concession, if you're uncomfortable with that truth, too bad.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I disagree. Call it what you will but many of the mechanics I have spoken with were made aware of this language and the change that occurred. Fair or not, self serving or not, we were fine with it and voted it in. To us, this was a simple issue. A person with less than 5 years is laid off, then is recalled to work and has to start where he/she left off plus 90 days credit. Why not? We all put in our 5 years. Of course those I have discussed this with including me have well over 20 years seniority and maybe this is a case of eating our young, but so be it.

It is not a concession if the members are for it. We ended up with a very good contract, pay increases, and cash bonuses. For this we gave up an item that most of us, excluding TSH, call fair. Like it or not, we really do not care what either of you think. Next question?

Did the furloughees the ibt screwed vote for it?

Do you think they'd agree its fair?

Its a concession, plain and simple. Just one among many.

Your pathetic attempts at justification are joke, just like the teamsters.

 

[Anomaly]

Did the furloughees the ibt screwed vote for it?

Do you think they'd agree its fair?

Its a concession, plain and simple. Just one among many.

Your pathetic attempts at justification are joke, just like the teamsters.

Do you think UA wanted us to keep lifetime recall rights? The answer is NO.

UA wanted to limit the recall to a set time. If keeping it meant defining a part for those who have not yet reached the top of the pay progression that they would be recalled no matter how much time is elapsed but have to start where they left off, then YES, I think they would agree it is fair. Nobody was screwed. Would it have been fair to those who have been with UA for 15 years and on the street for 5 to find out that they now have no recall rights? I think it was a fair trade, and the yes vote affirms my opinion.

You continue to benefit from this Teamster contract, but complain all the way to the bank. The joke, clearly, is you.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Do you think UA wanted us to keep lifetime recall rights? The answer is NO.

UA wanted to limit the recall to a set time. If keeping it meant defining a part for those who have not yet reached the top of the pay progression that they would be recalled no matter how much time is elapsed but have to start where they left off, then YES, I think they would agree it is fair. Nobody was screwed. Would it have been fair to those who have been with UA for 15 years and on the street for 5 to find out that they now have no recall rights? I think it was a fair trade, and the yes vote affirms my opinion.

You continue to benefit from this Teamster contract, but complain all the way to the bank. The joke, clearly, is you.

You're desperation is showing.

We had it all in our contract, already. Lifetime recall, full credit toward pay progression.

After everything we all lost, and those on furlough even more, we should not have had to surrender anything.

The teamsters gave it up! Where was your so often quoted teamster power?

 

[swamt]

I disagree. Call it what you will but many of the mechanics I have spoken with were made aware of this language and the change that occurred. Fair or not, self serving or not, we were fine with it and voted it in. To us, this was a simple issue. A person with less than 5 years is laid off, then is recalled to work and has to start where he/she left off plus 90 days credit. Why not? We all put in our 5 years. Of course those I have discussed this with including me have well over 20 years seniority and maybe this is a case of eating our young, but so be it.

It is not a concession if the members are for it. We ended up with a very good contract, pay increases, and cash bonuses. For this we gave up an item that most of us, excluding TSH, call fair. Like it or not, we really do not care what either of you think. Next question?

"eating our young" then "so be it" Wow! Thanx for finally letting the truth out about who you really are. Anomaly, a concession is a concession rather the members wanted it or not. Your statement above that, " It is not a concession if the members are for it." is complete BS. BTW; who is "we" in this statement?--"we really do not care what either of you think." I believe you just let the cat out of the bag chief.

 

[Anomaly]

"eating our young" then "so be it" Wow! Thanx for finally letting the truth out about who you really are. Anomaly, a concession is a concession rather the members wanted it or not. Your statement above that, " It is not a concession if the members are for it." is complete BS. BTW; who is "we" in this statement?--"we really do not care what either of you think." I believe you just let the cat out of the bag chief.

We.... the mechanics I work and talk to about this board. We.....those of us who get tired of the reaching arguments about how bad life is at UA under the Teamsters. We.....all of us who read the agreement, understood it and voted on it. We.....those of us who do not need this forum or your constant nagging in order to make a qualified decision. We....those of us who are better off not getting involved in your stupid one sided arguments (I was certainly better off before I stumbled upon this crap).

 

[Anomaly]

You're desperation is showing.

We had it all in our contract, already. Lifetime recall, full credit toward pay progression.

After everything we all lost, and those on furlough even more, we should not have had to surrender anything.

The teamsters gave it up! Where was your so often quoted teamster power?

In open negotiations sometimes there are language items that the company would like to change. Lifetime seniority is one of those items. Merging two airlines, sometimes you have to make a choice on which language to use when more than one contract is involved. In this case, Continental did not have lifetime recall rights, but they did have the language in question concerning those who have not reached the top of the scale. It was made clear that our last contract was an effort to combine both contracts as much as possible in order to reduce the time for the amalgamated single agreement. I read this passage before I voted as many others did. It did not affect my vote, and does not affect my opinion. I spoke with several about this last night while on shift, and they too were equally unconcerned. It is fair .It may be what some would like to see, but even for them it is fair. The company wanted both restrictions to lifetime recall and the CO language. They did not get that.

 

[swamt]

We.... the mechanics I work and talk to about this board. We.....those of us who get tired of the reaching arguments about how bad life is at UA under the Teamsters. We.....all of us who read the agreement, understood it and voted on it. We.....those of us who do not need this forum or your constant nagging in order to make a qualified decision. We....those of us who are better off not getting involved in your stupid one sided arguments (I was certainly better off before I stumbled upon this crap).

I see. And the only reason you are in a discussions with me is because of your outright blatant lies about AMFA and /or SWA. Although you have throttled back quite a bit, there for awhile you were just popping off false information and blatant lies about AMFA and were constantly being proven wrong each and every time, and not only by me, but by many others on this "board". My sided arguments are and were brought on by YOU 100%. So blame yourself for no longer being better off prior to coming to these boards. I will say, as of late, you, realityck, CIO have all throttled back quite a bit.

 

[swamt]

Anomaly, we all know you want to "eat your young" in order to keep the teamsters at UAL and get the teamsters in at AA. The latter of the two will NOT happen. The UAL guys were duped into voting the teamsters in at UAL. The teamsters are pulling their same lies, mis-truths, promicing the world, and to add to all this forgery and fraud during the card drive. Pathetic when you have to lower yourself to forgery and fraud to get in at an airline. And let's not forget about the teamsters past illegal activities known thru-out the world. You may as well give it up about the teamsters getting in at AA. They have blown it themselves just like the TWU has. In May there will be an announcement that AMFA is filing for a representational election at AA. With the recent actions and illegal activity by the teamsters, and the recent threats from the TWU stating that the members will fore-go their 4.3% raise as well as, their portion of the 4.8% equity stake, those two unions are history at AA. Both groups were outstanding AMFA card drive supporters to say the least. I have added the letter from Mr. Seham concerning the NMB stance on the TWU threat, as well as promices the teamsters made to you UAL guys and now AA guys, happy reading:

March 25, 2013


Mr. Don Rodgers
AMFA-AA Organizing Committee



Re: Threats of Economic Retaliation



Dear Mr. Rodgers:


You have brought to our attention that the TWU has engaged in intimations of economic retaliation by American Airlines and/or the TWU in response to an effort by the Mechanics and Related Employees to change their representation. These threats reportedly related to both contractual wage increases and the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake.


We consider these threats to be unlawful and that, furthermore, any effort to fulfill such threats would subject American and/or the TWU to enormous potential liability.


Contractual Wage Increases

The Railway Labor Act prohibits any effort by a carrier to "influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization." 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth. Significantly, the federal judiciary has held that a change in union representatives does not alter the employees' existing contractual rights.

Nevertheless, in a Q&A published March 14, 2013, the TWU shamelessly asserts that "the New American will have a strong argument" that negotiated wage increases would not be payable to those employees who decided to change unions.

We say "shamelessly," not just because the TWU is wrong, but because, when the IBT made an analogous argument - i.e., that the IBT would have the automatic right to reopen an existing TWU-negotiated CBA - the TWU effectively blasted the IBT propaganda as a lie. The TWU correctly informed its members that, under federal law, a successor union steps into the contractual shoes of its predecessor.

So who is lying now? Federal courts and the National Mediation Board provide the answer.

The federal courts have consistently held that a change in union representation does not change existing contractual right and obligations. See Association of Flight Attendants v. USAir, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 146 L.R.R.M. 2534 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Air Transp. Employees v. Western Airlines, 105 L.R.R.M. 3004, 3008 (C.D. Cal 1980); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 843 F.2d 1119, 1123 n.5 (8th Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 854 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1988); Order of Ry. Conducts & Brakemen v. Switchmen's Union of North America, 269 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 899 (1959).

The National Mediation Board has also repeatedly recognized the principle of contractual continuity. In 1935, the Board wrote:


When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement.


First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 23-24 (1935) (emphasis supplied). In 1976, the Board further explained:



The purpose of such a policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that
agreements are between the employees and the carrier....


Forty-Second Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 39 (1976) (emphasis supplied).

The Board's position was reaffirmed on June 7, 1994 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which cited the "well-established principle that a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreements." Association of Flight Attendants, 24 F.3d at 1438.

Equity Stake

Interestingly enough, the TWU refrains from making a similar economic threat regarding the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake. With respect to these monies, the TWU's March 14 Q&A indicates that, even with a change of union representation: "Mechanics and Related, as a class or craft, will receive an appropriate share of this equity." Nevertheless, we understand that TWU representatives have been making oral threats that the TWU might withhold the Mechanics' share of equity stake in retaliation for their support of alternative union representation.

The TWU's written commitment to provide Mechanics and Related Employees an "appropriate share" of the equity undoubtedly reflects its awareness that the Railway Labor Act prohibits a labor union from stripping employees of contractual benefits based on their preference for alternative union representation. See, Ramey v. International Association of Machinists, 378 F.2d 269 (2nd Cir. 2004) (IAM liable for damages and attorneys fees where it seniority integration decisions regarding USAir Shuttle Mechanics were based on its animus toward these mechanics based on their advocacy for AMFA); Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 612 (1st Cir. 1987) ("When a union attempts to prefer [on group of] workers based solely on [their loyalty to their guild]," it has breached its duty of fair representation).

We do not believe that the oral threats that have been made, in conflict with the TWU's written commitment, will be fulfilled. Moreover, we can assure you that any effort to cheat the AA Mechanics and Related Employees of their contractual rights will meet with an aggressive litigation response.

Sincerely,






Lee Seham