The company negotiated in good faith?

[amtide]

Under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court may authorize an employer to reject—and thus terminate—a collective bargaining agreement if the debtor can prove to the bankruptcy court that

1. it proposed modifications to the collective bargaining agreement to the union;
2. the proposed modifications are necessary to permit the debtor's reorganization;
3. the debtor met with the union and shared information justifying the proposed modifications;
4. the debtor negotiated in good faith with the union; and
5. the union refused to accept the proposal modifications without good cause.
neg
I'm not a lawyer but I think there is a conflict with the negotiated in good faith part of the section 1113. If judge Lane see that they file on APR 23 what was necessary for the company to change and after that the company was able to change that with what they call the LBO, he should ask himself are all this changes necessary?

VOTE NO and lets get a better representation to negotiate our contract.

 

[Mach85ER]

Curious to know if Brundage's "kick the can down the road" was going to be used against him in cross examination regarding doing the same thing with these 1113C negotiations where they've not come off a dime on the pilot's end (don't know about the others). they've "kicked the can down the road" trying to get the Judge todo their dirty work.

Can he be called to court or is he now off limits as far as Judge Lane is concerned?

 

[dfw gen]

Negotiate in good faith? Aa? Now that's a good joke. This company hasn't been honest in 20 years that I'm aware of.

 

[Duke787]

AA's business tactics are "LEGENDARY" (think Legend airlines) but unfortunately they use those same tactics against their own employee's, you know the people that make AA run despite the leadership.

 

[FWAAA]

Since AA began negotiating with the three unions several years ago, various posters have alleged that AA has not (and in fact, never has) negotiated in good faith. Often, the evidence put forth for this allegation is that AA has not moved toward the union's position. As a matter of law, good faith does not require any movement.

Now, the OP, in an attempt to whipsaw AA, alleges that perhaps some slight movement by AA in its position is evidence of a lack of good faith. Nope, it does not work that way.

Again - satisfaction of the requirement of "good faith" has nothing to do with movement or lack of movement by either side.

"Good faith" will be satisfied as long as the parties negotiated honestly with each other. AA may be completely dishonest in its negotiations, but movement off its initial "ask" does not constitute evidence of such dishonesty.

 

[paul1]

get it through your heads when little told us we would vote on the lbo, aa had no more reason to do real negotiations. he threw us under the bus (no pun intended)

 

[Rogallo]

Again - satisfaction of the requirement of "good faith" has nothing to do with movement or lack of movement by either side.

Is that based on fact or opinion?

 

[amtide]

Why there is a difference between the M&R comparison from the company web site and the TWU? The union has no 1.5% raises in the vote no side while the company shows to compare the term sheet offer with the small raises.

 

[AA89]

Since AA began negotiating with the three unions several years ago, various posters have alleged that AA has not (and in fact, never has) negotiated in good faith. Often, the evidence put forth for this allegation is that AA has not moved toward the union's position. As a matter of law, good faith does not require any movement.

Now, the OP, in an attempt to whipsaw AA, alleges that perhaps some slight movement by AA in its position is evidence of a lack of good faith. Nope, it does not work that way.

Again - satisfaction of the requirement of "good faith" has nothing to do with movement or lack of movement by either side.

"Good faith" will be satisfied as long as the parties negotiated honestly with each other. AA may be completely dishonest in its negotiations, but movement off its initial "ask" does not constitute evidence of such dishonesty.

Yeah, we all know the old saying "All is fair in love and war". Managemant showed their desire for "good faith" with employees after 2003 concessions.
Its still up to the union to show and the judge to see "bad faith" Unlikely in my opinion.

 

[Overspeed]

Why there is a difference between the M&R comparison from the company web site and the TWU? The union has no 1.5% raises in the vote no side while the company shows to compare the term sheet offer with the small raises.

As it stands now, the Company position is no 1.5% annual increase if we vote no. Judge Lane could or could not honor that position by the Company.

 

[FWAAA]

Yeah, we all know the old saying "All is fair in love and war". Managemant showed their desire for "good faith" with employees after 2003 concessions.
Its still up to the union to show and the judge to see "bad faith" Unlikely in my opinion.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that AA will be able to convince the judge that all 1113 requirements have been satisfied, but IMO, absence of "good faith" is not one that AA will lose on. Harvey Miller and the others at Weil Gotshal & Manges have been down this road before and know how to dot the I's and cross the T's.

 

[amtide]

Now, the OP, in an attempt to whipsaw AA, alleges that perhaps some slight movement by AA in its position is evidence of a lack of good faith. Nope, it does not work that way.

Again - satisfaction of the requirement of "good faith" has nothing to do with movement or lack of movement by either side.

"Good faith" will be satisfied as long as the parties negotiated honestly with each other. AA may be completely dishonest in its negotiations, but movement off its initial "ask" does not constitute evidence of such dishonesty.

For me it is, but if that is the way the lawyers look at it, we are screw.

 

[Vortilon]

As it stands now, the Company position is no 1.5% annual increase if we vote no. Judge Lane could or could not honor that position by the Company.

That is just your opinion.... More scare tactics..... Vote NO! Then AA can try and impose whatever they want. Good luck trying to motivate the employees to do more than the bare minimum, and get behind the management plan.

 

[Overspeed]

That is just your opinion.... More scare tactics..... Vote NO! Then AA can try and impose whatever they want. Good luck trying to motivate the employees to do more than the bare minimum, and get behind the management plan.

The term sheets are on the AA restructuring website. That's not an opinion. Keep sticking your fingers in your ears saying, "La, la, la, I hear nothing."

 

[amtide]

That is just your opinion.... More scare tactics..... Vote NO! Then AA can try and impose whatever they want. Good luck trying to motivate the employees to do more than the bare minimum, and get behind the management plan.

Can not agree more. AA plan to improve with the less motivated force in the industry is unlikely. Scare tactics are to increase next few days.
VOTE NO