The Screwings Continue one more week of vacation gone

[eolesen]

The class was an arbitration class given at the WWW Center, the class was accredited and we got college credits for it, it was over 20 years ago, so I dont have a link to it.

All that means nothing. For all we know, that is just a hypothetical, not based on fact.

I did some cursory Google searching, and couldn't find a single reference to a donut arbitration other than a few bakeries who made donuts...

Seems that this would be a pretty important arbitration example for past practice for others to reference, but it's not. Likewise, if it's in a textbook, it likely would have been picked up as well considering how many of those have found their way into Google Books.

 

[767in texas]

Does anyone think that taking away flex vacation from us is going to help morale, it's already at the lowest I've ever seen it. The time has come that everyone start sending a message to management. Since 2003 they have done nothing but take take take 3 weeks of vacation (VC, PV,and now flex) not counting 5 holidays sick days, overtime and list goes on, but management has some how kept all of theirs. Remember the slogans Pull together win together, Shared sacrifice? So much for their one liners. Maybe it's our time to send them our own signal

 

[swamt]

I haven't participated in this discussion in the least and I don't want to unless you drag me into it.

You two are equally dogmatic regarding your points as is everyone else on this forum.

To say anyone's behavior is like someone else's when everyone dogmatically stands up for what they believe is simply hypocritical. if you don't stand up for what you believe, why bother to participate in the first place?

Wrong again.  And your post above speaks volumes on MY point.  So, for that, I thank you.  And BTW; I did not drag you into this, just another move for you to try and but into where you don't belong.  Just because you do not like the fact that 700 is posting more and more like you when confronted is too bad.  Everyone sees it. And if you think it is other than I have said, then throw your own post out there and ask the the folks themselves.  OR are you too afraid to do so???

 

[Harold Nads]

I use flex vacation but am not emotional about it; I will just CS before that “they can do that brother”goes away too. Still, this is just a small convenience employees can opt to buy but now becomes more avoidable and unnecessary demoralizing of the employees by management who are not looking at the big picture. Certainly Flex vacation isn't costing AA a competitive edge. Why not treat your employees with respect, and motivate them? Find cost savings elsewhere, this seems punitive. Look, you could buy your wife a food processor for your anniversary, or diamonds. See which works out best, even long term. Costs are relative.
 
AA management needs to drastically change it's attitude towards the employees that make this airline possible.

 

[Flying low]

Yes, taking away the flex vacation is demoralizing, but I wonder if AA was the only airline that had it. If so, is AA just adopting US airways rules and aligning with the rest of the industry?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

All that means nothing. For all we know, that is just a hypothetical, not based on fact.I did some cursory Google searching, and couldn't find a single reference to a donut arbitration other than a few bakeries who made donuts...Seems that this would be a pretty important arbitration example for past practice for others to reference, but it's not. Likewise, if it's in a textbook, it likely would have been picked up as well considering how many of those have found their way into Google Books.

A Past practice grievance could very well work in driving the company to negotiate a solution.

"THE USE OF THE PAST PRACTICE DOCTRINE IN LABOR ARBITRATIONS

The burden of proof is on the party alleging the existence of a binding past practice to establish that one exists. See Reynolds Packaging Group, Reynolds Consumer Products and Bellwood Printing Pressmen, 38 LAIS 134, 2010 WL 6777140 (Etelson 2010). “A past practice may be given binding effect as an implied term of a labor agreement if the practice is unequivocal, clearly enunciated and acted upon, and reasonably ascertainable over a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice accepted by both parties. Grand Haven Stamped Products Co., 107 LA 131, 137 (Daniel, 1996); Arizona Aluminum Co., 78 LA 766 (Sass, 1982); Elkouri and Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, pp. 606-08 (6th Ed. 2003).” Pueblo School District No. 70 (CO) and Association of Classified Employees, 2009 WL 8161050 (Snider, 2009). Even when a past practice has been established, however, that does not end the inquiry. Arbitrators are reluctant to prohibit employers from changing working conditions which are fundamental functions of management regardless of whether a contrary past practice exists. That is particularly true when the contract contains a strong management rights clause or a specific provision authorizing changes in work rules.

Nevertheless, practices involving a benefit of peculiar personal value to employees are typically protected against unilateral management abrogation. “The determination of what constitutes a ‘benefit,’ requires the application of an ‘objective rather than a ‘subjective’ standard. The real question in each case is not whether the particular individual likes the condition in question, but whether an ordinary employee in the same situation would reasonably regard the condition as conferring a substantial benefit upon him in relation to his job.” United States Steel Corp., 121 LA 1200 (Das, 2005). Arbitrators are especially likely to find the existence of a personal benefit when employees’ pay is involved, because “there can be no greater ‘employee benefit’ than compensation.” Saks Fifth Ave., 118 LA 1398 (Herzog, 2003)."

There is an additional consideration to be taken into account in past practice cases. In some federal circuits, courts have adopted the view that, generally speaking, labor arbitrators may rely on the past practice rationale only if they find relevant portions of the collective bargaining agreement to be ambiguous. See e.g. CP Kelso US, Inc. v. Operating Engineers, Local 627, 2010 WL 222258 (10th Cir. 2010). Arbitrators should consider whether this doctrine applies in a given case even though it does not derive from arbitrators so much as from courts. There is no point, and it would be unfair to the parties, for an arbitrator to decide a case by relying on a past practice theory if the inevitable result would be that the award is vacated by a federal district court."

http://floridaarbitrator.net/blog/labor-arbitration-2/the-use-of-the-past-practice-doctrine-in-labor-arbitrations/

http://unite-archive.library.cornell.edu/resources/docs/6A-USINGPASTPRACTICE.pdf

 

[Chuck Schalk]

 time for a change this is not working and is proven failure                           
 
but wait there is more to come with this management contract
 
HAD ENOUGH YET?
 
AMFA 2014

 

[MetalMover]

A Past practice grievance could very well work in driving the company to negotiate a solution
.

 

Here's a possible solution.....They'll let us buy ONE day flex!    

 

[enough already]

Most people in Tulsa save their last week of VC for the Xmas base shutdown. So now just save the money you give AA for Flex and use it then.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

When is it going to be enough?​

 ​

 ​

 ​

It's either the company or the TWU time after time, facts don't lie.​

We always seem to be able to find some thing wrong as of late. Unless we are ready to just throw in the towel with aa and just walk away, we have only one other choice.​

 ​

Replace the TWU.​

 ​

Just how much more of the take away's and give back are you going to accept.​

 ​

 ​

Are you all asleep? your careers, families future is at stake here.​

 ​

It's time for all to take an active part in this endeavour of ours which is to bring in a New way of doing things. A culture change something we will have a say in, the way things are done. The Leaders at the Top have let things get to this point, its a shame don't you think?​

 ​

 Replacing the head on this snake of a union has done what for US?​

 ​

Soon we will all be looking at a single carrier, one in which the USAirways guys will be a part of. They're going to want a voice as well, it's time for the AA mechanics to reach out to them since the same company Leader has done little for them.​

 ​

The IAM is there and the TWU is what we have, you must of at one time in the last few months read something about what is going on at USAirways. You know what is happening here or you should. This IAM/TWU alliance is not in my opinion going to beneficial for any of US. The two unions just want to keep the dues flowing.​

This was done on the recommendation of the AFL-CIO, because they want their cut of our money as well.​

 ​

A re-alignment of bases for whatever O/H is going to left will be done.​

The arriving and departure of flights at the line stations is going to happen in August.​

Everything that happens is going to effect our lives, money, family.​

 ​

 ​

Lets all get control of one thing, our UNION. We do have the power too do that.​

 ​

 ​

Lets STOP the screwing and start fresh.  ​

 ​

 ​

AMFA at the NEW AA 2014

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

[SIZE=10.5pt]To me this is nothing more than an attack on the Tulsa employees. Every other station that I know of is allowed to CS. When the company allows [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]EVERY OTHER LOCATION [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]to CS then does away with Flex I would consider that geological [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]DISCRIMINATION[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]. This is nothing more than an attempt by the company to use attendance as a weapon against the employees of Tulsa by eliminating avenues for needed time off. Might I suggest a [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10.5pt]F the TWU!!![/SIZE]

 

[Bob Owens]

Not taking a stand on this either way, but how many people are still buying flex weeks?...I can see it being useful for the guys with only two weeks of VC, but it's almost as easy to TL or CS off the week, and pick up shifts to balance it out as opposed to taking the hit in the paycheck every week over the course of the year.

How about those with only one week of Vacation?

 

[Bob Owens]

As long as it is cost neutral, the company probably would consider tweaks. The company seems to have come to the realization that they had to increase headcount to cover all the flex vacation weeks people were taking. That's going to be a hard hurdle to overcome, especially if it is something that only a subset of one workgroup is looking to retain.The other aspect is that people were being charged whatever their October salary was when it came to the flex weeks, but were being paid at their current salary when they'd take it. I never understood why that worked out as it did, but when you get more than you put in, it's also no longer cost neutral.

Considering that AA provides the lowest Vacation accrual rate in the industry, where every mechanic with less than 25 years gets a week less vacation (in many cases two weeks less) than his peers through out the industry, only one week per year for the first five and less than half the Holiday pay AA is WAAY ahead of the game, even if every employee bought a week they would still be way ahead because it would cost them half as much for that week, they only have to pay the extra head, not the week of VC.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes, taking away the flex vacation is demoralizing, but I wonder if AA was the only airline that had it. If so, is AA just adopting US airways rules and aligning with the rest of the industry?

Maybe if they give us the paid week back that would be true.

 

[Bob Owens]

Now that Tulsa has full seven day coverage like the line there is no defensible position for the company to refuse CS other than they have not developed a policy yet. IIRC most of the line Divisions have their station CS policies posted on Jetnet.

The FLEX week allows Tulsa to put away monies so they don't miss a paycheck for the base closure which is not optional, not sure if Flex VC came in with the base closure, if so its clearly a violation of the CBA without the need to prove Past practice, at least for M&R. The groups that don't have any mention at all of Flex or have any sort of mandated week off would have to rely more on Past Practice, after all they too lost a week of Paid Vacation through concessions. It could be argued that those contracts would not have been approved without the option to buy the week that was taken away. It would be especially damaging to the company's argument if we found statements from the company saying that with Flex we still get as much time off as other carriers.

I propose a settlement, give us back the week ( in some cases 2 weeks) of paid VC that brings us up to what everyone else gets and you can keep the Flex!