TWU and IAM representation alliance vote
- Thread starter chellow
- Start date
- Status
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,121
- Reaction score
- 5,269
AMFA Wrong. Legal Language, correct.OldBubba said:
TWA and American Airlines. In early 2001, TWA, then in bankruptcy, and American Airlines entered into an agreement under which American purchased TWA's assets. TWA's pilots were represented by ALPA, and their CBA required "the fair and equitable seniority integration of employees in the event of a merger or acquisition of TWA." American, whose pilots were represented by the Allied Pilots Association ("APA") and whose CBA required pilots from an acquired carrier to be placed at the bottom of the American seniority list, offered to hire nearly all of TWA's union-represented employees, but only if the TWA-MEC waived their scope and successorship provisions, including the seniority integration provision. Initially, ALPA refused to agree to this request, but after TWA moved to reject its CBA with ALPA under § 1113(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the MEC consented to the waiver, in exchange for various alternative protections. The deal closed on April 10, 2001.
As an inducement for the waiver, American agreed that it would use its "reasonable best efforts" with APA to secure a fair and equitable process for seniority integration of the American and TWA pilots. But after several months of unsuccessful negotiations between APA and the TWA-MEC, on November 8, 2001, APA and American Airlines executed an agreement that imposed the default seniority integration formula on slightly more than half of the former TWA pilots, giving them American seniority dates of April 10, 2001, while the remainder were placed higher on the list. (TWA flight attendants also largely received April 10, 2001 seniority dates.)
A few months later, the NMB also found that American and TWA were sufficiently integrated to be a single employer for collective bargaining purposes. Dissatisfied TWA pilots then filed suit against the APA, ALPA, American, and TWA LLC for breach of the duty of fair representation. These claims were dismissed in Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 271 F. Supp. 2d 616 (D.N.J. 2003), but the Third Circuit resurrected the DFR claim against ALPA on statute of limitations grounds in Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 387 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2004). In Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 675 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J. 2009), the court denied ALPA's motion for summary judgment.6 As a result, the case remains pending.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute
WeAAsles said:
FYI
When American bought Aircal the seniority integration between the carriers was based on date of hire. However, under Aircal rules an employee could have started in a different classification, yet if he later upgraded to an AMT position for example, his occupational seniority didn’t reflect that but remained the same as his original company seniority date. To address that anomaly, the American rules were applied and he was given the seniority appropriate under the AA-TWU Title 1 occupational seniority rules. The individual wasn’t given credit for service in a different title group when placed on AA’s Title 1 Master Seniority List.
swamt said:
You know what’s hilarious swamt?
- You are obviously a SWA employee
- You’re also a fully brainwashed AMFA apologist
- If anything, you shouldn’t even be commenting on a TWU/IAM
Representation Alliance thread since seniority integration issues are
appropriate, whereas your thinly disguised AMFA ranting is not
However, in deference to AANOTOK ‘s comment, feel free to continue which you probably will
do anyway since you’ve attempted to subvert every other thread on this site!
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Alaska Airlines F/A's vote in favor of a new contract- Latest: Jalsporteam