View Single Post
Old 02-11-2007, 05:25 AM   #2  
Coffee Bitch
Line Holder
 
Coffee Bitch's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
Default

Here is the first email to Contract Enforcement after a very disrespectful and demeaning chat with the ALPA employee (start at the bottom to see the entire email trail:

From: Contract Enforcement

Contrary to your belief, Contract Enforcement is just that, enforcing what we have bargained for, and language that has been awarded through arbitrations and or settlement agreements. Sometimes, the answers that we provide are not always accepted, and of course, there is a certain amount of understanding in this. Case in point!

As I told you yesterday, we filled a grievance 2002 (02-02), which was heard by an arbitrator over a period of days in 2002 and 2003. We still await his decision, although with the settlement agreement just signed, we have withdrawn that grievance and have advised him, because of the settlement agreement, we no longer require his decision. Here’s the history of that case. A 727 S/O was awarded a DC10 S/O position, however, just days prior to entering DC10 S/O training, he was awarded a MEM MD11 F/O award in a subsequent bid. The Company cancelled his DC10 training. We filed based upon the fact that they did not pay him passover pay for the DC10 S/O position when someone junior activated.

With the recent 05-03 and 06-02 awards and the activation of pilots from 05-03 (awarded ANC MD11 F/O) into slots awarded in 06-02 (MEM MD11 F/O) ahead of other and senior pilots, this obviously got our attention. It can be seen that pilots who had not started their training for 05-03, and who subsequently were awarded MEM MD11 F/O positions, should, by the Company’s own testimony in the 02-02 grievance, have had their 05-02 award canceled. As part of the negotiated CBA, ALPA and the Company reviewed all outstanding grievances, with this latest passover (05-02 and 06-02) issue being included with 02-02.

The settlement recognizes that (1) the CBA effective October 30, 2006, did not change the language of 24.D.2.b.ii.(d), and (2), that “for the purposes of Section 24.D.2.b.ii.(d) of the Agreement, ‘a different intervening award’ shall mean a crew position award received by a pilot while awaiting training for an existing crew position award. When a pilot receives a ‘different intervening award’ his existing award is superseded (and his related training canceled) and he is instead scheduled to train for the intervening award. Section 24.E.4. is inapplicable in this situation.” The settlement agreement goes on to say, “The interpretations of … shall apply both retroactively and prospectively.”

These then, are the provisions that create your scenario. Your 06-02 award canceled your 05-03 award, and your training was canceled—no passover pay due.

An exception to the different intervening award provision, was that if the award contains the same crew status (seat and aircraft), then the award will not be canceled, as in the case of pilot 2.

I believe that this answers your questions 1 and 2. I understand that you will be receiving another reply, possibly from the negotiating attorney, or an officer.

David Taylor
FedEx MEC - Contract Enforcement
Representation Department Q
901-842-2211
901-202-3939 (fax)
[email protected] +

To: FedEx ALPA Contract Enforcement
From: FedEx Second Officer
Cc: FedEx MEC, FedEx LEC

Subject: Passover pay questions for Bid 05-03 and 06-02

Today I spoke with “David” at the Memphis FedEx ALPA office concerning Passover pay as it applies to my situation and several other FedEx pilots. After an approximate 10 minute less than cooperative conversation I was left scratching my head and confused on which side my ALPA representative was on. My attempts to get definitive answers and contract references were met with instructions to “read chapter 24” and not expect ALPA to explain questions to me. This will be my formal attempt at gaining an explanation to my questions and I would invite ALPA to provide an explanation to the other pilots you represent who find themselves in this situation.

Below are the facts concerning the two bids in question. Bid 06-01 came between 05-03 and 06-02 but did not include any awards for the two FedEx pilots used in this explanation.

Pilot 1 Hire Date 11 July 2005
Pilot 2 is Junior to Pilot 1, Hire Date 11 July 2005

Bid 05-03
Pilot 1 is awarded a 727 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 ANC FO bid

Bid 06-01
Pilot 1 is not awarded a bid
Pilot 2 is not awarded a bid

Bid 06-02
Pilot 1 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid

Pilot 1 was notified on May 2, 2006 (12 hours prior to starting training for Bid 05-03) that his training was cancelled due to being awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid on the yet to be posted Bid 06-02. When Pilot 1 asked if he could keep the class date which started in a few hours, the company representative notified Pilot 1 that all previous bids in which you have not begun training are cancelled upon award of a subsequent bid. Pilot 1 was given a training date of May 2007 which was later moved to June, then August, and as of this writing, May 28 2007 (due to a mutual pilot swap).

Pilot 2 had a July 2006 class date for Bid 05-03 and therefore had not started training. Pilot 2’s original July 2006 MD-11 ANC FO training date was not cancelled as was Pilot 1’s 05-03 bid, but was moved to October 30, 2006 (see attached VIPS training letter). Pilot 2’s activation date was projected as January 21, 2006 and was given an expected lateral date of February 26, 2007 from ANC (Bid 05-03) to MEM (Bid 06-02).

Pilot 2 completed training and was activated on January 26, 2007.

In accordance with Section 24.D.2 :
Passover Pay Due To Junior Pilot’s Early Activation
a. In case of a junior pilot’s activation to a higher paying position out of seniority order, every senior pilot who meets the following prerequisites shall be paid as if he had activated in that higher paying position (passover pay):
i. the junior pilot and the senior pilot(s) hold an award for the same crew position; and
ii. the junior pilot’s award is from the same posting as the senior pilot’s award or from a subsequent posting and
iii. the Company chooses to activate the junior pilot prior to the senior pilot(s) and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and activation of the senior pilot(s); and
iv. the senior pilot actually activates into his awarded crew position.

During the phone conversation with “David” (ALPA Contract-Enforcement) on January 29, 2007, “David” informed Pilot 1 that ALPA had filed a complaint and/or a grievance with FedEx on circumstances surrounding Bid 05-03 and Bid 06-02 and had reached an agreement on January 12, 2007 with FedEx for approximately 12 pilots. Pilot 1 was notified that “You are not in the group”. “David” went on to inform Pilot 1 that only pilots holding an ANC bid were in the group in which ALPA had reached an agreement. It is readily apparent that the company chose to handle Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 differently and I respectfully request an explanation from ALPA with references to the contract.

I would like to assume ALPA would do everything in their power to maximize a member’s compensation and interpret gray areas within the contract accordingly. I do not claim to be a lawyer and could easily be misunderstanding the contract but as a member of this organization, I believe I am entitled a contractual explanation. I respectfully request an explanation surrounding these unusual circumstances.

Question 1: Where in the contract does it state a pilots training date is cancelled due to a subsequent bid award?

Question 2: Why did Pilot 1 lose his training date from Bid 05-03 and Pilot 2 did not?

Question 3: If this situation is considered an interpretation of the contact, please provide the documented minutes between FedEx and ALPA, which states both party’s acceptance of this interpretation or an accepted precedent prior to this event as it applies to May 31, 1999 agreement.
Coffee Bitch is offline