Originally Posted by
zoooropa
Interesting premiss, but factually inaccurate.
We still have two CBA's, with conflicting vacancy bidding procedures.
I think some of the IBT folks need to re-read Eischen's gift that keeps on giving.
I wonder why this wasn't such a big deal to the IBT when dozens of Q positions were being awarded? Now we have three 190's based in no-mans land and the IBT is tripping all over themselves to "represent" the Frontier pilots. You guys need to work on being a little more subtle.
With regard to the DFR, it is not a matter of IF, just WHEN.
" A labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership."
and
"Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority."
I could cut and paste a few more but I will wait until the time comes. This claim isn't ripe yet, but the IBT is blatantly attempting to cause harm, and "harm" is the only piece missing at this point.
My post wasn't about specific procedures in any CBA. It was that a vacancy was created and it needed to be made open to everyone based on whatever CBA rules there are. Your assertion that the IBT is not operating properly where DFR is concerned is your opinion alone. the LOA67 lawsuit is about operating outside union ground and side deals. that is in the interest of the covered employees. Just because you do not like it doesn't mean it's not right. The IBT has been looking at both the 190 and Q vacancies, it's not like they came up with it last week.