Originally Posted by
TillerEnvy
An arbitration decision regarding an IMSL between separate lists sets the law for vacancies. Eischen made that ruling and it's pretty clear.
All I can say to that is to reference the Eischen quote from Oskeewowow. I actually quoted the entire section here for the benefit of applicants that would not normally be able to easily access the information.
My arbitral authority under the DRA does not extend to elimination or modification of existing contract language or to resolution of issues unrelated to the seniority integration, which must be addressed in another forum or at the negotiations table. This seniority integration process cannot be sidetracked by any party seeking changes in disfavored existing CBA provisions, a remedy for every perceived pre-transactions “inequity" or the anticipatory resolution of every post-acquisition problem. The task at hand is the fair and equitable integration of seniority lists. All of those other issues and disputes that fall outside the reach of my arbitral authority under the DRA must be aired or resolved elsewhere.
For all of those reasons, the Conditions and Restrictions awarded in this case are minimal, basic and standard: i.e., no IMSL-caused bump/system flush, commencement/continuation of new position training/assumption; and, no IMSL-caused compensation for flying not performed. Also included is a limited duration aircraft-defined "fence" establishing time-specific priority rights for pilots to fly hard metal or constructive aircraft "brought to the table" by their respective groups, as well as replacements for those aircraft acquired during the fence period. Articulation of the reciprocal fence protections in terms of "priorities" means that, to the extent fenced positions remain open after the exercise of a protected groups priority rights, other pilots on the IMSL can bid for such open positions, in accordance with their integrated seniority and the terms and conditions of applicable CBA provisions; rather than the Carrier filling those positions by hiring new pilots off the street. Those reciprocal, limited duration and aircraft-type defined priority fences do not apply to the E-190 aircraft, flown by none prior to the transactions, or to the anticipated out-year delivered Bombardier CS300 aircraft; both of which fall in a free fly zone between those fences.
The Award does not include proposed "conditions and restrictions" which would require application of one carrier’s collective bargaining agreement to work performed at a carrier covered by a different collective bargaining agreement; conditions which are contrary to existing collective bargaining agreement provisions (e.g. proposed changes to vacancy bidding rights, displacement provisions, domiciles, and/or training freezes/seat locks); and, conditions that involve matters subject to negotiation (e.g. the transfer of longevity credits between collective bargaining agreements, or tolling of recall provisions).
In short, the Award does not contain any of various non-standard, tangential “conditions” or “restrictions” proposed by FAPA, ALPA and UTU, including those that would:
- Result in a partial or total system flush or the bumping/displacement of any pilot, including any condition that prevents a pilot who has been awarded a position from completing training and assuming such position.
- Create artificial, unrealistic, unduly prolonged, unfair or inoperable fences, defined by such dichotomous terms as "narrow-body/non narrow-body" and "branded/fee-for-departure", within integrated operations.11
- Create an obligation to maintain separate domicile-related seniority lists based on a different integration standard than devised in this proceeding.
- Compensate a pilot for flying s/he did not perform, solely as a result of the seniority integration.
So no, your point is not really that clear when considering what I have heard about the staffing provisions in the Chautauqua CBA. I believe that the Chautauqua CBA was negotiated that way in order to protect the company from unnecessary training costs in return for the holdings wide seniority list and is being applied in this manner now. Nothing nefarious is going on here as implied by Oskeewowow.
Originally Posted by
RockyMntAV8R
Bulldog, I don't know if you are right or wrong, this is a gigantic mess with the potential to get even messier. I agree that the ones who maintained seniority were the furloughed Midwest guys. But there were RAH pilots that were allowed to resign their seniorty rights and hire into the airbus at F9 that were not on furlough, if I remember correctly. The RAH FOs that were not on furlough did not voluntairly swith certificates as they resigned seniority rights at RAH and started over at F9 (on the bottom of the list). I agree that any Captain positions that may become available are protected by the 7 year fence.
The RAH pilots hired were given a preferential hire conditional upon them resigning from their former certificate. It was not a hire imposed by the Eischen award.
I do agree that it is still a mess and will be fought over in the courts for quite some time to come considering what is at stake for the RAH pilots that believe they have a right to those seats.
The possible transaction in September will not end that fight, however my personal belief is that they will not be successful unless the single carrier status somehow manages to extend past the duration of the fence. I do not see that as a likelihood.
I do wish I had a copy of the Chautauqua CBA to verify what I have heard about the staffing provisions. Anyone wanting to send that file please feel free. I am not a member in good standing and so do not have access to the IBT website to get a copy for myself.