Thread: Nic ...
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2014 | 08:33 AM
  #483  
eaglefly
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Frisco727
I agree the Nic will probably not get used. My concern is if they find something wrong with the results this time, more problems lie ahead. The Leonidas site has articles written back in 2000 discussing a possible United/US merger. One of the names which sticks out is Mike Cleary who was the former USAPA president. It is clear they knew the risks, the article has quotes from George Nicolau, an arbitrator they were familiar.

ALPA Merger Policy
Todd Cardoza (PIT)
Mike Cleary (BOS)
Randy Mowery (PIT)
Merger Committee

June/July 2000 – US AIRWAVES

The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both
pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.”
No ALPA senior-

ity integration arbitration result has ever been

set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied

pilots have challenged the award before

administrative agencies and the courts.




Seniority Integration Rights
of Furloughees

Mike Cleary (BOS)

Todd Cardoza (PHL)

Randy Mowrey (PIT)

Merger Committee

US Airways pilots facing imminent

furlough can rest assured that should

US Airways be involved in a transaction resulting

in a seniority integration, your merger representatives

will represent the seniority interests

of all pilots on the list, including furloughees.

This is not to say that furloughs are irrelevant

to seniority integration. Under ALPA

Merger Policy, the employment data the merger

representatives are required to determine and

exchange include each pilot’s date of hire, date

of birth, seniority number, and furlough time.

In addition, one recognized method of integrating

seniority lists is by length of service, which

is usually defined to exclude time spent on

furlough.

A pilot’s status as a furloughee at the time of

the merger announcement or arbitration hearing

may also bear significantly on the pilot’s

placement on the merged list. Because reductions


reductions

in force occur in inverse order of seniority,

furloughs and juniority go hand in hand. Beyond

that, the absence of current employment

and uncertainties about future prospects are

among the equities likely to affect a furloughee’s

seniority placement.

No pilot, regardless of furlough status, can be

guaranteed any particular placement on a merged

list. The only certainty in seniority integration is

that the outcome is never certain until the merger

representatives reach an agreement or, failing a

negotiated solution, the arbitrator issues an award.

Each case presents its own facts and equities, and

each requires a resolution tailor-made to the

situation presented. With that said, the past

provides several examples of arbitrators and

negotiators grappling with the proper seniority

placement of furloughees. These precedents,

while not determinative of future proceedings,

shed light on the kinds of considerations likely to

come into play.


January/February/March 2002 – US AIRWAVES

Here is a link to one of the articles. Look at the past to see what might happen in the future:


http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/us_a...tober_2000.PDF





Interesting article. Of course, traditionally furlougees are usually (but not always) grouped at the bottom of merged lists, but in our situation we have furloughees spread out at status quo date due to deferral. It's just one of the many complexities that face this SLI, notably that since respective seniority lists here will maintain their pre-merger relative seniority (which ALPA stipulated that in the UAL-CAL SLI) after integration and so how do you potentially negatively impact pilot X when dovetails him into another pilot group at point Y without dragging all those presently junior to him down as well who may not have as much jeopardy on that issue (returned sooner, thus more longevity) ?

I would hope this is one area (given our complexities and clearly past East position) is that the "longevity" factor be minimized (or possibly eliminated) by agreement. It would SEEM that to be the case as both APA/USAPA agreed that in their joint JCBA proposal to AAG regarding the definition of "AA. Occupational date" and its establishment as the determining placement on the seniority list.
Reply