How often do I have to repeat this???? CBAs often have rather large loopholes for general management actions, here's an example from a large legacy:
21-K Change in Personnel Policy Company personnel policy which affects pilots shall not be changed without giving advance notice to the Association and affording them the opportunity to comment. Further, no change shall be made to any Company personnel policy which is contrary to any of the terms of this Agreement.
So they have to *notify* the union before changing personnel policy. I'm quite certain they did that. I'm also quite certain they allowed them to "comment". Then they did what ever the hell they wanted, which in this case was a vaccine mandate.
Further, they can't change anything "which is contrary to any of the terms of this Agreement." You get just one guess what the "terms of this agreement" did NOT address
Maybe that would be something think to think about for the next contract.
^^^ This is all factual, and we all just watched it happen.
See how that works? It's actually of broader interest than just vaccine mandates, might also want to consider what *other* trucks the company might be able to drive through that loophole.
That last sentence is pretty bold Rick. I think you misread it. What it says is the kompany can't make changes to personnel policies that is contrary (i.e. against) the PWA/CBA. Having the rug pulled over the jab mandates - which is the topic we are discussing, nothing else - is not large hole, it is salient. More akin to threading a needle. Many are not going that route. What you posted is CBA boilerplpate - you can't change things on personnel covered under the CBA without negotiating it first.
You can sue almost anybody for almost anything, doesn't mean you'll win... PTSD over a vaccine mandate sounds like a personal problem. It will also get you grounded long-term by the FAA, so you'd better win that lawsuit. You could say the same thing about being on reserve and the ongoing anxiety that they might call you and make you go to work.
That advice was not for him, that's in general for those out there not under a medical requirement to their employ. Just an example but one that is being brought to those kompanies not backing down since the devastation of the ruling against corporate edicts.
However, more and more of the major America corps are BACKING AWAY from mandates. That's a fact and the reason is all a legal one.
The legal liability shield is GONE. Recalcitrant companies will be sued. It will become in their best interests to bail on the mandate train. Remember about 7 months ago I told you this might be bigger than tobacco and asbestos? It's just beginning.
Yes, you can sue for anything Rick. Before you could not sue your kompany though for forcing the jab on you since they said the reason was "we are complying with the Federal government contractor mandate or OSHA mandate. See, it is not us, its those guys over there making us do this to you, so sorry."
There are thousands spooling up right now and many were filed on Thursday, 13 January in the afternoon. There are several other variables to the equation, but I'll stick with the legal aspects.
Finally, you should read Gorsuch's opinion on the majority in OSHA. It is very telling. This case will be one for the ages, mark my words. Private companies were put on notice as to the breadth of their ability to "mandate" what their workers must do.
Actually I'd talk to the union first, they all figured out many months ago where their CBA stands on this issue. Also good chance you won't find a lawyer willing to take this on contingency, so get the checkbook out. Most employers are not stupid enough to set themselves for an epic HR and legal fail. Especially the big ones.
It got GE and 3M to back down really quick once that umbrella went *poof* now didn't it
If OP is in FL we have a string of great attorneys working on cases. If not I'm sure they can put you in contact with some in ATL area. FL is ground zero for kicking these mandates in the junk right now, so most of our attorneys representing clients here are well versed on the matters and are now buttressed with a ruling as precedent.
Most are going with a free consultation. Representation is when you start to pay. They can also hook you up with other suits if there are more than a few of you going after the same kompany
Don't be afraid to reach out for legal advice in this matter. If you are union shop, yes, you should have been talking to your reps already.
Since you posted on APC I'm guessing maybe you are not at a union shop?
Federal government mandates, sure looks that way.