Originally Posted by
Albief15
I am simply not sure on all the legalese, but I am pretty darn sure the company can man the seats any darn way they please. They cannot man them out of seniority order or not iaw the CBA...but c'mon....do you think we can contractually require them to man a seat a certain way?
We can guarantee pay, days off, and some work and bidding rules. Manning the seats, however, isn't really a union job.
I asked about the "1" excess seat and was told it was legal. So--we get to sit here and deal with it. I wish I had better news.
The previous grievance was simply an inforcement of the exisiting CBA. I saw another thread where someone said the wording allowing an excess bid at an FDA was "added" or negotiated during the process. In fact--they have ALWAYS had the right to do that. It was simply printing the obvious in bold print and making what was in the contract already clear to everyone. Again--nothing "new" came out of the 08-01 grievance--it just enforced the current CBA.
I don't think the issue that's causing such consternation among a lot of the membership is the company's "defining" a seat in excess with a "1". All they did is to say that the seat is filled with the numbers they want---and it prevents excess after excess and so on.... which is all legal (at least that's what I was told by my rep as well).
I think the issue is that the company called the 727 S/O seat in excess on the first excess bid, which closed merely a week ago----then all of a sudden, it's not in excess and more people go into the seat than the number that occupied it before the first iteration. THAT seems like favoritism---and finding loopholes or creating them to get a "political" result. THIS action is what I believe is the controversial part in talking with buds in the company. The first action --- calling the S/O seat in excess allowed the over 60 guys to get back to wide body captain, without having vacancies. The second action---calling the S/O seat as the desired seat to overman (three to four days later)---dumped all the most junior guys back into the seat.
And this second action is what is making many folks think the company is setting up a furlough (which many believe was the plan all along). Putting this together with all of the "official" words (that are all parsed)--- "While furlough is
always possible in the future...." " While no furlough is
planned..." "We are not planning to furlough
at this time..." " We have no plans to furlough as a result of
this excess" etc. By flushing and dumping all the most junior guys from "critical" seats to a VERY VERY overmanned 727 S/O seat---it appears they are setting it up to chop from the bottom. So I think guys are trying to seek help anyway they can to save their jobs.
BTW, thanks for all your communications. You keep many of us informed, much more so than before..... Thanks