Originally Posted by
av8rmike
TonyC - Yes, I was aware of Tradewinds, but not the other. Thanks. I agree with you about the holding company language being important. I was aware of the poison pill language, but I thought that if we entered self help under the RLA, the company is allowed to find alternative means to conduct their business, regardless of any contractual language. IE, RLA supercedes CBA. Is this not correct?
Mike,
As Busboy has already pointed out, our Present Scope clause would become ineffective by actions that could precede Self-Help. The contract is contolled by the RLA, but there is nothing that precludes it from being more restrictive. In this case, it is
more restrictive.
Some negotiations have included a strategy to send the Negotiating Committee to the table with the "Strike Card" in their back pocket. A vote of the membership is taken in advance, and through a show of resolve and unity, the membership affirms their intention to strike if the Negotiating Committee is unable to obtain a fair offer from the Company. Had WE done that on the amndable date of our present Contract, the next-to-last paragraph of the "Dear Captain Fato" letter would have essentially voided our Scope protection - the day before.
One thing worth noting here, for the benefit of those who may not have noticed, is that our Scope actually consists of two elements. The first is the contract language between us, the pilots of FedEx Express, and our employer, FedEx Express. The second, critically important part, is the letter from the PARENT COMPANY, that binds them to the same conditions. Without this binder, the first part would be essentially toothless. In the case of our present contract, FDX Corp promised to abide by ONE sentence (known as Para D.2) regarding acquiring another U.S. certificated airline or air cargo carrier. That's all.
The TA language additionally binds FedEx Corp to the Parent and Affilliates language. It removes the pre-self help language that would void it even with an administrative action of the MEC.
Originally Posted by
HERCBUS
Tony C:
The language in the TA, changing the name FDX to FedEx Corp, is nothing more than semantics. The original contract came out in May 99.
FDX Corp (also known as FedEx Corp) was formed in 98. Prior to Jan 2000 FedEx Corp was known as FDX Corp. So this parent company name change is no big deal. The parent company was held accountable in the old contract, the names have just changed, so keeping FDX in the TA would be a typo.
Do I think tying Scope to the parent company is important? YES, but it already was tied to the parent company, so no new improvements there.
Actually, the current contract was penned in November/December of 1998, but that's not important. The name changes aren't the important thing. The important thing is the ability to shuffle the companies and restructure the organization to skirt the responsibility imposed by Scope language. FedEx Express can write Scope language all day long, but unless the parent company, whatever the name, ascribes to the same principles, the language doesn't help much.
Originally Posted by
HERCBUS
Tony C:
The poison pill change was nice. But I bet that any company with enough money and lawyers can dismantle a scope clause. Scope clauses remind me of Delta's infamous Force Majeure clause. Lot of good that did.
That's a tired argument against expending negotiating capital to secure strong Scope language. And it's bogus. The fact that the other party can fight it does not make it less valid or less valuable. The Expedited Grievance and Arbitration Procedures added into the Scope section is nothing to laugh at.
Furthermore, your example of Delta's Force Majeure clause is interesting, in that while it was intially ignored (or abused), it was eventually upheld in court. Had it not existed in the first place, furloughs would have (could have, if you want to argue that point) continued unabated. With Scope, we at least have something to go to court about. Without Scope, all we have is a gripe, and NO recourse.
.