Splash, this applies to your post as well:
Originally Posted by
TheManager
You actually can go through bankruptcy without harboring a victim mentality and bemoan the inevitable "stomping" the courts courts are going to give you.
Very, very, true.
The most frustrating lie promulgated on us during the bankruptcy was that scope concessions were forced on us. If you look at the actual negotiator's notes and publications, ALPA was proud of the "credits" it received by selling jobs. In truth ALPA bargained scope rather than fight to clarify the murky gray area which exists between bankruptcy law and the Railway Labor Act.
There is a debate whether management can ask for, and a Judge agree to, interference in collective bargaining representation, or job protection provisions to remove scope in a 113c. The law is conflicting, but clearly the union should take the view that favors us, particularly in our case since Congress actually exempted us via their recognition of the Railway Labor Act in our bargaining.
While the Supreme Court has not weighed in yet, the decisions on the Federal Appellate Court level have been going in the favor of transportation unions. Certainly economic portions of agreements can be modified by the Courts, but thus far NO Judge has touched job protection provisions, or scope.
We should not forget the goal of a bankruptcy court is to facilitate the reorganization of a business so as to best protect stakeholders. The law is in the favor of employees who's livelihoods are more greatly effected by smaller changes (than say multi billion dollar investment banks) and of course employees are needed to staff the going concern if the business is to work its way out of bankrupcty.
(legalese warning):
Originally Posted by US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit in Brada Miller Freight
Our decision, however, does not rest merely on the facial language of the conflicting statutes. Like every federal court which has considered this issue, we are particularly persuaded by the existence of that portion of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1167,
21 in which Congress specifically exempts collective bargaining agreements formed under the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) from the operation of Sec. 365. ... this action by Congress shows that "Congress knew how to remove labor agreements from the scope of a general power to reject executory contracts." 618 F.2d at 704. The impact of Congress' failure to exempt other types of collective bargaining agreements is strengthened by the numerous amendments of the bankruptcy and labor statutes,
22 particularly the recent overhaul of the bankruptcy laws which left untouched the narrow exemption for railway labor agreements.
... . The mere existence of the Railway Labor Act demonstrates the unique status of labor relations in the railroad industry, a status frequently recognized by both Congress and the courts.
23
The vital stake of this Nation in the encouragement and enforcement of these pacts between management and employees is so well-documented as not to require recitation here.