(continued)
The CAL pilots, on the other hand, have a more positive cultural experience with pay-rate banding. After their strike and before returning to ALPA, the CAL CBA actually paid to longevity- a single-band pay rate system that is in contrast to pay to productivity (Independent Association of Continental Pilots contract 1995). [Again this article does not argue the merits of either system, but merely recounts the different cultural histories of each pilot group.] The CAL pilots eventually left this system and based their current contract on banded pay rates. While it is unknown if the CAL MEC conducted a survey of its pilots, it is fair to assume that most CAL pilots are happy with pay rate banding.
It comes as no surprise, then, that when the UAL and CAL pilots on the JNC first broached this subject months ago, the two sides were (for the first and only time) far apart from consensus. The CAL negotiators proposed limited pay bands, and the UAL negotiators preferred a more traditional model (the DAL JCBA, for example, has thirteen pay rates). As they attempted to clear this roadblock, and reported to their MECs their progress, it became clear that something more than just a cultural difference separated the two sides. The entrenchment of one side was not explainable by just cultural issues; the arguments and discussions within the JNC and between the MEC Officers did not seem intended to find consensus, but more to justify an intractable position. Suggestions that we forge something similar to the DAL and NWA “carve-out” letter were also rejected. Fortunately, the two MECs were scheduled to meet jointly and promptly in September, and clearly an important goal of that meeting (at least in the minds of the UAL MEC) would be to find consensus and move forward.
At the September 20th meeting, however, the CAL MEC made its position clear to the UAL MEC in no uncertain terms- and with plenty of other witnesses. The CAL Master Chairman stated directly (and more than once) that the pay-rate issue was mostly about the SLI process and less about the JCBA process; he even quantified the issue as “70% SLI and 30% JCBA.” In brief, the CAL MEC stated that they “need pay-rate banding in the JCBA” because they intend to use it as a “principle argument” in the SLI process to benefit their pilots. The CAL MEC was remarkably insistent. While in session and with dozens of witnesses, one representative stated that the JCBA must have what they perceive as this CAL-advantaged SLI piece, and that he would not accept a JCBA without it, and that he was “prepared to work for years under my current contract” if this item is not in the JCBA. Without a doubt to the dozens in attendance, the CAL MEC was unabashedly unashamed of its position on this issue.
To say the least, the UAL MEC was disappointed with the CAL MEC’s statements. At that time, we did not see a lot of options around this dilemma. Fortunately, ALPA Merger and Fragmentation Policy includes a dispute resolution process, and the UAL MEC restated our belief that if we were at impasse over a joint pay proposal, then the proper next step would be to invoke that process. Again, the CAL response was clear- the CAL Master Chairman stated that CAL intended to use banded pay-rates in the JCBA as an SLI argument, and would do so even if the “ALPA President, Executive Council, or even the U.S. Attorney General” directed them otherwise. The CAL Master Chairman implied that the CAL Merger Committee is independent, and not bound to obey Executive Council guidance if it comments on this issue. His statement is particularly interesting considering the fact that the CAL Merger Committee Chairman was on the ALPA panel that rewrote the Merger Policy to include the dispute resolution process.
Unfortunately, the meeting ended without consensus, but the UAL MEC looked forward to the upcoming ALPA BOD meeting as another opportunity to find a solution. The company intended to present a comprehensive counter proposal the week after the BOD, and this was the last chance for the JNC to pass a pay rate proposal ahead of that event. At the October meeting, the UAL and CAL MECs agreed to charge the JNC with resolving the issue from a cultural perspective rather than a SLI perspective. The UAL MEC agreed to “pretend” that CAL was not intending to use the JCBA against our pilots in the SLI process, and then consider what the JNC produced. The JNC came back in two days and presented a tentative pay rate proposal. That proposal was clearly more akin to CAL’s banding preference than to UAL’s un-banding preference, and it grouped aircraft types together in a way that did not seem necessarily appropriate. The proposal was, however, the product of compromise on both sides, and compromise is the way forward. In addition, the proposal would still likely undergo revisions during negotiations with the company. In the spirit of compromise, the UAL MEC approved the proposal with the condition that the CAL MEC agree to “carve-out” any JCBA agreements from the SLI process (as was done between the DAL and NWA pilots). The UAL MEC reported this agreement to the pilots in its October 15th communication. Again the answer from the CAL MEC was clear and unambiguous- No.
For now, the UAL Executive Vice President intends to floor a resolution to the ALPA Executive Council at its next meeting, and ask the Council to rule on the interpretation of ALPA Merger Policy with regard to the separation of JCBA negotiations and the SLI process. This interpretation may provide the first step in clearing the air on this issue. The UAL MEC believes that separating the JCBA and SLI process allows the JNCs to negotiate the best possible JCBA for the merged pilot group without the outside distraction or temptation of interjecting parameters that supposedly might later influence the SLI arbitration (if the SLI goes to arbitration). This resolution does not harm nor advantage either party, and follows the precedent set by the DAL and NWA pilots during their successful merger. We expect to hear from the Executive Council in the near future.
Unfortunately, it is no longer fair to say that this issue does not induce some minimal delay in the JCBA process, and that is a true tragedy. The MEC’s caution and patience, however, is well warranted. While this issue is better managed discreetly, it is clear that the pilots deserve a factual explanation of the events to date. It is also clear that the CAL MEC has not been discreet about these issues with their pilots. In fact, some of our own UAL representatives receive emails from CAL pilots openly discussing these issues (albeit from a CAL-centric perspective), and sources report that CAL openly discusses these issues during council meetings and conference calls. Last week our Master Chairman published a letter to the UAL pilots that succinctly and factually explained the issues that prevent the UAL and CAL MECs from agreeing to an entire pay rate proposal for our Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Master Chairman’s letter is careful to be factually correct and not judgmental, but it is not bashful with the facts. The next day, the CAL master Chairman published a rebuttal letter to the CAL pilots making several statements intended to “clear up some of the many inaccuracies in yesterday’s UAL communications.” The CAL Master Chairman’s statements, set out below in italics, warrant examination:
We are taken to task for being honest about our intent to hold firm in our insistence that a fair and equitable seniority list integration process be followed. They cry foul that we have adamantly held that ALPA merger policy must be adhered to and that the Protocol agreement agreed to by both MECs be followed in its entirety.
The UAL MEC seeks the same goals. The CAL Master Chairman’s earlier quotes concerning the ALPA Merger Policy dispute resolution process, however, speak for themselves- and to the many witnesses in attendance. The UAL MEC also agrees that the Protocol Agreement must be followed. CAL believes that “adherence” and “followed in its entirety” means no other agreements are allowed or appropriate- a position contradicted by the DAL and NWA example.
We were told several months ago by UAL MEC members that they had passed a resolution mandating that the B-747 be given premier aircraft status when the aircraft pay groupings were designed. In short, the UAL MEC wanted the B-747 to be the singular aircraft in the highest aircraft category for pay purposes.
This is factually incorrect; no such resolution exists. Based upon extensive pilot surveys conducted prior to the merger, the UAL MEC did direct its Negotiating Committee to un-band the bankruptcy-banded pay rates on all aircraft, and that guidance carried into the JCBA guidance. That resolution was not specific to the 747 aircraft (or any other aircraft), and the above statement by the CAL Master Chairman is provably false.
(continued in reply)