I'm not wearing that pilot uniform......
11-03-2018, 06:44 AM
#131
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by rickair7777
A CBA under federal rules (ie RLA) supersedes state law in this case. Basically assumption is if employees didn't want to pay for uniforms they wouldn't have agreed to it in the CBA.
Example, at SKW, no union, no CBA, so company has to pay for uniforms for CA employees (so they do that for everyone). But that's probably not the smartest way to get the company to buy your uniforms...
Example, at SKW, no union, no CBA, so company has to pay for uniforms for CA employees (so they do that for everyone). But that's probably not the smartest way to get the company to buy your uniforms...
11-03-2018, 10:45 AM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 341
2802. (a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,
unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed
them to be unlawful.
2804. Any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any
employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof,
is null and void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or
his personal representative of any right or remedy to which he is
entitled under the laws of this State.
[url]https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/lab/2800-2810.html
There might be some footnote that exempts airlines but this seems pretty clear to me.
Here’s a recent case involving Alaska.
[url]https://www.akingump.com/en/news-insights/en-banc-9th-circuit-no-arbitration-of-state-claims-by-unionized.html
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,
unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed
them to be unlawful.
2804. Any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any
employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof,
is null and void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or
his personal representative of any right or remedy to which he is
entitled under the laws of this State.
[url]https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/lab/2800-2810.html
There might be some footnote that exempts airlines but this seems pretty clear to me.
Here’s a recent case involving Alaska.
[url]https://www.akingump.com/en/news-insights/en-banc-9th-circuit-no-arbitration-of-state-claims-by-unionized.html
Last edited by lowflying; 11-03-2018 at 10:56 AM.
11-03-2018, 05:11 PM
#133
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by lowflying
2802. (a) An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,
unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed
them to be unlawful.
2804. Any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any
employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof,
is null and void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or
his personal representative of any right or remedy to which he is
entitled under the laws of this State.
[url]https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/lab/2800-2810.html
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her
obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful,
unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed
them to be unlawful.
2804. Any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by any
employee to waive the benefits of this article or any part thereof,
is null and void, and this article shall not deprive any employee or
his personal representative of any right or remedy to which he is
entitled under the laws of this State.
[url]https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/lab/2800-2810.html
Federal law pre-empts state law. You could apparently debate the language in the CBA, but if that is not in dispute than a CBA under the RLA would probably pre-empt state laws, even state laws that claim to pre-empt contracts. The later would only apply to contracts controlled by state law (which is most contracts in most industries, just not ours).
11-04-2018, 12:35 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Key language "under the laws of this state".
Federal law pre-empts state law. You could apparently debate the language in the CBA, but if that is not in dispute than a CBA under the RLA would probably pre-empt state laws, even state laws that claim to pre-empt contracts. The later would only apply to contracts controlled by state law (which is most contracts in most industries, just not ours).
Federal law pre-empts state law. You could apparently debate the language in the CBA, but if that is not in dispute than a CBA under the RLA would probably pre-empt state laws, even state laws that claim to pre-empt contracts. The later would only apply to contracts controlled by state law (which is most contracts in most industries, just not ours).
11-05-2018, 06:05 AM
#138
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by AltoCumulus
Federal law can only preempt state law where the federal law addresses the subject. I highly doubt the RLA , FAR’s or any other federal law or regulation talks about who pays for a uniforms. If that is the case then there is no preemption.
I wouldn't say it's airtight, but it's been tested a few times.
11-07-2018, 12:58 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by rickair7777
RLA defines how airline CBA's work, so the legal basis is that the CBA inherits it's pre-emption from the RLA. Reason being, it's hard for airlines if the CBA they agree to is not consistently applied in all states. It was actually intended for railroads who had employees literally all over the map.
I wouldn't say it's airtight, but it's been tested a few times.
I wouldn't say it's airtight, but it's been tested a few times.
I would hope for an FA to file a lawsuit and win like last time with the disability benefits - but they already are getting their uniforms for free.
06-09-2023, 08:50 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 791
We sued them in federal court for an injunction to cease and desist . We identified 6 areas of unacceptable concern with that uniform and now we just roll over and just take it….The unions behavior since we signed the mandate contract has been extremely reminiscent of our long and painful past…
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BoilerUP
The Boneyard
4
02-08-2008 01:05 PM
FlyerJosh
Flight Schools and Training
2
11-01-2005 06:11 PM
