FDX: BKO grievance
03-17-2008, 05:53 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 211
FDX: BKO grievance
A group grievance has been filed by the union disputing how the company is paying "block over 8". "the block over ten, although part of the trip guarantee, is in addition to the trip rig flown, not just scheduled. Therefore, the trips overage and OSC should have been paid based upon trip rig plus the block in excess of 8, plus the guarantee (block in excess of 10) for those duty days where the block was in excess of 10." As an example, if your block was scheduled at 11+30, you should be paid an extra 2 hours pay (capturing the between 8 and 10 hours) regardless whether your actual block is less than 11+30 due to winds, etc. Right now if you block 11+00 instead of 11+30, the company is only paying 1+30 extra pay, docking you the +30 that the union claims is part of your trip guarantee. Clear as mud?....figured this may apply to a few of you.......
03-18-2008, 05:09 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Row well and live...
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Flaps50
Wow, that total BS!
We better win this one. The current interpretation and failure to make the 8-10 block part of the trip guarantee is a major windfall for the company as it stands.
We better win this one. The current interpretation and failure to make the 8-10 block part of the trip guarantee is a major windfall for the company as it stands.
03-18-2008, 05:24 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
I'd be real surprised if we win this one. Frankly I'm surprised that the Union is even willing to file it. As a guy who flies a lot of int'l I'm ****ed that we got taken on this clause but when it comes down to it the CBA definitely makes a difference between block over 8 and block over 10 and once the legal ease is explained, is not that hard to understand (see the older threads on this topic). This is one of those cases where the NC and lawyers either should have known or did know but certainly didn't sell it this way to the crew force before voting/implementaton. The NC got handed their a**es on this one.
03-19-2008, 07:26 PM
#5
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by Tuck
I'd be real surprised if we win this one. Frankly I'm surprised that the Union is even willing to file it. As a guy who flies a lot of int'l I'm ****ed that we got taken on this clause but when it comes down to it the CBA definitely makes a difference between block over 8 and block over 10 and once the legal ease is explained, is not that hard to understand (see the older threads on this topic). This is one of those cases where the NC and lawyers either should have known or did know but certainly didn't sell it this way to the crew force before voting/implementaton. The NC got handed their a**es on this one.
03-19-2008, 08:39 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 117
Originally Posted by MaxKts
Where does the CBA make a difference between the two? The change was to replace 10 with 8. It was not how to redefine 10 and make it 8!
THERE IS NO WAY WE WIN THIS GRIEVANCE.
Last edited by mrzog2138; 03-19-2008 at 10:44 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
