MX727

It's interesting to me because periodically the idea is floated to force our management pilots to resign their seniority number if they become career office types, hiding from the line operations.

I think we can learn from what has happened and is currently happening at UPS and see why that probably isn't the best system.

CactusCrew

I've seen both sides of the fence, yours is a better system in this regard.

Don't the permanent office types become "executive inactive" or some other ALPA term ? Still retaining seniority, etc in the unlikely event that they return to the line.

The Walrus

At Fedex, they typically join the union, become union committee members, then go for the management job.

fr8rcaptain

Article 1.D.1.c.(5) clearly pay protects furloughed pilots in seniority order for any peak flying done by outside subcontractors. :-)

Tigerpilot1995

I am not a lawyer but I looked up that paragraph and my question is do our subcontractors use airplanes leased from UPS? Read 1.D1.c(5)i to see where I am coming from.

Disclaimer; recovering from a head injury, had a beer or two tonight, and may have completely read that paragraph wrong

SaltyDog

It is located in our collective bargaining agreement of all places.
The contract defines seniority assignment in Article 8:
ARTICLE 8
SENIORITY
A. Seniority List

2. All crewmembers hired by the Company subsequently will be added to the bottom of the seniority list...
3. The Company shall post on its bulletin board at all locations where crewmembers are domiciled the United Parcel Service Crewmember Seniority List. Such list shall contain the names of all crewmembers entitled to seniority, whether active, or inactive, the date of employment as a crewmember, date of birth and the crewmember’s permanent bid position.
4. The list shall be brought up to date as of February 1 and August 1 of each year...

The contract then defines who is a 'crewmember' in Article 2 as:

"Crewmember (excepting Management Crewmembers) - means the
Captains, First Officers, Professional Flight Engineers and Second
Officers and employed by the Company, who are currently on the
seniority list or will be added to the seniority list in accordance with this
Agreement."

When a person is offered FAA flight employment, they clearly are accepting "'management crewmember" status which by contract excludes them from memebrship in the IPA. (different interview process)

IPA crewmembers who accept 'promotion' (UPS lanaguage) into a flight qualified supervisor status contractually are now identified as "management crewmembers" and thus lose/resign their seniority number.


New K,
Kentucky is a "non-right to work state". This was the exclusion allowed by Taft-Hartley regarding 'closed' shop status.
Tennessee is opposite, and is a "right to work" state. Hence, difference in FedEx and UPS unions regarding membership.

The IPA/UPS collective bargaining agreement does allow 'management crewmembers' to fly under very specific circumstances. The question arising is that the CBA is largely written to permit proficiency flying by displacement (protects union pilots) but unlimited flying in emergencies. i.e. lack of crews.
Thus, common sense question is: If UPS furloughs line pilots with seniority numbers and then claims an 'emergency' situation exists that requires UPS to use flight qualified supervisors to operate the airplanes due to a lack of union pilots, can they furlough the entire union of pilots and hire 'management crewmembers' to destroy the union?"

Seems ridiculous for UPS to claim any need for this part of the CBA to use "management emergency flying' when UPS management created the 'emergency' by furloughing line pilots. Would seem to be a legal question involving RLA disputes (Federal) and Kentucky law.

newKnow

Salty,

I think we are splitting hairs on this closed shop issue and I am guilty of being the first to do so. But, when Tiger directed Twin to look up what a closed shop is and stated that that was the crux of the issue, he is factually wrong.

A closed shop is where the company cannot hire an individual unless he is already a member of a particular union. In your case, UPS would not be able to hire a pilot unless he was a member of the IPA before the interview. Effectively, in a closed shop the union has complete control of the hiring process because the union controls the hiring pool. If the IPA didn't accept a pilot into its membership that pilot could never work for UPS. Taft-Hartley made all closed shops illegal. No exceptions.

What is allowed by Taft are union shops where the company hires an individual and then afterward, they must join the union (or, at least pay dues) within 30 days or their employment start date. You are right in that this type of situation is regulated by the individual States decision on whether or not they will be a right to work state.

Tiger was also wrong when he said, "[w]hat our contract says really doesn't mean squat." Your CBA means everything in this case and this was the main point I was making to him. I was not saying that your contract allowed management pilots to fly your routes. I have not seen your contract, so I can't say one way or the other for sure. But, I doubt that it would.

As for your common sense question; if it were me in the judges or arbitrators seat, it would seem to me that it would be unreasonable for the company to furlough pilots then claim that they were in an emergency situation because of lack of crews. I think if you apply whats called the Doctrine of Unclean Hands or maybe to a lesser extent unconscionability and/or good faith, you guys would be in good shape on that issue.

Good luck either way. I hope you guys remain fired up about this, because I think it's a shame when a profitable company announces a furlough in what to me is a clear attempt to influence future contract negotiations. Don't let them get away with it.

New K Now

Roberto

A lot, probably most, of the management emergency flying (MEF) is not due to lack of crews per se, but from flights that get interrupted out of domicile, or flights that do not fit the contractual reserve call-out time or maximum duty time. We normally have crews around the country at home that can get to the out-of-domicile flights, or reserves that are available for those and the others, but not in a timely manner.

These flights, in good times, are covered by volunteers who pick up overtime or JA at 150%. When our crews decline the opportunity, then management gets to fly them. Adding more pilots will not satisy these situations.

How does that fit in with your judgment?

newKnow

The situation as you describe it seems ok. Mainly, because you indicate that that is the way things have been done and continue to be done without objection from the union. Courts will look to acceptance of past practices to determine what both parties understood the contract to mean. If you accept it, the courts will interpret that to mean you agree to it.

What I thought Salty was saying what that management might furlough seniority list pilots then use management pilots to fly those hours. If that were to happen, the likely result would be that management pilots would wind up flying a lot more than they normally do and in different situations from what you described (not reserve call outs). If that were the case, my judgment would tell me that the company was acting in bad faith and attempting to find a way to subvert the contract. A big no-no.

New K

SaltyDog

Roberto,
UPS knows exactly how to manage a schedule into an MEF situation. They only need to get inside a 48 hour threshold. Then they own it and can exclude union pilots. Have watched this for years. UPS with 48 hours can cover this flying with Reserve/Hot crews contractually. 'Hot" crews can pick up anything inside 30 minutes. UPS has cut back on Hots and use non union flight qualified supervisors to pick up the flying. Simply, it 'saves' money in their acounting strategy and justifies existence of a large non union airline within an airline to ATL.

On a counter question: How does FedEx deal with these challenges without falling apart? Do they rely on a large non union airline embedded in the structure? No. They have enough crews on "hots"/Reserve to manage the challenges of a dynamic environment. The IPA/UPS contractually agreed and to an OT/JA ban. It is not an open debate within RLA since UPS signed off on that contingency called by a furlough.
UPS will be hard pressed to justify an increase in MEF flying with the furlough and JA/OT ban completely controlled by management. This is a self induced failure by design.
IPA needs to call them on this. They are violating the contract and it's intent.

Agree, was using your post to address the 'closed shop' issue and the present 'right to work' and 'non right to work' situation. Don't question your knowledge of the labor picture laws.
Roberto explained a subset of MEF as practiced at UPS. The larger question still remained and I addressed. At what point does UPS manage properly and staff the business needs with union pilots rather than non union pilots under the agreement to make essential service for our customers?
UPS is very smart, this is not mismanagement, rather brilliant management to help break the IPA. Many IPA pilots assume UPS is stupid, far from it. Most of the 'stupid' is planned and executed in a very coordinated fashion. They fail to appreciate the resolve of the IPA though.

IPA understood the business realities of the market, reason we volunteered our dollars to give back to UPS to keep excess pilot labor on the property. It was cost neutral to UPS. UPS greed and desire for FedEX 4a2b language got the best of them though. They wanted to make a premium off the situation and wanted a contractual concessions that would save hundreds of millions going forward. Understand it's business, but it will prove a faulty strategy as IPA is steadfast that we will not give the concessions beyond the actual cost of maintaining our pilots on the property in same day dollars.