FDX: GRIEVANCE – Postings 13-03 & 13-04
05-06-2013, 11:30 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
Best of luck if someone attempts to file. I do not see a violation, not saying this was not done in the manner that would be most suitable, however in CBA issues the question is simply "is it legal"?
Your CBA reference on how a bid is processed was followed, nowhere in the CBA does it say the Company has to have any vacancy bids in the same one as an excess. They may have used a lame "excuse" to hide the real reason why they did the 2 bids vice one.
Good work in laying out the problem but I am quite sure anyone who attempts to file will find a legal wall that is not easily climbed.
Your CBA reference on how a bid is processed was followed, nowhere in the CBA does it say the Company has to have any vacancy bids in the same one as an excess. They may have used a lame "excuse" to hide the real reason why they did the 2 bids vice one.
Good work in laying out the problem but I am quite sure anyone who attempts to file will find a legal wall that is not easily climbed.
05-06-2013, 11:35 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,797
Depending on what intent was recorded during CBA negotiations concerning publishing and performing bids, I can see a legitimate grievance. There was not enough time allowed between the closing of 13-03 and 13-04 to make an educated decision for bidding as well as not having a training letter out for the 13-03 results. If I was one of the affected crewmembers I would definitely be supporting a grievance. The Company should have delayed the closing of 13-04 until 2 weeks after the training letter was published.
05-06-2013, 11:41 AM
#13
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
Best of luck if someone attempts to file. I do not see a violation, not saying this was not done in the manner that would be most suitable, however in CBA issues the question is simply "is it legal"?
The Posting was not legal as a separate bid, and the VP of Flight Ops communicated his intention to conduct the vacancy and excess functions at the same time. Since it is not legal as a separate bid, and it was intended to be combined with the excesses of Posting 13-03, the two postings should be treated as a single posting and processed accordingly.
The combined lost earnings of the affected pilots should make this well worth pursuing to the end.
FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.
.
05-06-2013, 11:43 AM
#14
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by seefive
Amazing that Tony didn't close this potential loophole when he was a rep.
It's not a loophole. It's a violation.
But you're right. I should have made it a rule that they can't violate the CBA. Or the rule about violating the CBA.
And another rule making it illegal to violate the previous rule.
.
05-06-2013, 12:46 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by TonyC
...
FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.
.
FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.
.
05-06-2013, 01:05 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by TonyC
Posting 13-04 was not legal as a separate, stand-alone bid. It did not meet the requirements of a bid, as the prerequisite information was not (and is still not) available for pilots to consider in making their bidding choices. The Posting 13-03 Training Letter is still not published.
The Posting was not legal as a separate bid, and the VP of Flight Ops communicated his intention to conduct the vacancy and excess functions at the same time. Since it is not legal as a separate bid, and it was intended to be combined with the excesses of Posting 13-03, the two postings should be treated as a single posting and processed accordingly.
The combined lost earnings of the affected pilots should make this well worth pursuing to the end.
FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.
.
The Posting was not legal as a separate bid, and the VP of Flight Ops communicated his intention to conduct the vacancy and excess functions at the same time. Since it is not legal as a separate bid, and it was intended to be combined with the excesses of Posting 13-03, the two postings should be treated as a single posting and processed accordingly.
The combined lost earnings of the affected pilots should make this well worth pursuing to the end.
FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.
.
05-06-2013, 02:52 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
The company did this for a reason. The big question is why. So far I can't figure out why, but then again I am a Marine.
05-07-2013, 04:26 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by TonyC
I'm headed to my son's band concert. The CBA is online.
.
.
I think this is a bad deal and could of been handled much better but at the same time I just do not see a violation is all I am saying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
