Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
FDX Pilots - Disciplined, Fined, or Expelled >

FDX Pilots - Disciplined, Fined, or Expelled

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

FDX Pilots - Disciplined, Fined, or Expelled

Old 01-28-2015, 06:43 PM
  #1  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Thumbs down FDX Pilots - Disciplined, Fined, or Expelled

No, I'm not talking about management, I'm talking about a FedEx pilot using Article VIII of ALPA's Constitution & By-Laws against fellow FedEx pilots.


At last October's ALPA Board of Directors Meeting, the BOD elected 4 national officers, including one of our own FedEx pilots to the position of First Vice President. Having representation at such a high level in the national organization is a huge win for FedEx pilots, an advantage that cannot be overstated.


Recently, the Chairman of Local Council 26, the Block 11 (Instructors) Representative, used Article VIII of ALPA's Constitution & By-Laws to prefer charges against our First Vice President, the man who served as his "campaign manager", and 5 sitting members of our MEC -- that is, 5 of our Block Reps.

Here's an excerpt of Article VIII:
SECTION 1 - HEARING OF MEMBERSHIP CASES
A. Any member (including any Inactive member) may be disciplined, fined, or expelled for any of the following acts:
(1) Willful violation of this Constitution and By-Laws.

(2) Making a false statement or withholding material information when applying for membership.

(3) Disobeying or failing to comply with a decision of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board, the Executive Council, his Master Executive Council, or his Local Council.

(4) Misappropriating money or property of the Association.

(5) Performing work for or assisting an airline during a period when the members of this Association are on strike against such airline.

(6) Entering into an employment agreement, or any contract which might injure the Association.

(7) Improperly disclosing confidential matter of the Association.

(8) Refusing or willfully neglecting to pay dues, assessments, fines or financial obligations to the Association.

(9) Acting in any manner to circumvent, defeat or interfere with collective bargaining between the Association and an employer or with existing collective bargaining agreements.

(10) Doing any act contrary to the best interests of the Association or its members.


At today's Joint Council meeting, I asked the charging member, the Chairman of Council 26, to explain to us what remedy he sought (discipline, fine, or expulsion), what act the charged pilots had committed, and how this action improves our unity, or enhances our ability to successfully negotiate a CBA under the supervision of the NMB. The MEC won't even eat dinner together -- how can they be working together to serve the pilots of FedEx?


He was reluctant to speak at all, but I pointed out that nothing in Article VIII requires secrecy or confidentiality, and appealed to him as an elected ALPA officer that he owes an explanation to the dues-paying FedEx ALPA members.


His response requires little summarizing, as it was already brief. He claims that he did not personally charge anybody, they should not consider it an attack by him, that he was basically acting on behalf of another member (who, by the way is not in his Domicile, much less his Council), he was a mere conduit to a legal procedure. Finally, he said that his attorney would not allow him to say more.



I wonder ... if he's merely acting as a mindless conduit, devoid of judgment or discretion, why does he need an attorney?


Is this the example of unity we're expected to emulate?






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 01-28-2015, 07:23 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Default

What??? How much longer before March 01 comes?
Busboy is offline  
Old 01-28-2015, 09:03 PM
  #3  
Line Holder
 
Bill Kilgore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Huey Gunship
Posts: 64
Default

Wait a minute, our ALPA By-Laws allow someone to prefer charges against members without actually stating what the charges are? Then say "I preferred charges against our 1st VP and 5 members of the MEC but I didn't personally charge them so we're all good"? This is bizarre I've read Tony's post three times and I'm still not sure exactly what happened.

Only thing that's clear is that it's not helpful when we're deep in contract negotiations.
Bill Kilgore is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 09:40 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,368
Default

Perhaps my block rep, or one of the P to P folks can explain what this is all about?

I won't hold my breath.
Nightflyer is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 10:11 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

Originally Posted by Nightflyer View Post
Perhaps my block rep, or one of the P to P folks can explain what this is all about?

I won't hold my breath.
If P to P reps don't have the answer, what are they good for?
Gunter is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 10:35 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,368
Default

Originally Posted by Gunter View Post
If P to P reps don't have the answer, what are they good for?
Precisely.

Every time I ask one of them to tell me something I don't know, they don't know either.

They aren't good for anything, that I can tell.
Nightflyer is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 11:00 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
HIFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Default

Well I guess my current block 11 rep has gone the way of BM. Current block 11 rep files against a great guy like Joe D and anybody with a brain knows who the real douche bag is! Cant wait until he follows the likes of LK, BM and PC into flight management. :-(
HIFLYR is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 12:21 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Captain
Posts: 101
Default

I am in total agreement with Tony concerning this matter. I also attended yesterday's joint council meeting and the Block 11 reps response to Tony's questions were a joke. I thought I was listing to reruns of the Watergate hearings... On the advice of council I can not comment....please give us a break. First off, this Art 8 filing is not common but it is also not abnormal. Secondly, it is an administrative matter not a criminal matter. It is the first we have had here at FedEx that I'm aware of. So most members don't know what to make of it. Thirdly,now that the Art 8 has been filed it is offical Union business and we have a right to know. I fault the MEC leadership for not getting out in front of this and keeping the membership informed.

Now that it has been filed we must all wait for this administrative matter to conclude.For us, the membership, we must stay laser focused on the contract and how management is dealing with us. We must also hold the MEC acountable for how they work with us and for us. There is more to being a member than just "staying informed". If you are unhappy about how this played out, talk with your block and find out how to make positive changes.

In unity, the ATM
FamilyATM is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 12:25 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 160
Default

I shake my head when I learn of some new, stupid action or remark from some of our national elected officials. But I tell my friends that if those officials got run over tomorrow, there would be others that think just like them to take their place. So the take-away is that the people that vote these people in are the ones ultimately responsible. The electorate has to pay attention in the front end and then hold their reps accountable while they are in office.Where is the outrage from the members of this clowns Council?
Baja is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 12:51 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
trashhauler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: B-777
Posts: 455
Default

I don't know what is going on in our MEC and who is suing who and why. But I suspect most people who are not in the MEC don't know either. So you have to ask yourself, why would the block 11 guy go through the trouble(looks like lots of trouble for him)to charge these guys, if he didn't have a very good reason. Sounds like it would be a very nasty self inflicted wound. Apparently he's not talking, but I suspect the MEC guys being charged with article 8 must have done something to be charged. I don't think the MEC lives in a vacuum. Either way, it's a bad deal for us! We're in the middle of negotiations and these guys apparently can't get along. Got to shake my head.
trashhauler is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
flapshalfspeed
Major
58
03-10-2015 02:05 PM
Acroflyer32
American
85
02-05-2014 11:10 PM
Regularguy
United
57
03-12-2012 04:46 PM
skippy
GoJet
4
05-11-2009 08:55 PM
CaptMidnight
Cargo
52
04-26-2009 05:49 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices