ABX crews on strike????
12-06-2016, 05:20 PM
#331
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by motorclutch
For the court to extend the TRO or release us
12-06-2016, 05:27 PM
#332
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Globemaster2827
If they don't extend the TRO doesn't that constitute a reason to strike? The word on the street that I got was that the company didn't restore the status quo at all...
They agreed to fix day/night transitions and vacations for new upgrades. Still no resolution on D6 days (restored days off following emergency assignments).
12-06-2016, 06:55 PM
#333
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by boiler
They agreed to fix day/night transitions and vacations for new upgrades. Still no resolution on D6 days (restored days off following emergency assignments).
12-06-2016, 07:14 PM
#334
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 430
ABX crews on strike????
Originally Posted by Globemaster2827
Were the D6 days the ones that the judge deemed to be a "Minor Dispute"? I'm expecting a strike tonight and I've gotta go to work... I'm just making sure there won't be picket lines. No way I'm gonna cross one of those!
I thought that last ruling implied that the strike wasn't justified over a minor dispute.
That being said there are numerous other strategies.
Picketing Amazon is a pretty strong handed approach. You know ATSG and ATLAS management will be getting an earful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by CTRCommander; 12-06-2016 at 07:28 PM.
12-06-2016, 07:37 PM
#335
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Globemaster2827
Were the D6 days the ones that the judge deemed to be a "Minor Dispute"? I'm expecting a strike tonight and I've gotta go to work... I'm just making sure there won't be picket lines. No way I'm gonna cross one of those!
The judge said that the issue itself is a minor dispute. However, he also added that if it is a violation of status quo under the RLA, that would be a determination for an arbitrator. The strike was never deemed "illegal" by anyone but the company (and some ATI folks). My understanding based upon the judge's ruling is if an arbitrator were to agree with the union that the company violated the status quo during section 6 negotiations under the RLA, then the pilots are justified in self-help.
12-06-2016, 07:46 PM
#336
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Apelo@290
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by boiler
The judge said that the issue itself is a minor dispute. However, he also added that if it is a violation of status quo under the RLA, that would be a determination for an arbitrator. The strike was never deemed "illegal" by anyone but the company (and some ATI folks). My understanding based upon the judge's ruling is if an arbitrator were to agree with the union that the company violated the status quo during section 6 negotiations under the RLA, then the pilots are justified in self-help.
"There is no evidence that Plaintiff is violating the status quo pursuant to the terms of the CBA. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Defendants will be injured by enjoining the strike."
12-06-2016, 08:03 PM
#337
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 64
ABX crews on strike????
Originally Posted by l8fr82hub
From the judges ruling:
"There is no evidence that Plaintiff is violating the status quo pursuant to the terms of the CBA. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Defendants will be injured by enjoining the strike."
"There is no evidence that Plaintiff is violating the status quo pursuant to the terms of the CBA. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Defendants will be injured by enjoining the strike."
From the judge's ruling: "Whether a change to an alleged “past practice” is a violation of the status quo is a function of the arbitrator." The issue at hand is a past practice issue, which the judge seems to be deferring to an arbitrator. I'm personally not well read in the legal intricacies of the status quo requirements, but the judge seemed to think that the company was within their right contractually to implement such a policy (i.e. the language in the CBA was not cut and dry), but it would be up for an arbitrator to decide whether their new interpretation and additional rules not found in the CBA constitute a change in past practice/status quo during section 6 negotiations.
12-06-2016, 08:13 PM
#338
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by CTRCommander
I thought that last ruling implied that the strike wasn't justified over a minor dispute.
That being said there are numerous other strategies.
Picketing Amazon is a pretty strong handed approach. You know ATSG and ATLAS management will be getting an earful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That being said there are numerous other strategies.
Picketing Amazon is a pretty strong handed approach. You know ATSG and ATLAS management will be getting an earful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12-07-2016, 04:32 AM
#339
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: 1st class
Posts: 250
Any strike isn't illegal until its ruled as such by the NMB.
1)Striking post self help release is without question.
2)Striking pre release is possible. It must be treated as a legal strike until it is ruled upon.
3)Union liability is only for striking against ruling of the court. i.e. the court established a dispute as minor and ordered the strike stopped. Provided labor strikes again on the same grounds. Thats an illegal job action.
The brief that was released on this topic was vague at best. Where the judged implied it was an illegal strike, but didn't name it as such.
1)Striking post self help release is without question.
2)Striking pre release is possible. It must be treated as a legal strike until it is ruled upon.
3)Union liability is only for striking against ruling of the court. i.e. the court established a dispute as minor and ordered the strike stopped. Provided labor strikes again on the same grounds. Thats an illegal job action.
The brief that was released on this topic was vague at best. Where the judged implied it was an illegal strike, but didn't name it as such.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
