Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-21-2020, 06:10 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Can you think of a situation where the company would be unable to pay furlough pay yet still be in operation?
09-21-2020, 06:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
Im not a contract expert.
I assume its a violation and so does sailing fun. I dont even care the issue being brought up. All im saying is you cant let a violation go because "later" the court might be more sympathetic. Arbitrators call balls and strikes (best they can) and dont take current economic climate into a violation.
I assume its a violation and so does sailing fun. I dont even care the issue being brought up. All im saying is you cant let a violation go because "later" the court might be more sympathetic. Arbitrators call balls and strikes (best they can) and dont take current economic climate into a violation.
The grievance committee (or whatever we call it here at delta) is trying to identify violations and harm, then they consult with the alpa attorneys. Theres an order to the grievance process, so you might put a sure winner thats easy to explain (and you have precedent) back further when you can double up (or more) on a day.
Anyway, i was simply telling sailing you can't just pick and choose what to enforce or else youre making a past practice of not enforcing the thing you negotiated for. Now that doesn't mean the arbitrator will agree with you automatically.
Anyway, i was simply telling sailing you can't just pick and choose what to enforce or else youre making a past practice of not enforcing the thing you negotiated for. Now that doesn't mean the arbitrator will agree with you automatically.
Denny
09-21-2020, 06:19 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 402
Originally Posted by FL370esq
I keep going back and forth on this issue, Denny. I think reasonable minds would agree that COVID has created a FM more widespread and deeper than the events of 9/11. Thus, I think an arbitrator would find this pandemic and the subsequent government-imposed quarantines and lockdowns to be a circumstance beyond the Company's control.
However, the reason a contract has FM provisions is to excuse performance of a contractual duty. The "old" standard to be measured was impossibility of performance - your factory burned down (presuming you didn't torch it) and now you cannot deliver the 10,000 widgets to your buyer on Friday. The "impossibility" standard has been softened and encompasses more of an "impracticality" perspective. However, and directly relevant to this issue, just because a contract has FM language in it does not mean all of its provisions are automatically triggered. Instead there is a further requirement that the FM event actually result in the Company being “prevented” or “hindered” or “delayed” in performing. Now that Delta has procured an additional $6B through last week's bond offering, I think the Company would be hard pressed to establish it has been "prevented" or "hindered" or "delayed" from paying furloughees that which is due to them under the terms of 21.B.3., especially when you outlay the cost of that performance against the current balance sheet. It isn't as if we are talking about a contractually agreed-upon 5% pay rate increase for 12,000+ pilots. It is a very, very small percentage of the seniority list who are affected and a matter of one month's furlough pay at that. I don't see the arbitrator finding that it is impractical for the Company to comply with that provision.
As you know, 21.B.9.a states: "The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of Section 21 B. 1., 3., and 8. in the event that a circumstance over which the Company does not have control substantially affects the Company’s operations and was the cause of such noncompliance." I don't think the Company prevails on the second prong because the cause for non-compliance was not the circumstance itself, but rather a managerial choice. It wasn't that the Company couldn't pay, it is that the Company is electing not to pay when it has the reasonable and practical means to do so.
Further, I don't believe a grievance on this matter ties the hands of DALPA in any subsequent FM matters because the argument is not whether the pandemic is a circumstance over which the Company does not have control (that would likely be conceded solely for argument sake on this issue) but rather the argument is whether it is impractical for the Company to comply with its contractual obligation under 21.B.3.
Of course, until the Company furloughs and then the Company fails to pay those furloughees according to the provisions of 21.B.3, there is nothing to grieve as no one has been "injured" at this point. Anticipatory breaches are generally not grievable. Hopefully the much-rumored deal to mitigate/eliminate furloughs will come to fruition and this will all be a "moo" argument.
However, the reason a contract has FM provisions is to excuse performance of a contractual duty. The "old" standard to be measured was impossibility of performance - your factory burned down (presuming you didn't torch it) and now you cannot deliver the 10,000 widgets to your buyer on Friday. The "impossibility" standard has been softened and encompasses more of an "impracticality" perspective. However, and directly relevant to this issue, just because a contract has FM language in it does not mean all of its provisions are automatically triggered. Instead there is a further requirement that the FM event actually result in the Company being “prevented” or “hindered” or “delayed” in performing. Now that Delta has procured an additional $6B through last week's bond offering, I think the Company would be hard pressed to establish it has been "prevented" or "hindered" or "delayed" from paying furloughees that which is due to them under the terms of 21.B.3., especially when you outlay the cost of that performance against the current balance sheet. It isn't as if we are talking about a contractually agreed-upon 5% pay rate increase for 12,000+ pilots. It is a very, very small percentage of the seniority list who are affected and a matter of one month's furlough pay at that. I don't see the arbitrator finding that it is impractical for the Company to comply with that provision.
As you know, 21.B.9.a states: "The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of Section 21 B. 1., 3., and 8. in the event that a circumstance over which the Company does not have control substantially affects the Company’s operations and was the cause of such noncompliance." I don't think the Company prevails on the second prong because the cause for non-compliance was not the circumstance itself, but rather a managerial choice. It wasn't that the Company couldn't pay, it is that the Company is electing not to pay when it has the reasonable and practical means to do so.
Further, I don't believe a grievance on this matter ties the hands of DALPA in any subsequent FM matters because the argument is not whether the pandemic is a circumstance over which the Company does not have control (that would likely be conceded solely for argument sake on this issue) but rather the argument is whether it is impractical for the Company to comply with its contractual obligation under 21.B.3.
Of course, until the Company furloughs and then the Company fails to pay those furloughees according to the provisions of 21.B.3, there is nothing to grieve as no one has been "injured" at this point. Anticipatory breaches are generally not grievable. Hopefully the much-rumored deal to mitigate/eliminate furloughs will come to fruition and this will all be a "moo" argument.
09-21-2020, 06:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by sailingfun
It might be or it might not. At the moment it’s a slam dunk for the company with the rim lowered to 4 feet. As the economy recovers and imposed flight restrictions ease the rim starts to move higher. It will be very easy to show traffic volumes and eased restrictions down the road and make a compelling case. At the moment we don’t even have a case.
if we have a vaccine in the next 6 months I doubt we will even need a grievance.
if we have a vaccine in the next 6 months I doubt we will even need a grievance.
You've decided we've lost already, great. Maybe lets keep you away from the contract and keep you parroting the company.
09-21-2020, 06:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by FL370esq
I keep going back and forth on this issue, Denny. I think reasonable minds would agree that COVID has created a FM more widespread and deeper than the events of 9/11. Thus, I think an arbitrator would find this pandemic and the subsequent government-imposed quarantines and lockdowns to be a circumstance beyond the Company's control.
However, the reason a contract has FM provisions is to excuse performance of a contractual duty. The "old" standard to be measured was impossibility of performance - your factory burned down (presuming you didn't torch it) and now you cannot deliver the 10,000 widgets to your buyer on Friday. The "impossibility" standard has been softened and encompasses more of an "impracticality" perspective. However, and directly relevant to this issue, just because a contract has FM language in it does not mean all of its provisions are automatically triggered. Instead there is a further requirement that the FM event actually result in the Company being “prevented” or “hindered” or “delayed” in performing. Now that Delta has procured an additional $6B through last week's bond offering, I think the Company would be hard pressed to establish it has been "prevented" or "hindered" or "delayed" from paying furloughees that which is due to them under the terms of 21.B.3., especially when you outlay the cost of that performance against the current balance sheet. It isn't as if we are talking about a contractually agreed-upon 5% pay rate increase for 12,000+ pilots. It is a very, very small percentage of the seniority list who are affected and a matter of one month's furlough pay at that. I don't see the arbitrator finding that it is impractical for the Company to comply with that provision.
As you know, 21.B.9.a states: "The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of Section 21 B. 1., 3., and 8. in the event that a circumstance over which the Company does not have control substantially affects the Company’s operations and was the cause of such noncompliance." I don't think the Company prevails on the second prong because the cause for non-compliance was not the circumstance itself, but rather a managerial choice. It wasn't that the Company couldn't pay, it is that the Company is electing not to pay when it has the reasonable and practical means to do so.
Further, I don't believe a grievance on this matter ties the hands of DALPA in any subsequent FM matters because the argument is not whether the pandemic is a circumstance over which the Company does not have control (that would likely be conceded solely for argument sake on this issue) but rather the argument is whether it is impractical for the Company to comply with its contractual obligation under 21.B.3.
Of course, until the Company furloughs and then the Company fails to pay those furloughees according to the provisions of 21.B.3, there is nothing to grieve as no one has been "injured" at this point. Anticipatory breaches are generally not grievable. Hopefully the much-rumored deal to mitigate/eliminate furloughs will come to fruition and this will all be a "moo" argument.
However, the reason a contract has FM provisions is to excuse performance of a contractual duty. The "old" standard to be measured was impossibility of performance - your factory burned down (presuming you didn't torch it) and now you cannot deliver the 10,000 widgets to your buyer on Friday. The "impossibility" standard has been softened and encompasses more of an "impracticality" perspective. However, and directly relevant to this issue, just because a contract has FM language in it does not mean all of its provisions are automatically triggered. Instead there is a further requirement that the FM event actually result in the Company being “prevented” or “hindered” or “delayed” in performing. Now that Delta has procured an additional $6B through last week's bond offering, I think the Company would be hard pressed to establish it has been "prevented" or "hindered" or "delayed" from paying furloughees that which is due to them under the terms of 21.B.3., especially when you outlay the cost of that performance against the current balance sheet. It isn't as if we are talking about a contractually agreed-upon 5% pay rate increase for 12,000+ pilots. It is a very, very small percentage of the seniority list who are affected and a matter of one month's furlough pay at that. I don't see the arbitrator finding that it is impractical for the Company to comply with that provision.
As you know, 21.B.9.a states: "The Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of Section 21 B. 1., 3., and 8. in the event that a circumstance over which the Company does not have control substantially affects the Company’s operations and was the cause of such noncompliance." I don't think the Company prevails on the second prong because the cause for non-compliance was not the circumstance itself, but rather a managerial choice. It wasn't that the Company couldn't pay, it is that the Company is electing not to pay when it has the reasonable and practical means to do so.
Further, I don't believe a grievance on this matter ties the hands of DALPA in any subsequent FM matters because the argument is not whether the pandemic is a circumstance over which the Company does not have control (that would likely be conceded solely for argument sake on this issue) but rather the argument is whether it is impractical for the Company to comply with its contractual obligation under 21.B.3.
Of course, until the Company furloughs and then the Company fails to pay those furloughees according to the provisions of 21.B.3, there is nothing to grieve as no one has been "injured" at this point. Anticipatory breaches are generally not grievable. Hopefully the much-rumored deal to mitigate/eliminate furloughs will come to fruition and this will all be a "moo" argument.
I will say this, I don’t think the Company’s really cares about furlough pay part of a FM event. I think management would pay it if they could. The prize here is Section One. As you know this is the real reason for the company to declare FM (or whatever one wants to call it). If they are going to declare it for Section One, they have to declare it every where it applies.
Denny
09-21-2020, 06:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Assuming it’s a violation is where I think you go wrong. It will not be a violation until a neutral says it’s one and I believe that’s a distinct possibility. I believe Sailingfun point is that at this time it’s not a violation but it may become one at a future point in time.
Can’t argue With the rest.
Denny
Can’t argue With the rest.
Denny
09-21-2020, 06:33 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
I hope that it’s already been filed.
09-21-2020, 06:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by FL370esq
Apologies for the late comment but what grievance are they going to file? No one has been furloughed yet and therefore no one has been paid under 21.B.9.a versus 21.B.3. Until that happens, there is nothing to grieve and thus nothing to file.
*Shrug* you all are debating stuff our labor attorneys know the answer to already.
09-21-2020, 06:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by theUpsideDown
I think you can still file pending action. Theyre annoucing their intent to violate the contract on oct 1st. "We're going to buy this airline and furlough all our pilots and use them instead." "Well we'd better wait until after we are furloughed and not get this stopped until they violate the contract".
*Shrug* you all are debating stuff our labor attorneys know the answer to already.
*Shrug* you all are debating stuff our labor attorneys know the answer to already.
09-21-2020, 06:49 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,033
I trust the preparations for the argument are and have been ongoing for months. When this is to be submitted is a discretion DALPA has, and may be used to their (our) advantage. I think the organization has a much more defensive posture now and has been considering the implications rather than burying arguments in order to forge deals. My $.02, hoping my faith is not misplaced.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
