Hiring / training
03-24-2022, 02:18 PM
#2621
New Hire
Joined APC: Apr 2021
Posts: 5
I understand some people are hearing back within a day or so after completing the online assessment but has anyone received an interview offer after waiting longer? It’s been about a week for me and haven’t heard anything. Thanks in advance.
03-24-2022, 03:29 PM
#2622
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 677
Originally Posted by Wareagle6125
I understand some people are hearing back within a day or so after completing the online assessment but has anyone received an interview offer after waiting longer? It’s been about a week for me and haven’t heard anything. Thanks in advance.
03-25-2022, 06:37 AM
#2623
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by CRJdriver2017
I’m sure it’s a somewhat open ended question but does anyone know how long on average it takes for the background/pria stuff to clear? I interviewed successfully on March 8th. Thanks.
03-25-2022, 03:29 PM
#2624
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Gary et al
Even without piggybacking other benefits to the group onto this. The point is the company needs to follow the LOA process to make changes to the CBA. Good change or bad there is a process. They can’t just be picking and choosing how they want to follow the CBA, but that is what they are doing.
The union would love to give new hires hotels.
The union would love to give new hires hotels.
I'm a current new hire, the union rep told myself and a few others
"unfortunately we don't really care about you guys because you're not paying dues, so asking for new hire hotels isn't on our list because the company will want something in return"
That's what he told us in our new hire class.
03-25-2022, 04:18 PM
#2625
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2020
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by jpso
It took about one week for me. They're putting people into apr 27, may 25th classes now.
03-25-2022, 05:18 PM
#2626
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by Barrybiff
It’s kind of cool that their doing late month class dates now. Since our contract says pay goes up on day one of the calendar month that your anniversary is in. You’re basically only on first year pay for 11 months.
03-28-2022, 10:52 AM
#2627
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2018
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by davidh
I'm a current new hire, the union rep told myself and a few others
"unfortunately we don't really care about you guys because you're not paying dues, so asking for new hire hotels isn't on our list because the company will want something in return"
That's what he told us in our new hire class.
"unfortunately we don't really care about you guys because you're not paying dues, so asking for new hire hotels isn't on our list because the company will want something in return"
That's what he told us in our new hire class.
You're on probation and it's in the Unions interest to follow the CBA and not allow the company to have full autonomy on hotels and who gets them. If allowed it sets a future precedent in negotiations.
03-28-2022, 12:10 PM
#2628
Bus Driver ordinarie
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Airbus CA
Posts: 555
The union care insomuch that new hires are ‘associate’ members and both will pay dues in future and are instrumental to the growth of the company and seniority of their members.
Management have obviously finally accepted the reality of the 2022 pilot hiring world and need to do more to attract pilots. First year pay rises and hotels are a toe in the water. How much is retention going to cost..?
the union recognizes the power dynamic is different and is exercising that leverage to the benefit of its members. That’s their job. There are a pile of contract grievances that the company has been playing g hardball will. ALPA is using it’s leverage to resolve all those and likely much more. NH hotels may appear to be caught in the middle; but they are not really. B&B aren’t going let 48 pilots walk out before day 1 over a hotel room. Let the chess players make their moves. It’s gonna be a fun summer…
//PL
Management have obviously finally accepted the reality of the 2022 pilot hiring world and need to do more to attract pilots. First year pay rises and hotels are a toe in the water. How much is retention going to cost..?
the union recognizes the power dynamic is different and is exercising that leverage to the benefit of its members. That’s their job. There are a pile of contract grievances that the company has been playing g hardball will. ALPA is using it’s leverage to resolve all those and likely much more. NH hotels may appear to be caught in the middle; but they are not really. B&B aren’t going let 48 pilots walk out before day 1 over a hotel room. Let the chess players make their moves. It’s gonna be a fun summer…
//PL
03-28-2022, 02:17 PM
#2630
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,481
Originally Posted by Popeye0537
He's not lying.....
You're on probation and it's in the Unions interest to follow the CBA and not allow the company to have full autonomy on hotels and who gets them. If allowed it sets a future precedent in negotiations.
You're on probation and it's in the Unions interest to follow the CBA and not allow the company to have full autonomy on hotels and who gets them. If allowed it sets a future precedent in negotiations.
Oh, he isn’t LYING, what he’s doing is making a statement against interest so that in a civil suit by new hires as a group their getting damages from the union is a slam-dunk.Same for complaining to the NLRB that your union has failed in its obligation to treat you fairly.
THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
I. The Origin of the Duty of Fair Representation
A. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 15 LRRM 708 (1944).
The Supreme Court, in a case involving the Railway Labor Act, held that the Act implicitly expresses the aim of Congress to impose on the exclusive representative the duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it on behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them. See also, Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 15 LRRM 715 (1944).
B. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330,31 LRRM 2548 (1952).
The Supreme Court applied the fair representation analysis developed initially under the RLA to a case arising under the National Labor Relations Act. This case, like the previous RLA cases, dealt with a Union’s power to negotiate a contract. See also, Syres v. Oil Workers Int’l Union, 350 U.S. 892, 37 LRRM 2068 (1955).
C. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 41 LRRM 2089 (1957).
The Supreme Court, in a case involving a claim under the RLA against a Union for alleged racial discrimination in the application of a nondiscriminatory contract, held that the duty set out in Steele to represent all fairly did not come to an abrupt end with the making of the contract between the Union and the Employer. The Court held that the Union could no more unfairly discriminate in carrying out its grievance functions than it could in negotiating a contract. See also, Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).
II. General Standards for Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation
A. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).
The exclusive agent’s statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.
B. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171,190, 64 LRRM 2369, 2376 (1967).
“A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a Union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”
C. United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362,134 LRRM 2153 (1990)
I. The Origin of the Duty of Fair Representation
A. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 15 LRRM 708 (1944).
The Supreme Court, in a case involving the Railway Labor Act, held that the Act implicitly expresses the aim of Congress to impose on the exclusive representative the duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it on behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them. See also, Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 15 LRRM 715 (1944).
B. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330,31 LRRM 2548 (1952).
The Supreme Court applied the fair representation analysis developed initially under the RLA to a case arising under the National Labor Relations Act. This case, like the previous RLA cases, dealt with a Union’s power to negotiate a contract. See also, Syres v. Oil Workers Int’l Union, 350 U.S. 892, 37 LRRM 2068 (1955).
C. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 41 LRRM 2089 (1957).
The Supreme Court, in a case involving a claim under the RLA against a Union for alleged racial discrimination in the application of a nondiscriminatory contract, held that the duty set out in Steele to represent all fairly did not come to an abrupt end with the making of the contract between the Union and the Employer. The Court held that the Union could no more unfairly discriminate in carrying out its grievance functions than it could in negotiating a contract. See also, Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).
II. General Standards for Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation
A. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).
The exclusive agent’s statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.
B. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171,190, 64 LRRM 2369, 2376 (1967).
“A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a Union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”
C. United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362,134 LRRM 2153 (1990)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
