PDT News and Rumors
05-13-2010 | 06:20 PM
#1781
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Haven't heard that rumor yet until now. If nothing is announced next week I will be sure to see what I can find out in CLT on the 24th when I go down.
05-13-2010 | 06:50 PM
#1782
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
From: E-190 Leftist
Flow Through Court Case Update
It appeared that at least the two conservative judges had their minds made up when they walked in the court room. The third seemed on the fence and our lawyer - Marcus Migliori (sp?) - seemed to sway him with a very convincing and well designed argument. Our representation in the case was certainly top-notch.
One of the bigger questions centered around this section of the Railway Labor Act:
§ 184. System, group, or regional boards of adjustment
The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on April 10, 1936 before the National Labor Relations Board, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.
It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards of adjustment, under the authority of section 153 of this title.
Such boards of adjustment may be established by agreement between employees and carriers either on any individual carrier, or system, or group of carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their employees; or pending the establishment of a permanent National Board of Adjustment as hereinafter provided. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent said carriers by air, or any class or classes of their employees, both acting through their representatives selected in accordance with provisions of this subchapter, from mutually agreeing to the establishment of a National Board of Adjustment of temporary duration and of similarly limited jurisdiction.
The system board described in the second paragraph is limited in scope, according to the two conservative judges, to single air carriers (i.e. PDT, not US Airways Group, which is made up of 3 carriers). While it is limited in size, the air carrier is REQUIRED to have a board of a adjustment (notice the highlighted "shall," which is much more limiting than the "may" below) While the third paragraph allows system boards between multiple carriers, it is not mandated, as the single-carrier system boards in paragraph 2 are (again because of the use of the word may instead of shall). I don't quite agree with the judges that this is incredibly clear language, but I'm also not a judge or lawyer. The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on April 10, 1936 before the National Labor Relations Board, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.
It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards of adjustment, under the authority of section 153 of this title.
Such boards of adjustment may be established by agreement between employees and carriers either on any individual carrier, or system, or group of carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their employees; or pending the establishment of a permanent National Board of Adjustment as hereinafter provided. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent said carriers by air, or any class or classes of their employees, both acting through their representatives selected in accordance with provisions of this subchapter, from mutually agreeing to the establishment of a National Board of Adjustment of temporary duration and of similarly limited jurisdiction.
Also, section 153, which is referred to in paragraph 2, is the section relating to Railway system boards and how they are to be set up. It's a quite long section, so I excluded it, but it's inside the link below.
Some other things the judges noted:
- Our case was weakened by the fact that USAPA and ALPA were on different sides of the case.
- There was some discussion over whether or not the RLA applied to US Airways Group or just to the individual airlines US Airways group owns (our attorney argued that they are an "agent" which has a definition within the RLA).
- The lead judge also seemed to think this was something that should be negotiated (since he thought we "may" create a multi-carrier system board if we all agree), and the parties had not done enough on that front (although the judge seemed to lack any kind of knowledge over how much we had actually sat at the table). the US Airways, et al. lawyer claimed ALPA was the one who walked away from the table and just filed a lawsuit. To me, that's a stupid argument because we wouldn't throw away all the money on a court case if we could have negotiated the agreement. Clearly this was not something ALPA did hastily. In fact, it was USAPA and the company who walked away from the table and did not feel the need to negotiate (I believe Mr. Migliori spelled that out in his rebuttal).
It could take them some time to write the ruling. Hopefully that'll be out sooner rather than later, but I hear the last ruling took around 90 days.
If anyone's interested, there's a copy of the Railway Labor Act at The Railway Labor Act.
Last edited by RedBaron007; 05-13-2010 at 09:03 PM.
05-17-2010 | 10:13 AM
#1787
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
05-18-2010 | 02:54 PM
#1789
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
I'm in MDT, and all last week I wasn't used at all. I have yet to break 20 hours in a month. But another MDT FO I talked to yesterday said they've been using him a lot, and I hear quite a few guys are breaking guarantee... I figure once our summer flying ramps up at the end of this month, we will definitely be short...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
