Good. That makes this the first battle over new hire sign-on bonuses. Hopefully the Teamsters prevail and set a positive precedent the rest of the industry will follow.

 

The IBT was perfectly ok with the ridiculous "OT" override when it first was offered a few years ago. Precedent has been set. Too bad, so sad. As far as the whole new hire bonus thing, pilots are not considered "employees" until they pass IOE. So the bonus is offered and paid out before the CBA applies.

 

I say, if Republic can pay non employees, then the IBT should pay people to not go to class. On the same lines, I'd say pick the most understaffed base and pay people not to do OT, like a monthly stipend of a few hundred bucks. That would be fun. The company would go running to court just as we have.

I'm not sure where the not considered "employees" comes from. There is a threshold but it's a lot sooner than IOE.

 

The "not an employee until after IOE" is just something a check airman brought up at my last sim party. I have no clue if there's an official definition in the employee handbook or not and haven't bothered to look it up. Quite honestly, I don't give a crap about much more than just finishing my trip as quickly as possible and going home.

 

If anybody is interested in reading the complaint filed in US District Court, I have published it here.

 

Thanks for that.

Beware when downloading the file, though. The server tries to download some crapware on your computer as well. Make sure you say "no" when it asks if you agree to install.

 

Thanks. I changed it to Dropbox. More reputable. New link here.

 

From the complaint filed by the Teamsters:

Here's the section of the RLA that the union feels the company is violating with the new-hire bonus and apparently some bonus pay some pilots received in the past:

Section 6 of the RLA (45 U.S.C. § 156) provides:
Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such Case 1:15-cv-01066-WTL-MJD Document 1 Filed 07/09/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7 intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.

And here are the specific violations the Union thinks the company made in violation of the RLA:

36. By unilaterally implementing changes to the contractual pilot pay rates through their premium pay schemes, the Defendants violated their obligations under Section 2, First and Section 6 to maintain the status quo during the RLA major dispute process until they have exhausted that major dispute process.

38. The Defendants have also violated Section 2, Seventh of the Act by unilaterally changing the contractually established pay rates for pilots without exhausting the RLA major dispute process.

46. By unilaterally implementing this bonus pay scheme, the Defendants are increasing first-year pay for pilots under the current collective bargaining agreement without agreement by the Union and without first exhausting the RLA major dispute process.

47. The Defendants have violated, and are continuing to violate, their obligation to maintain the status quo during the RLA major dispute process by unilaterally implementing and continuing to pay the announced signing bonus to new pilots.

48. The Defendants’ actions violate their Section 2, First and Section 6 duties to maintain the status quo throughout the RLA major dispute process.

Then it goes on to say that the Union is seeking an injunction against the company to make them stop paying these new-hire bonuses and overtime pay, basically saying that if the company wants to do these types of things, they should finish contract negotiations under the RLA.

Pretty interesting. If the pilots win this one, it would probably provide great motivation for Bedford to get a contract done as obviously his airline would be one of the few (only?) not paying some sort of 5 figure signing bonus. I imagine the loss of the bonus would significantly reduce any chance of his being able to hire any pilot.

Good luck guys/gals. I hope you win.

 

All of this leads to the point that a new and better contract needs to be ratified as soon as possible by the parties involved. It will make things better both for RAH and the pilot group in the long term.

 

I like what the union is trying to do, but isn't this sandbagging companies that are not in negotiations and offering signing bonuses? The courts will ask why ALPA is not filing as well wouldn't they?