The Company has added positive things to the LOA for our new FDAs. This happens to be the company dealing directly with the pilots, instead of the Union. In the context of these dealings, I think the company is circumventing the RLA, which is illegal.

The Union is our sole negotiator between FedEx and the pilots. Generally speaking, if it is not in the contract, it cant be done. Whether it benefits the pilots or not. If it doesnt benefit the pilots, we all, including the Union, would force to stop it via a grievance. If it does benefit the pilots, it still circumvents the RLA purpose of representation, by dealing directly with the members; leaving the Union out of the loop. Bad precedent....divide and conquer. (think 200% during a job action, among other scenerios which could be perceived as beneficial by some.)

Now, specifically speaking,, the LOA is a contractual document. For the company to give us any more, or less, than what is spelled out in the LOA is legally unacceptable. Even if it is a benefit to us. All benefits to us should come via the RLA/negotiations process.

If the Union were to do the proper thing, they would file a grievance disallowing anything that has been offered over and above what is in the LOA. When we won that one, the company would have to renegotiate the LOA for their additions. That would give us the opportunity to change what needs to be changed. This, of course, assumes that the Union would see things the way I do, in a legal sense. It would also require them to basically admit that the LOA has its problems. Not sure if that is a realistic scenario!

I could go on....but..

 

Exactly what I meant 6 days ago when I posted the Company's addition to the LOA.

 

My reason for starting this thread is because of an email circulating on this issue.

Here it is...

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Dear Captain Webb,

As a member in good standing, I move that our Union propose a resolution whereby the current bid be postponed, if not canceled. We must then demand that the company provide detailed and accurate information regarding the opening of the Hong Kong (HKG) and Paris (CDG) FDAs; information upon which each pilot can then make an informed decision. I contend that we (both the Union and the company) are inadequately prepared for this bid. Also, I have concerns about the process that is "shaping" our LOA that I wish to share.

Please bear in mind that the majority that ratified this LOA has no intention of bidding the FDAs (as evidenced by the practice bids), nor is it concerned with the problems that are presenting a logistical quagmire for the minority of us who may bid them. I speak for that minority.

As a pilot considering CDG, I find that I simply cannot garner the information needed to make informed decisions about my bid. This entire process is rife with complications: the LOA is constantly changing; the Subic closing plan is a mess; our "relocation specialists'" website lists a total of only three Q&As regarding the FDAs; most pilots’ questions sent to the "FDA Questions" link on the company website have gone unanswered (mine included), and some of those that have been answered have not been answered accurately (reference Message Line, 6 November 2007). Without definitive answers to our questions, bidding becomes a guessing game. I am concerned because the bid closes in eleven days and the company is not providing us the answers we need. Time is running out. That there are too many questions to answer (perhaps the company’s excuse) is only proof that more time is needed before this bid closes.

I also have concerns about how the LOA is "evolving". First, a bit of history: Since it went out for vote, the LOA has undergone four changes (read: deal sweeteners): 1) the STV duration was reduced (reference Special Message Line, 26 July 2007); 2) the allowable shipping poundage was increased (kind of); 3) provisions were set forth for families to live together to offset the cost of housing; and 4) a "deposit assistance" was instituted.

This "deposit assistance" (notwithstanding the other changes) is proof positive that the company recognizes the financial shortcomings of the LOA. What if the next "improvement" is the upping of the housing allowance? If the monthly amount is increased to $3000 or even $3500 (still substandard), will we applaud the company's kindness, or will we take a stand and refuse to allow the company to continue "throwing us bones"? Such unilateral negotiations should not be tolerated. There are problems with both the LOA and bid that need to be solved: the company is masking the problems by diverting our attention with these “deal sweeteners”. ALPA filed suit against the management at Pinnacle Airlines for similar actions. Is our situation markedly different from theirs?

As a solution I suggest and request that we do what is legally within our rights to postpone and/or cancel the current bid. If at all possible, I believe that we should then revisit the LOA and address the HKG and CDG FDAs separately, as should have been done initially. The company is single-handedly changing the LOA: should ALPA not have a say in these changes? It is obvious that more time is needed on both sides; the company can work to provide answers to our questions and we can conduct more thorough research in Hong Kong and Paris. With all due respect, I do not believe that the cost of security deposits is an "unexpected idiosyncrasy that could not be anticipated." Stating such is admitting a gross neglect of due diligence. I was aware of such costs based solely on reading other pilots' emails.

Lastly, I call upon you, our MEC chairman, to consider carefully our situation. If we “roll over” and praise the company for its generous offers after “fighting” for what was touted as the “best deal attainable” with this LOA, then what message are we sending to the company regarding future negotiations?

As a way of gauging support, I ask that everyone in favor of postponing and/or canceling the bid please sign your name under mine and hit the "reply to all" button.

Yours, Captain Webb, is a job that I do not envy, and I appreciate the work that you do. Please give my request serious consideration. I thank you for your time and I anxiously await your reply.

xxxx

 

TonyC, what have you to say for yourself, in light of the above posts? We don't hear from you very much at all anymore. Are you beginning to suffer from the same diseases that afflict your counterparts in the ALPA organization?

 

If I recall one of the reasons BC resigned was because the company came back with a "better" STV package after the NC had told us we had "no leverage", the LOA was the best we would get, etc. He saw that the company was making he and his NC look like fools and the MEC was allowing it. Now they are doing the same to our MEC. The more they sweeten the LOA outside actual negotiations, and the more that tactic is accepted by our MEC, the more any agreement we have with the company, including the CBA, is weakened. The MEC loves to talk about precedent setting with Scope in this LOA. How about the precedent being set by the company direct dealing with the pilots outside of negotiations and the union allowing it? Either way the MEC looks bad on this. It's time for them to make a stand and demand the LOA be what we voted on or be re-negotiated properly. Incremental minimum increases based on practice bid results given in direct dealings with the pilots is wrong. If DW can't understand this than maybe it is time follows BC's lead.

 

I pretty much think this ship has sailed. What incentive would the company have to make changes now? They have a deal in place that provides them pilots in the FDA, under the RLA (read: no local stikes) provisions, all at a fairly low cost.

The only way I can see any further adjustments are if the FDAs go largely unfilled. That means that individual members will ultimately make the final call on whether or not these are manned (initially). However, the company can hire into these FDAs or use STVs for a period of 2 years. Yeah...I know the Q&A says that STV is not a tool for manning shortfalls...but you can cut and paste that if you like and grieve it later. The LOA language allows for it, and in a pinch I think that tool would be used. Why not? WE gave it to them.

Finally--how would it sound for the union to tell the same membership it lobbied HARD to approve the LOA to "not bid those FDAs" or "work with us while we make some changes". Two practice bids into the process is a bit late to suddenly decide we have a problem. I don't think the company has any vested interest in bailing out our union on this one. And--if they DID "save us from ourselves", I have to wonder what they'd want in exchange down the road.

The fact is the outcome of how this LOA plays out is in the hands of individual pilots. If you really want to go, but think the deal still has room for improvement, your options including not bidding it and hoping it gets better. The company and the union will tell you it won't make a difference, and to bid what you want to fly. That may in fact be 100% accurate. But those 40 vacancies seem to have a lot of people discussing the merit of the agreement, so again--I think this will come down to the choice of a handful of individuals.

 

Albie, like your post and concur with your findings. But to answer your how would it sound question; about as ridiculous as sending out a message line that basically says: Due to our tremendous support the company has agreed to through us a bone. This MEC has no shame and can not be embarassed.

 

Albie, I think maybe you may have missed my point. That point is that the direct dealing with the pilots by offering something that is not contractually allowed is a circumvention of our Unions bargaining power under the RLA. It sets a bad precedent and, I believe it is not legal. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the way I see it.

The Companies incentive would arise when the MEC, if it decided to do so, filed a grievance (and made its intention to do so thru a message line, or two or three)to disallow anything that might be offered to the pilots which is contrary to what has already been negotiated for by the LOA. This, in turn, might make people re-think how they will bid for these FDA openings. If the Company cannot fill the openings, they may themselves re-think the LOA and renegotiate.

You state "how would it sound for the union to tell the same membership it lobbied HARD to approve the LOA to "not bid those FDAs" or "work with us while we make some changes". Two practice bids into the process is a bit late to suddenly decide we have a problem. I don't think the company has any vested interest in bailing out our union on this one. And--if they DID "save us from ourselves", I have to wonder what they'd want in exchange down the road."

First, if the Union saw and acknowledged that the direct dealing is improper, and therefore grieved the changes because they are being implemented improperly, it might restore some faith in our Union. I am not saying the Union should say we should not bid the FDAs.

Second, it is never two late to correct a problem, if you decide there is one. The latest problem was the gratuitous offer of deposit money, contrary to what was negotiated.To not correct a problem because it is not politically correct to do so, or because you want to save face, is just plain wrong.

Third, I never said that the company had a vested interest in bailing the Union out. If a grievance was filed, the Company might have to bail themselves out via the negotiating process. And therefore, there would be nothing to exchange down the road. As a matter of fact, it might benefit the crew force by showing that the MEC has some cajones.

"The fact is the outcome of how this LOA plays out is in the hands of individual pilots. "

You are correct on this comment. The question of how it plays out, if the pilots feel that the direct dealing is improper, is in the hands of the pilots, and ultimately the MEC. If the pilots think it is wrong for the company to add things to an agreement that were not in writing or negotiated for, whether those additions were beneficial to us or not, they need to let the MEC know ASAP! And if the MEC were to take no action now, regardless of what the membership says, they would not be doing their duty. This, of course, assumes that my position is correct with respect to the "value added" items the Company has offered contrary to what was negotiated for.

It all seems pretty black and white to me. The Union negotiates with the Company on behalf of the pilots under the RLA. If an agreement is in place, and the Company adds to that agreement without any contractual negotiations with OUR representatives, it is not only improper, but illegal.

 

Good points. If the company wants to sweeten the pot they should at least go to the MEC and say we want to do XXX. The MEC can say this is not a substantial change (like the side letter) and then put the deal in writing. The fiat by FCIF is how they boned us on the accepted fare.

 

I agree with iar. The principle of the matter is that what the company is doing is illegal. I also think it could restore some faith in the MEC if they grieved it. Of course the people who are bidding the FDAs would complain that the MEC is taking something away from them. But of course everyone should be thinking about the whole pilot group and not just themselves. This is another bad precedent.