If they don't extend the TRO doesn't that constitute a reason to strike? The word on the street that I got was that the company didn't restore the status quo at all...

They agreed to fix day/night transitions and vacations for new upgrades. Still no resolution on D6 days (restored days off following emergency assignments).

Were the D6 days the ones that the judge deemed to be a "Minor Dispute"? I'm expecting a strike tonight and I've gotta go to work... I'm just making sure there won't be picket lines. No way I'm gonna cross one of those!

I thought that last ruling implied that the strike wasn't justified over a minor dispute.

That being said there are numerous other strategies.

Picketing Amazon is a pretty strong handed approach. You know ATSG and ATLAS management will be getting an earful


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The judge said that the issue itself is a minor dispute. However, he also added that if it is a violation of status quo under the RLA, that would be a determination for an arbitrator. The strike was never deemed "illegal" by anyone but the company (and some ATI folks). My understanding based upon the judge's ruling is if an arbitrator were to agree with the union that the company violated the status quo during section 6 negotiations under the RLA, then the pilots are justified in self-help.

From the judges ruling:
"There is no evidence that Plaintiff is violating the status quo pursuant to the terms of the CBA. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Defendants will be injured by enjoining the strike."

From the judge's ruling: "Whether a change to an alleged “past practice” is a violation of the status quo is a function of the arbitrator." The issue at hand is a past practice issue, which the judge seems to be deferring to an arbitrator. I'm personally not well read in the legal intricacies of the status quo requirements, but the judge seemed to think that the company was within their right contractually to implement such a policy (i.e. the language in the CBA was not cut and dry), but it would be up for an arbitrator to decide whether their new interpretation and additional rules not found in the CBA constitute a change in past practice/status quo during section 6 negotiations.

That wasn't my understanding at all... My understanding was that ABX had violated the status quo on two major issues. The third one was deemed non strike worthy. ABX had until today to return the contract to the status quo or it's pilots had the right to strike again. I'm hearing ABX may have fixed those two issues.

Any strike isn't illegal until its ruled as such by the NMB.

1)Striking post self help release is without question.
2)Striking pre release is possible. It must be treated as a legal strike until it is ruled upon.
3)Union liability is only for striking against ruling of the court. i.e. the court established a dispute as minor and ordered the strike stopped. Provided labor strikes again on the same grounds. Thats an illegal job action.

The brief that was released on this topic was vague at best. Where the judged implied it was an illegal strike, but didn't name it as such.

They aren't going to strike again.

It's a mute argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk