Real union leadership would simply state, "Do not contact the association again regarding concessions".

 

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

 

I guess if the goal is a DFR lawsuit by the junior 1/3 of the seniority list...

Unless they’ve reached an impasse of course.

 

I’d go in with that mindset but show up every time. Keep the upper hand for good faith.

 

It is extremely difficult to achieve success in a DFR suit alleging that negotiations between labor and the company were conducted unfairly. Good luck with that.

Typically, DFR suits involve individual union members who were discriminated against by the union for some reason or another (personal animosity, gender, race, etc) in a grievance, SBOA, or disciplinary action of some sort.

In a 1991 suit between ALPA and a group of striking Continental pilots, the US Supreme Court established a DFR standard in the context of negotiations: "a union’s actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union’s actions, the union’s behavior is so far outside the ‘wide range of reasonableness’ . . . as to be irrational.”

The Court also held that “any substantive examination of a union’s performance . . . must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that negotiators need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.”

Finally, we're nowhere near an impasse. For an impasse to be declared, the NMB has to be called in, mediation has to be conducted, and the mediator must determine that negotiations are at an impasse. At a minimum, it is at least a 2 to 3 year process from the time mediation begins until an impasse is declared by the mediator. There is no hard and fast time set for mediation by the RLA, but the courts have established a standard that the time spent in mediation is based on the average time spent in mediation for the industry. Look around at other airline labor groups and how long they have spent in mediation. Note: mediation does not include time spent in negotiations prior to mediation.

 

I didn't mean impasse in the legal sense of the term as it relates to section 6 negotiations. The NC isn't involved in negotiations for a new CBA right now.

I meant it more in terms of a stalemate.

The union has an obligation to try and mitigate furloughs per 22C.

Walking away and saying "no further negotiations" doesn't satisfy that requirement unless they've reached a stalemate.

But I'm not a labor lawyer. Just another opinion from the peanut gallery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We are in negotiations since Section 6 negotiations had already opened for the CBA and I believe also that Section 6 provisions apply to the current negotiations on the proposed force majeure language and 10% pay cut because, according to the RLA, Section 6 applies to issues impacting an "intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions".

And, are you referencing the CBA 22.C.? If so, it says, "The Company may, at its option, elect to avoid or mitigate a furlough by offering pilots or a specific group of pilots (using age or seniority, unless the Association consents to an alternate selection criteria) voluntary early retirement and/or severance packages. If made to a specific group of pilots, any offer shall be made on a uniform and non-discriminatory basis. The Company shall notify, meet and consult with the Association prior to making any offer pursuant to this paragraph."

I'm pretty sure 22.C. has already been complied with via the VSP program. It'd be hard to argue that 22.C. hasn't already been checked off. Regardless, the use of the phrase, "The Company may, at its option..." makes 22.C. very ambiguous and barely enforceable.

And, if SWAPA negotiators feel like, given the factual and legal landscape, the appropriate response to the company's offer is to walk away, they likely haven't violated the standard of reasonableness established by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says they have "wide latitude".