5% Holdback
 

I know the MEC is telling us we should start seeing the checks for the holdback soon - thanks MEC. But what I don't know is how much is left of our individual 5% after the lawsuits? Anybody know?

I was a 737 captain prior to the UPA and I'm getting a little under $1,000 (I think).

Is that the original 5% minus costs associated with the lawsuit?

http://alpa.org/UALVerification
http://alpa.org/CALVerification

Yes. The links in the previous post will have your exact #.

Didn’t they also holdback some from the LUAL retro as well?

Did ALPA win or lose the lawsuits? Anyone know?

I heard (yeah don't remember where) it was "settled". Not sure if that means won or lost.


My 5% number sure seems smaller than what it was before.

Figuring out what 5% of tranche 1 is then comparing it to the remaining amount, I lost about $350. That's a decrease of about ~1% from the total Overall Lump Sum Payment. It was a little less than one percent, but I can only count on my fingers and toes.

The total collective considered earnings are $2.46 billion, so the total cost of the lawsuit, however it was decided, would be about $2.3 million if that ~1% deduction is distributed as an percentage evenly across the board.

ALPA didn't lose. The Continental pilots did.

Care to explain?

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”), the Continental Airlines Chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc., and Continental Airlines, Inc.... were all named defendants in the suit.

United has settled on the "Pension Contribution.

ALPA, did not go to trial but instead did agree to a settle with $1.7 million of the Continental Pilots retro lump sum, to be paid to Duffer , et al. (Pretty generous of them)


No monies will be paid from the ALPA treasury or insurance carrier.

ALPA maintains that . deny all allegations of wrongdoing or liability against them whatsoever and further contend that their conduct was lawful.

So it took them 5 years to cave in and pay it out of our pocket?? Brilliant. LOL

Yeah, the the Continental Airlines Chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association no longer exists, so ALPA was generous enough to step in and generously pay out 1.7 million of the Continental Pilots wages.

I thought there were only about two dozen pilots in that suit, can't recall. Now that would be a "real" bonus! (in addition to the 95% they already got for the time they were actually on property)

So glad they have our backs.:confused:

Oh yeah, for those of you old enough to recognize the name "Duffer", check your list for Don Duffer.

Major irony.

ALPA wasn't sued (Unless suit was amended to include the CAL MEC), so ALPA didn't win or lose. Legacy Contiental was sued. CAL management was playing fast and loose with the CAL military pilots B fund contributions.

I think there was only 5. However, the suit demonstrated that many folks who were on military status (not just those in the suit) were improperly treated. So, the reason for the hold back was that CAL figured, that if and when they lost the suit, they had to air on the conservative side and determine an estimate that would cover all of their transgressions if the award went against them. So, why hold back 5% if only 5 pilots filed a suit? Because, if management lost, they knew they would have to make it right for everyone they screwed.

Those original 5 pilots were only owed about $2K each. And, they tried to get management to make it right for them before the suit was filed. The CAL MEC wasn't interested in making it right for them.

And, the lawfirm that ran the suit (pilot law), is run by a legacy UAL pilot, and ALPA member in good-standing. I am sure he had mixed feelings about bringing ALPA into it, but likely had not choice as the CAL MEC had a joint role in enforcing the R&I components of the cba.

The interesting thing is this: ALPA was taking dues money from all pilots, to include those CAL ALPA members in good standing who were paying dues money to insure that the CBA was being enforced and maintained properly. The CAL MEC owed a duty of fair representation and enforcement to those military dues paying members in good standing. They should not have their rights abrogated in any way.

Keep in mind, that pre-merger the legacy UAL MEC and legacy UAL were in deed keeping up with their obligations under the law and under the cba. So, one way to look at it is this: Kudos to legacy UAL MEC and UAL for enforcing the cba and insuring their military dues paying members in good-standing were being properly compensated in their retirement fund. Way to set the example and way to go for showing legacy CAL needed to fix their accounting scheme.

I believe something else learned during discovery was this: those on leave, not just military leave (some pilots), were treated improperly as it relates to B fund contributions. All kinds of incongruities and irregularities were discovered during the audit of the B funds (contract '02) of pilots on leave. maternity leave, military leave, medical leave. If you had a leave of absence and were a legacy CAL pilot I would audit my B fund to see if you were shorted.

Wrong Duffer. Suit was brought by Mark Duffer.

Do you have a Major link?

From the 2/14 MEC Update

The Conclusion of The Duffer Litigation and Impending Release of The Holdback Monies from the 2012 Retro/Lump Sum Bonus

In 2012, Mark Duffer, a LCAL pilot and military reservist, sued ALPA and United on behalf of Continental Military Leave pilots under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") concerning the LCAL MEC retro/lump sum allocation methodology and other issues. This case is known as the Duffer litigation. While this lawsuit was pending, the ALPA Executive Council passed a resolution, per ALPA Policy (Section 40.3.J of ALPA's Administrative Manual) requiring that the existing 5% holdback from the first tranche payment of the $400 million combined retro/lump sum amount be maintained pending the resolution of the Duffer case. In passing this resolution, the Executive Council noted in part that the Company, as a co-defendant, in accordance with LOA 24, was insisting that ALPA maintain this holdback until the Duffer litigation was resolved.

Yes, ALPA was named as a defendant in the suit. The list I posted is copied directly from the Plaintiffs lawyers web notice.

If you actually read the original complaint and responses you will read that ALPA executive committee had reviewed the CAL ALPA accounting procedure and approved it. It was done the same way it had always been, if you are not on preoperty for a period, you don't get paid for that time, unless on paid sick leave.

The fact that the law firm is run by an L-UAL pilot explains a lot. He will likely get to keep a large portion of the "settlement".

Keep in mind, that no court judged the process illegal under USERRA- it never got to court. So any determination that the accounting was illegal is bogus.

This settlement amounts to hush money to the L-UAL pilot and his law firm, that lets United, and ALPA off the hook, at the expense of L-CAL line pilots, who had no say in the accounting practices of Continental.

If, big IF, the process was illegal, UNITED CONTINENTAL should be on the hook for a lot of money for past pay practices. UAL won't pay a dime, except for B fund (Which is entirely different matter)

It's his dad. I've flown with both.

Well, I wouldn't agree with the "bogus" statement.

It didn't get to court because it was settled, the fact that it wasn't litigated doesn't make anything bogus or non-bogus.

Legacy UAL certainly had a different mind-set on the B fund. Come to think of it, AA got hit with a nearly identical suit. Maybe the big corporations that had these types of plans all learned their lesson along the way and decided to get into compliance. I haven't seen any corporation "win" by cheating the military reservists. They either get their plans into compliance or settle it in some sort of agreement.

The CAL MEC was universally regarded as the "Milk & Cookies" wing of ALPA. Very non confrontational and fairly cooperative with CAL management. CAL Management decided to interpret their B fund policies and procedures a certain way, in favor of the company, and therefore not in favor of the military member/ALPA member in good standing. The CAL MEC made a strategic decision to agree with CAL Management.

It may have been settled because it was likely apparent that all former CAL MEC reps (contract '02 to merger), R&I reps, and attorneys would likely be forced to testify and/or give depositions. Those relationships as well as the company/union communications on all that stuff would be discoverable. It was more than likely going to be ugly. Better to settle.

It is my hope that from now on, the union represents and defends the contract for all pilots (reservists and non reservists), and that while doing so, is not overly cooperative and collaborative with management. When the union needs to represent the pilots, it can and should do so, and that sometimes means being adversarial instead of friendly with management.

Abbot, et al, used union relationships to get his agenda accomplished at CAL, this B fund computation stuff was part of that agenda (my opinion). I think Larry Kellner and Jacques Lapointe on the company side would be most familiar with what they were doing and why. They would likely be called to testify as well.

Lots of innuendo, and broad brush characterizations about the nature of the CAL MEC relationship to management, ignore the issue that it is a settlement agreeed to NOT by the CAL MEC and the blessings of the CAL pilots, but in their stead, by a group looking to protect ALPA and the company at the expense of the CAL pilots.

There probably were some individual cases of harsh treatment of reservists at CAL in the past. Again, that had nothing to do with this suit.

I guess you think that invoking the name of Abbott gives extra validation to your innuendo that this was the result of the Continental Pilots' character, it does not. But hey, you forgot Frank Lorenzo, and while you're at it why not mention Carl Icahn?!

You can imply that this was a contract compliance issue, but it certainly was not. Duffer himself refused arbitration and stated he is not bound by ALPA procedures. This has nothing to do do with an MEC forcing the company to compliance with the contract.

The B fund is an entirely different case. Neither MEC's were named as defendants on that. It's of no help to confuse the two.

As an aside from the settlement (remember no ruling of what is right under the law),...

What a sweet deal for guard and reserve members! Never in history has an employer been judged to be responsible for pay or incentive for Reservist back wages while he is on deployment. Still hasn't.

So I could take a voluntary 3 month deployment to Hickham and stand alert, sit on the beach, play a little golf all winter instead of being a reserve 37 FO in EWR, and build credits for mil retirement, airline retirement, as well as the next contract signing bonus. (If my mil days weren't behind me).

Meanwhile, the pilots actually flying the line get paid the same to fly more to cover for me (since we know there is no contract requirements to staff for "possible mil leaves").

I personally believe Duffer would have lost in court, had it made it there.

However, since ALPA decided to settle with their bud at Pilot Law P.C. , we'll never know.

But as I said, no skin off ALPA's nose. They aren't paying, even though they approved the contract language--- which is why they were named in the original suit.

The law says that any benefit, or privilege of employment given to an active employee shall also be given to a military member on a qualifying military leave of absence. So, the company would have lost.

Your knowledge of the law is inaccurate. Also, the statement "never in history has an employer been judged to be responsible for incentive for reservist backwages while he is on deployment" is also inaccurate". Incentive pay, regular pay, or back wages was not the issue. I am not sure what you are speaking of.

Of particular concern to me is why did United Airlines make the strategic decision, along with the UAL MEC to actually comply with the law? Did they decide to just do it right for some nefarious reason, or did they simply read the law and decide to comply with it?

When you examine the two different approaches taken, one by UAL and one by CAL, you can easily see two different methodologies. One was wrong, and one was right.

The military reservists, who are also ALPA members were depending on the same treatment as their peer ALPA brothers and sisters were enjoying at other companies. Why would the ALPA members at CAL be discriminated upon? Weren't their dues money's good enough? No way you can justify disparative and discriminatory treatment by a CAL pilot who was a military reservist and then compare that to a UAL pilot, or a DAL pilot, or a Fed Ex pilot who all had B plans, and who were all getting treated fairly and correctly under the law. The CAL military-CAL ALPA members were not being treated the same way, under the same law, and with the same type of B plan. Shame on Continental, and yes, shame on Abbot, Kellner, and Lapointe. And, yes, shame on the CAL MEC for ignoring the law, as well as their military liaison committee, to include Duffer who was the vice chairman on it.

Incorrect. it wasn't the original suit. Original suit filed in San Diego. Duffer's was filed in Illinois. Original suit moved to Houston at the company's request, and then appeals court, and then to US Supreme Court. Date of Original suit was 2007. This has been going on for 11 years now.

My opinion only, but ALPA likely brought into it, not because they approved the contract language, but because they have a DOL/DOJ mandate to enforce the contract language on behalf of both military and non military members (all members). All union contract compliance functions to include DFR is under federal jurisdiction.

If you read all the briefs, there is adequate case law (actual rulings) as to what is right under the law. This was headed to trial. All the motions to quash, suppress, and dismiss were used and overturned and it was docketed to trial. Once docketed, the parties got to the table, and actually had an incentive to negotiate a settlement.

If adequate case law and rulings did not exist and adequate precedent not present, then the plaintiffs case would have been dismissed. The company's hired lawyers were amazing. Never before have I seen a legal team manage to stiff arm a legal proceeding for 11 years and keep something this big out of a court room. Typically companies this big get their way and out muscle the little guy. That didn't happen here. One guy against an entire company. Amazing. Interesting, original plaintiff only wanted approximately $2K to make up for lost B fund contributions. Amazing 2K turned into over 11 million. So, I disagree with your interpretative reading of the tea leaves.

He could have accepted arbitration, but only on behalf of himself, not the class. So, in one part of you state it was not a contract compliance issue. Why would the company offer him arbitration if it wasn't, at least in part a contract compliance issue? Your statement contradicts the company's profer of arbitration. Surely the company is smart enough not to offer arbitration in which it does not have a legal obligation to participate in, much less offer......

He wasn't bound by ALPA procedures because of the Supremacy Clause. US Federal Code trumps ALPA's CBL's. So, Duffer, or his lawyers were correct. Federal law as it relates to both USSERA, and DB plans will and should outweigh contractural language. Furthermore, those negotiating contracts should insure their contract language is in compliance with the Federal law at issue.

Furthermore, The R&I committee at legacy UAL must have decided to read up on USSERA and enforce the law. Odd that CAL did not. It had to be, at least in part, a contract compliance issue because the R&I committee is the committee assigned to monitor the B fund and it's contributions, to insure their accuracy, and demand proper reimbursement if a MIGS is underpaid. Odd that the R&I committee at CAL decided to do it a different way.....Odd or was it some sort of coincidence? I believe (opinion only) that relationships and friendships at CAL filtered into the CAL MEC and it made a material difference as to how and why the contract was interpreted and enforced in a particular manner.

Post merger, I am very happy as to how the new MEC enforces the CBA. I personally will never vote for a former member of the CAL MEC to any ALPA office.

You keep going back to the retirement fund issue and confuse it with the retro issue. Two different suits, and defendants.

The "company", did not offer arbitration. ALPA national claimed Duffer (and his class) were subject to ALPA administrative procedures (arbitration), with ALPA because of his naming ALPA as a defendant. Had nothing to do with contract. Maybe you'd like to point out the section of the previous CBA that was violated. You won't, because it does not exist.

Don't you get that or maybe you just insist on mixing the two issues to detract from the point that ALPA sold out some of their members to protect themselves and incidentally the company (retro pay).

The retro pay issue is certainly not 11 years old.

There used to be a saying that a pilot contract was necessary to protect pilots from each other.

Who is going to protect us from ALPA and their lawyer buddies?

So the hold back was held back why?

Was it not held back because of the B fund problem?

That is a valid question. However, I think the difference may have been in the two different MEC's policy manuals. Two different Contracts, two different set of National assigned attorneys, same Constitution and Bylaws, but different policy manuals.

The guys who really got screwed were those who took voluntary leave to avoid additional furloughs. These guys/gals got nothing. I had a junior reservist tell me, prior to the merger that he was getting out of here(going active duty by choice) before he had to sit 756 reserve in IAH or have to commute. He stated he would be back when “things settled down “. He gets “retro” for this while the pilot that also took another job and left the property for years and years doesn’t? What a crock. Not feeling particularly patriotic right now, sorry. These are the same guys that often shout the loudest about not wanting/needing a VHEBA (they have tricare) and not wanting “socialist healthcare”(they have it already) etc.

OMG. NO. NO. NO. The hold back has NOTHING to do with the B fund problem or any other past military/CAL bad blood. The hold back was about potential lawsuits over the UPA retro payment or signing bonus (whatever you want to call it) methodology. That's it. and That's all. JH Christ.

And btw, the UAL side correctly made it a "retro payment". Delta differential $$ X paid credit hours in 2010/11/12. THAT's why the UAL side has no liability for the Duffer suit.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. So, the money held back was done so "preemptively" because the company and the union felt there would eventually be blow back. Funny though... I wonder why both sides didn't just call it "retro pay." wouldn't that have been the simpler course of action?

FWIW, the holdback check is available to view in PayAdv. I think it’s dated 28 FEB.

Lee

If a 25 year UAL pilot retired late 2013, would they be entitled to the hold back pay back?

All that drama and strife over $460 American bucks......

Don't under sell it Hoss. It's really about 2000 times that for a couple of lawyers.

But hey, its the American way.

Have you forgotten what kind of public frenzy $460 tax dollars brings?

That's a lot of moola.

Paul Ryan's school secretary could retire or go into hiding with that kind of cash.

Pest