LCAL Profit Sharing 2011 Possibility
10-02-2016, 08:28 PM
#191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Originally Posted by BMEP100
Does anyone know the eligibility rules for receiving profit sharing as it applies to separation date? If someone retires December 30th, or some other day before the end of the calendar year, is he entitled to profit sharing for that year? Does he have to be employed on the date it is paid? Short timers want to know.
https://flyingtogether.ual.com/web/content.jsp?SID=FlyingTogether_HR&path=/links/QA_profitSharing.jsp
Are retirees, laid-off, furloughed or other former employees eligible to participate in the Profit Sharing Plan?
Employees who are furloughed, laid off, or whose employment terminates as a result of involuntary separation (other than for cause), retirement, disability or death prior to 01/01/2016 are qualified to participate in the Profit Sharing Plan on a pro-rated basis, as long as they have at least one year of service. They are also eligible to participate if they leave after 12/31/2015 but before the payment date.
- Early Out program participants are only eligible for Profit Sharing if also retirement eligible.
- Employees who voluntarily terminate after 12/31/2015 but prior to the payment date are eligible for a profit sharing payment, as long as they have one year of service.
- Employees who voluntarily terminate prior to 01/01/2016 or terminate for cause prior to the payment date are not eligible for a profit sharing payment.
10-02-2016, 09:21 PM
#192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by APC225
No. The LCAL PS did not affect how much LUAL pilots or any other employee group received.
The prior grievance said that LCAL was not due the profit sharing. Therefore, the reduced payout was in error and LUAL is due monies based on no LCAL payout. If one, then the other. Granted this is based on what I remember of the MEC e-mails from this last week or so.
10-03-2016, 02:12 AM
#193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
Well, yes it did. I think that is what the grievance decided. By awarding LCAL profit sharing, it reduced pot of money for the payout of the other groups below what is should have been. If I remember, specifically, that is why we got this grievance.
The prior grievance said that LCAL was not due the profit sharing. Therefore, the reduced payout was in error and LUAL is due monies based on no LCAL payout. If one, then the other. Granted this is based on what I remember of the MEC e-mails from this last week or so.
The prior grievance said that LCAL was not due the profit sharing. Therefore, the reduced payout was in error and LUAL is due monies based on no LCAL payout. If one, then the other. Granted this is based on what I remember of the MEC e-mails from this last week or so.
10-03-2016, 03:13 AM
#194
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
Well, yes it did. I think that is what the grievance decided. By awarding LCAL profit sharing, it reduced pot of money for the payout of the other groups below what is should have been. If I remember, specifically, that is why we got this grievance.
The prior grievance said that LCAL was not due the profit sharing. Therefore, the reduced payout was in error and LUAL is due monies based on no LCAL payout. If one, then the other. Granted this is based on what I remember of the MEC e-mails from this last week or so.
The prior grievance said that LCAL was not due the profit sharing. Therefore, the reduced payout was in error and LUAL is due monies based on no LCAL payout. If one, then the other. Granted this is based on what I remember of the MEC e-mails from this last week or so.
I believe you are correct. Here is the MEC Communication regarding the grievance...it's all public information from a Google search.
The MEC Grievance Committee is pleased to announce that we have received the long awaited decision on case 2012-U-11-14R et al (3-L Profit Sharing).
In this case, three questions were asked of Neutral Richard Bloch:
1) Whether the grievance is timely under Section 17-A of the United Pilots Agreement?
2) Whether UCH violated Letter 05-02, Exhibit C, and Section 3-L-2 of the Agreement by adopting a profit sharing plan for 2011 under which both sub-UA and sub-CO employees (instead of only sub-UA employees) participated?
3. Whether the Company violated Section 3-L-1-k of the labor agreement by failing to supply information requested by ALPA?
After several years of arguments, the Neutral eloquently ruled, "The grievances are granted.”
The Association and the Company will meet to determine an appropriate remedy. The Board has retained jurisdiction over the case if Parties are unable to agree on an appropriate remedy. In March 2013, the TPA Board denied the union’s request for a cash remedy. It should be noted that in today's Board ruling Neutral Bloch distinguished this case as being "unique in several aspects" from the TPA Profit Sharing case award.
The Company has written an unusually long 11 page dissent.
10-03-2016, 03:15 AM
#195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by APC225
No. The LCAL PS did not affect how much LUAL pilots or any other employee group received. LUAL pilots received their full PS that year--because they had it in their contract. The award is above and beyond and outside what they were awarded in their contract, equivalent to what the LCAL pilots got above and beyond and outside our own contract at that time.
10-04-2016, 07:55 AM
#198
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
Originally Posted by Bestglide
It wasn't profit sharing is was compensation for the sale of the 767-200s.
It's amazing what a union can do that isn't dysfunctional or corrupt.
10-04-2016, 08:01 AM
#199
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by svergin
It's amazing what a union can do that isn't dysfunctional or corrupt.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
