Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
CAL MEC Position Report - Aug, 10, 2012 >

CAL MEC Position Report - Aug, 10, 2012

Notices

CAL MEC Position Report - Aug, 10, 2012

Old 08-10-2012, 01:37 PM
  #1  
(retired)
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
Default CAL MEC Position Report - Aug, 10, 2012

FROM THE CHAIRMAN
This week I spent time with our CLE-based pilots at the LC 172 local council meeting, talking about the process for the JCBA and the timeline for the next phase ahead. The feedback I received from the pilots and spouses in attendance was largely positive, mixed with a lot of questions and an eagerness for the process to come to completion.

As we stated when we announced the agreement in principle (AIP), there is still some work to be done by the Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) to resolve a few outstanding details. I want to stress, in light of UAL MEC communications this week that some of our pilots have found confusing, that yes, the substantive terms of the agreement have been reached. The work remaining involves some final details and clean-up—crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s, which inevitably still need to be addressed when an agreement is as complex and interrelated as this one. We remain confident that the JNC will complete this work as they finalize the language.

The terms of the agreement are now being converted into contractual language for the tentative agreement (TA). Some sections have already been converted to final language in an ongoing process that began with the first agreed-upon section. However, it is important to stress that while we are working diligently to complete the task, we are equally cognizant of the fact that language is critical to the quality of the final product. It is important that we work carefully to capture the intent of the agreement reached on behalf of our pilots. Our pilots are relying on us not to rush language writing for the sake of expediency. We don’t intend to abandon our plan of obtaining the right contract with proper language when we are so close to achieving our goal.

In addition to the work the JNC is doing to convert the AIP into a full language TA, there are complicated process issues that your MEC must address as well. There are significant differences between the MECs with regard to how and when information on the TA should be released to the pilot group. The complexity of these process questions is compounded by the NMB’s extension of the gag order prohibiting us from releasing specifics about the deal. I have provided our MEC members with the emails from Board member Puchala that extended and subsequently clarified the order. Since much has been rumored about the gag order, the salient parts of Board member Puchala's email are provided below:

“The NMB is continuing the Gag Order in these cases until the following conditions have been satisfied:
“1) The Agreement in Principle (AIP) has been converted to contract language resulting in a Tentative Agreement (TA) and
“2) The Tentative Agreement (TA) has been signed by the parties' authorized representatives and
“3) The Tentative Agreement (TA) has been simultaneously released to the respective governing bodies for their consideration/approval.”

This proviso was later clarified with this from the NMB:

“…the contemplated approach is that the NMB Gag Order remains in place until the governing bodies have voted on the TA and arranged for a synchronized release to the pilots.”

This is a situation where the CAL MEC has a resolution that spells out a method for information distribution, the UAL MEC has different policy on the same topic and the NMB has weighed in with its wishes as well. As these are issues of policy and MEC resolution, it is appropriate that our MEC look at the current situation, and discuss and debate the best course of action for our pilot group. For that purpose and so that the MEC is updated on the status of the JNC’s work on language writing, I have called for a special MEC meeting for Aug. 28 and 29 in ORD. Capt. Heppner has called his MEC in as well, so parts of this meeting will be held jointly with the UAL MEC.

Thanks in advance for your patience as we work through the next steps in the process towards a JCBA. It is crucial that the drafting phase of this agreement be completed in full so as to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation by either side, and I know it is frustrating to not have access to the details right now. This is especially true since there are bits and pieces of “information” that have been put on message boards purporting to be from reliable sources. I will only say that I have yet to see anything that completely and accurately depicts the AIP. We are all focused on completing the work necessary to put the real TA in front of you and are looking forward to the day when this is possible.

Have a good weekend and Fly Safe.

One Union, One Voice

Capt. Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman
Old UCAL CA is offline  
Old 08-10-2012, 02:00 PM
  #2  
APC co-founder
 
HSLD's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,827
Default

Given the gag order, how will CAL pilots deal with this resolution?

CAL Master Executive Council
Air Line Pilots Association
CAL MEC Meeting

October 06 - 14, 2010

Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa – Hollywood, FL




1010-93R

SOURCE LEC 170
Moved: FO J### ****n
Second: CA J***** ####n
Action: Passes 9/0/0

SUBJECT: Final Language of the JCBA to the Pilots of Continental Airlines

BACKGROUND

PROPOSED RESOLUTION
WHEREAS Continental pilots value the ability to give input to their elected reps, and

WHEREAS this input is a cornerstone to the foundation of the Air Line Pilots Association,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that before the MEC votes to accept or reject the JCBA, the MEC will produce the final language of the JCBA to the pilots of Continental Airlines,

THEREFORE BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED,that the pilots will have the final language of the JCBA to allow a minimum of 14 calendar days for membership review and comment.
HSLD is offline  
Old 08-10-2012, 02:05 PM
  #3  
(retired)
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
Default

No clue.

Although I would imagine federal authority and jurisdiction probably trumps resolution in either MEC's case.
Old UCAL CA is offline  
Old 08-11-2012, 05:34 PM
  #4  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 3
Default

The bigger question we all just assume to be as fact is by what authority does the NMB have to dictate to us how and when we release information to the pilots? Is this a contrived "gag order" for some purpose by our MEC's? I'm very suspicious of this whole process.
Flybye727 is offline  
Old 08-11-2012, 06:35 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Karnak's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 848
Default

A resolution will be passed that rescinds 2010-93R. The WHEREAS' will address the gag order and state that it's in the best interests of the pilots to comply with it.

The two-step process is logical. The governing body reviews the details and debates the details. If they feel it's suitable, they send it out to the highest authority - the pilots.
Karnak is offline  
Old 08-11-2012, 06:45 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 181
Default

Originally Posted by Flybye727:1243950
The bigger question we all just assume to be as fact is by what authority does the NMB have to dictate to us how and when we release information to the pilots? Is this a contrived "gag order" for some purpose by our MEC's? I'm very suspicious of this whole process.
Yup. I see an email from NMB chair, copied and pasted in the MEC update, being called a 'gag order'. I don't see a court document or other legal device that would fit the description of a gag order. Sales job...
SlickMachine is offline  
Old 08-11-2012, 07:08 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Default

Unfortunately we reached a point that this resolution has become an issue. If we ignore the wishes of the NMB and this gets put out before MEC vote we may fall on our own sword. IMO the call for details published before the MEC vote is to convey a message of a “no” vote to the MEC. Should the MEC vote not to send the TA to the pilots we might be treading water for a long time. The NMB is the one who will call the shots as to when we get back together to continue negotiations. Outright disregard to the instructions of that body can lead us to being put on ice for a lengthy time. What would be our next strategy to get the company to make a second deal?

Also if we don’t have trust in our elected LEC members to do the right thing in this capacity, why even bother having them?
El10 is online now  
Old 08-12-2012, 06:40 AM
  #8  
(retired)
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Posts: 422
Default

Originally Posted by El10 View Post
Unfortunately we reached a point that this resolution has become an issue. If we ignore the wishes of the NMB and this gets put out before MEC vote we may fall on our own sword. IMO the call for details published before the MEC vote is to convey a message of a “no” vote to the MEC. Should the MEC vote not to send the TA to the pilots we might be treading water for a long time. The NMB is the one who will call the shots as to when we get back together to continue negotiations. Outright disregard to the instructions of that body can lead us to being put on ice for a lengthy time. What would be our next strategy to get the company to make a second deal?

Also if we don’t have trust in our elected LEC members to do the right thing in this capacity, why even bother having them?
Nicely stated.
Old UCAL CA is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WatchThis!
United
254
02-10-2013 07:07 PM
alfaromeo
Major
68
06-29-2012 05:16 AM
SKLJ
United
32
05-06-2012 04:20 PM
CAL EWR
Major
0
03-29-2007 04:40 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
01-07-2006 04:24 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread