|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1426533)
June 11, 2013
Dear Continental & United Pilots, This message is about the remainder of the first tranche of Retro/Lump Sum Payments negotiated as a part of the United Pilots Agreement. As you have been advised, ALPA’s internal dispute-resolution process, which consisted of an internal review by ALPA’s Executive Council and an arbitration, has been concluded with a finding by the arbitrator that all appeals are denied. This has prompted inquiries asking when the remaining 5% holdback from the first tranche payment will be released. Although ALPA’s internal dispute-resolution process has been completed, one lawsuit and two administrative claims have been filed and are pending. Other actions have been threatened. The Executive Council must weigh the importance of releasing the funds to the pilot group versus the legal risks from lawsuits and other challenges. As of today’s message, the 5% holdback will continue. The next meeting of the Executive Council will be on July 9-11. We expect to have more to report after the Council’s review of these issues at that meeting. Recall that the second tranche is expected to be paid in its entirety upon completion of the Integrated Seniority List. Respectfully, http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/ima...ak-sig-200.gif Capt. Lee Moak Now I'm emotionally impacted. |
This is public Record/information:
Looks like the suit its from the CAL side. Brian J. Lawler, CA SBN 221488 PILOT LAW, P.C. 701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 512-2465 Facsimile: (619) 231-4984 Gene J. Stonebarger, CA SBN 209461 STONEBARGER LAW A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK DUFFER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity; THE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: '13CV0318 GPC WVG CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) VIOLATIONS OF 38 U.S.C. §4301 ET SEQ; (2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE §394; AND (3) NEGLIGENCE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Kirk Koenig Posts: 214Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:36 pm |
Originally Posted by LeeMat
(Post 1426936)
This is public Record/information:
Looks like the suit its from the CAL side. Brian J. Lawler, CA SBN 221488 PILOT LAW, P.C. 701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (866) 512-2465 Facsimile: (619) 231-4984 Gene J. Stonebarger, CA SBN 209461 STONEBARGER LAW A Professional Corporation 75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 Facsimile: (916) 235-7141 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK DUFFER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity; THE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES CHAPTER OF THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT’L, an unknown business entity, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: '13CV0318 GPC WVG CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) VIOLATIONS OF 38 U.S.C. §4301 ET SEQ; (2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE §394; AND (3) NEGLIGENCE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Kirk Koenig Posts: 214Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:36 pm Waaaah. I was in the military, and thus not working during the contact amendable period, and I didn't get a cut of the RETRO pay.....waaaah. Sled |
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1426906)
To be fair, the lual mec was successfully sued by a group over the bond payments. I feel this was the genesis of distribution hold backs going forward.
You are correct - surprised the well informed cal people didn't understand the process. Must just be the ones with their heads in the sand posting here. |
Originally Posted by Moombabeach
(Post 1426710)
Recall Lee Moak, enough is enough.
Got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and now you want to blame the Sheriff. Never steal from family! |
"Well, well. Say it ain't so! I thought it was the UAL side that was sooo litigious. Waaaah. I was in the military, and thus not working during the contact amendable period, and I didn't get a cut of the RETRO pay.....waaaah. Sled " |
Originally Posted by larryiah
(Post 1426909)
You must think the 70/30 split was a fair deal. Jay Pierce does not steal, he out negotiates over emotional grumpy old guys like you.
|
Originally Posted by LeeMat
(Post 1426957)
If only to expose the CAL MEC for what they did during negotiations as to how to split the pot, I hope these guys can actually get a ruling in their favor. It is my understanding the some went to great lengths to EXCLUDE as many pilots as possible out of the retro/bonus as to maximize payouts for others. The Military guys out on leave got hit pretty hard by the CAL MEC actions. The vote as to what method to use was split as well.
I suspect our "Delta Differential" method was not kind to anyone who did not actually work during the contract amendable period, including military guys. No workee, no payee. That's the breaks. Sled |
As I have a few folks posting here on ignore, I am not reading all the posts. Thanks for posting that info. I am probably included in that law suit de facto since I've been on mil leave for a while. From what I read in USERRA, I got exactly what I was required to get by law. I think others read it differently, hence the suit. There is history here, I know, as we (CAL mil guys) had a law suit against the company about 2 years ago for violating federal law. The lawsuit was a push as no damages were awarded, but the company also had to change many of it's practices. I don't think they'll/we'll get anything in this case. It's up to ALPA whether they hold back money for this.
BTW, many of us took mil leave when they were furloughing to try and keep guys without that option on the property. They didn't officially count against the numbers, but when you drop a 4 year tour on them, they have to staff for your absence. I was not even close to furlough, but had the option and took it. Again, I don't think this case will go any where as the distribution looked to me to be in accordance with the USERRA directives. |
Originally Posted by reCALcitrant
(Post 1427464)
As I have a few folks posting here on ignore, I am not reading all the posts. Thanks for posting that info. I am probably included in that law suit de facto since I've been on mil leave for a while. From what I read in USERRA, I got exactly what I was required to get by law. I think others read it differently, hence the suit. There is history here, I know, as we (CAL mil guys) had a law suit against the company about 2 years ago for violating federal law. The lawsuit was a push as no damages were awarded, but the company also had to change many of it's practices. I don't think they'll/we'll get anything in this case. It's up to ALPA whether they hold back money for this.
BTW, many of us took mil leave when they were furloughing to try and keep guys without that option on the property. They didn't officially count against the numbers, but when you drop a 4 year tour on them, they have to staff for your absence. I was not even close to furlough, but had the option and took it. Again, I don't think this case will go any where as the distribution looked to me to be in accordance with the USERRA directives. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:42 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands