United B737 base in SFO & IAD... when?
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
|
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
Two words: emotional impact |
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
|
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1349952)
Let's see how the vacancy bid grievance progresses.
|
Prolly this one.....
To All, I would like to thank all of those that have submitted their names to be included as signatories to the Individual Grievance that I am filing. Last week, I got in contact with C11 Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary Treasury to inform them that I would like to pursue an Individual Grievance and to ask for their assistance in the filing process. This grievance is in the first step of a two step process. The Grievance was submitted to the C11 Grievance Committee Chairman last Thursday and we are working on a time to get together to iron out some of the details to strengthen the grievance. After the Grievance is finalized, it will be filed on Tuesday, February 12, and we will begin the second step in this process that we are about to embark upon. The second phase of this grievance is the primary objective of this process. After the grievance is filed on Tuesday, I/we, with the assistance of council, will approach the court and seek Injunctive Relief at the end of this week or early next week. We will ask the court to grant the Pilots of United Airlines an Injunction against the Company to stop any irreparable harm that will be caused by UAL Bid 14-02 due to the company violating Sections 6 and Sections 8 of the United Pilot Agreement signed on 18 December 2012. With this, an agreed upon process of awarding vacancy bids can occur. United Airlines Management has violated the UPA by issuing Bid 14-02 and is discriminating against the Legacy United Airlines Pilots by disproportionately issuing and awarding a larger percentage of vacancy awards to only the Legacy Continental Pilots. Over the course of this last week, I received constructive criticism on how to improve the grievance. I also heard many different opinions on the validity of this Individual Grievance and how to interpret the TPA, the Old Contract, what applies, what does not apply and how to interpret the integration of the two pilot groups. The most important point of this issue is that this complaint is based upon basic contract law and I would like to direct your attention to my position. Several parts of the TPA, JCBA, Old Contracts from both sides are being misinterpreted and used incorrectly. When the UPA was signed on 18 December 2012, the UPA became the primary and sole governing document for all pilots at United Airlines. Any and all other MOA, TPAs, Letters of Agreement, previous contracts, etc, became null and void unless the UPA specifically addresses those documents. There are 2 "Integration Clauses" in the UPA that address this. Those "Integration Clause" are Section 25, Paragraph 25-B and LOA 26 Section A paragraph A-1. The 2 "Integration Clauses" read as follows: "Section 25 - Duration 25-B Incorporation of Other Agreements This Agreement and any Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding entered into by the parties after the date hereof constitute the sole and entire agreement between the parties while they remain in effect, and shall cancel all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Air Line Pilots Association prior to the signing of this Agreement." "NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: A General A-1 This LOA contains the full understandings and complete agreement of the parties regarding the implementation of the terms of the Agreement and the conversion from two separate collective bargaining agreements and two separate flight operations to a single pilot group operating a single operation under a single Agreement." "In contract law, an integration clause, or merger clause is a term in the language of the contract that declares it to be the complete and final agreement between the parties. It is often placed at or towards the end of the contract." Integration clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I believe that there is a group on the MEC that are not correctly interpreting the the UPA, TPA etc, in order to justify a process that they want to use as a means to an end. But, that interpretation is flawed as it violates the UPA and the violation of the UPA is going to irreparably harm many United Airlines Pilots. The following (also attached above) is not my opinion but the opinion of one whom is experienced in contract law: OPINION re: LEC 11 Grievance Here is my quick and dirty explanation of contract law as it applies to the LEC-11 grievance against the Company’s unlaterial imposition of the system vacancy bid. To be honest, this is no more than law school contracts 101. The JCBA, notwithstanding the RLA, is a just a contract. While the provisions can be complicated, the requirement of the parties to abide by it is simple and is not mitigated by the RLA. I. The JCBA The JCBA is the controlling agreement of this grievance. It is the joint collective bargaining agreement between ALPA and the Company – meaning, the primary purpose of the JCBA was to join the interests of both Continental and United Airline Pilots as one pilot group under ALPA. There is no greater intent of the JCBA than that. As such, because all other agreements prior to the ratification of the JCBA did not join together the interests of both CAL and UAL pilots, there is no other agreement that binds the parties beyond the JCBA (see below, Section 25(B)). A. Sections within the body of the JCBA 1. Section 6A: Section 6A provides that seniority governs bid awards for system vacancies. Section 6A is not included among the provisions that are subject to implementation in accordance with LOA 26, and therefore, it became binding on the parties upon the effective date of the JCBA. 2. Section 8: Section 8 obligates the parties to a protocol of staffing of vacancies, which are subject to LOA 26. 3. Section 25B: This is a very basic integration clause that unambiguously states that prior extrinsic agreements are no longer binding on the parties of the JCBA, and that the JCBA is the sole controlling document. This Agreement and any Letters of Agreement and Memoranda of Understanding entered into by the parties after the date hereof constitute the sole and entire agreement between the parties while they remain in effect, and shall cancel all Agreements, Supplemental Agreements, Amendments, Letters of Understanding and similar related documents executed between the Company and the Air Line Pilots Association prior to the signing of this Agreement. B. LOA 26: This is a very interesting, albeit poorly written, letter of agreement that provides the protocol of implementation of several sections of the JCBA over the next few months. Specifically, Section 8 is included among the provisions delineated by LOA 26 as requiring expressed steps of implementation after the ratification the JCBA. 1. WHEREAS clauses: The “whereas” clauses of any document is an introduction or preamble to a contract, and not a part of the contract’s operative provisions. “Whereas” means literally “given the fact that,” and seems to be the way so many lawyers think it is best to begin a contract, but it cannot create an obligation. Using “Whereas Clauses” to make a false suggestion or intended perception of a legal right or interest, where that right or interest is not given anywhere else simply doesn’t work because “Whereas” clauses are never held to be binding. In the case of the LEC-11 Grievance, the whereas clause of that states that “WHEREAS, certain aspects of flight the operations will need to be kept separate prior to the merger of the seniority lists,” cannot bind the Company, or the pilots, to a certain system of vacancy bidding. 2. Integration: Here, again, Section A, the first binding clause of LOA 26, unambiguously precludes the argument that any prior agreement applies to the implementation process outlined in LOA 26 This LOA contains the full understandings and complete agreement of the parties regarding the implementation of the terms of the Agreement and the conversion from two separate collective bargaining agreement and two separate flight operations to a single pilot group operating a single operation under [this] single [JCBA]. 3. Implementation: In Section D, LOA 26 provides that: a. Provisions not specified by LOA 26, unless otherwise the Joint Implementation Team (“JIT”) formally provides otherwise (according to the protocol outlined earlier in LOA 26), are fully binding upon the effective date of the JCBA. Section 6 (vacancy bids are awarded according to seniority (without consideration for pilot group)), therefore, is not subject to the implementation plan set forth in LOA 26 and is fully binding upon the Company. b. “Until a provision is implemented, pilots will continue operating under the provisions of their previous CBAs, or as may otherwise be agreed by the Company and the Association.“ What is important here is what this clause does not say. First, this clause does not obligate the Company to fill vacancies according to either the L-UAL pilots’ or the C-UAL pilots’ previous CBAs. And it certainly does not obligate one pilot group to the other pilot group’s previous CBA, or relegate either pilot group’s rights and entitlements to those of the other pilot group’s CBA. It states only that the pilots, themselves, are obligated to their own previous CBA’s – not the Company, and not the other pilot group. To interpret this statement any other way would contract every other contractual provision related to the intent of the JCBA, Section 6 of the JCBA, the intent of LOA 26, Section A of LOA 26, and the following chart. c. Chart of provisions covered by LOA 26 and each provisions expected implementation, #102 102 [Section 8] Vacancies and Staffing Implementation to be developed by the Joint Implementation Team (JIT) At SLI the JIT will develop a process to provide for combined bidding of vacancies The most important point here is that it is the JIT who is charged with implementation of Section 8 as it relates to vacancy bidding. ALL implementation is to be developed by the JIT and, then, at SLI, the JIT will develop the final process for the combined bidding of vacancies. There is nothing in this chart that provides for any other method of vacancy bidding or implementation. II. The TPA There is no provision of the TPA that applies to the LEC-11 grievance. A. Section 25B contains very typical, specific integration language. The parties could have chosen either not to include an Integration clause, or include provisions of the TPA as exceptions to the Integration Clause. They didn’t. It is a blanket Integration clause that precludes the success of an argument by any party to the JCBA that any agreement extrinsic to the TPA is binding. B. LOA 25: There is language of the TPA that is specifically incorporated into LOA 25, as it relates to new hires are furloughees. While it is true that language from another source can be referenced and incorporated into a specific provision, such reference is not incorporated into any other provision (i.e., LOA 26, Section 6, Section 8) unless it appears in those provisions. Further, what the language of LOA 25 does show is that when the parties intended to incorporate the language of the TPA into the JCBA, they were fully cognizant of how to do it. The mere fact that they did not choose to incorporate any language of the TPA into LOA 26, Section 6 or Section 8 corroborates your argument that there was no intent of the parties that the parties intended the TPA to play any role in the vacancy bidding process. C. LOA 26, which sets for the specific obligations of the parties related to implementation of Section 8 has it owns integration clause that, again, precludes the success of any argument that the TPA has any application at all to this grievance. Respectfully Submitted, XXXXXXXXXXX |
English translation of the above grievance:
Hi your Honor: Despite the fact that everything was agreed upon by both MEC's, I would like to file a grievance. I know it is legal, but I disagree. You see if little Johnny down the street gets a shiny new bicycle, I should also get a new bicycle, the same day. I tried to explain this to my Daddy, but he smacked me upside the head and told me to grow up. I told my Mommy, and she told me to ask Daddy. Since both seem to be unreasonable people, I hired my uncle Tommy the lawyer to seek justice. This is all because I believe, in 6 months, little Johnny will also receive a new car when he turns 16. This is not fair. I am pretty sure my Daddy is not going to also buy me a new car, so I want justice. Even though none of this has actually happened yet, I want justice, now, because I believe it will. Can you please give me what I deserve. Now. This is not fair. Little Johnny gets everything. Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! Get over it. Get on in life. Or just get a life. |
The best thing that can happen for both lUAL and lCAL pilots is for the SLI to be completed, no matter what the outcome. Both groups get to move forward in their careers, and their lives. Starting lawsuits and grievances now, is just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Life is not fair. I have friends that were born rich. Did I file a grievance with the mayor, the governor, the president, or Buddha because I should have been born the same? Of course not. I played the hand I was dealt. Anything else is complete, childish BS. |
Originally Posted by Snarge
(Post 1349934)
Anyone have an ex-wife who is sleeping with a guy who knows the janitor who saw on the desk of the Director of Manpower planning when United will if/when open a Guppy base in SFO and/or IAD?
The L-UAL B756 replacements start arriving in August. The B737 bids for these replacements will be out in March if UCH keeps their side of the deal. Again this just one of many rumors floating around. Logistics is that UCH will out source B737 training for the L-UAL pilots to no other than, you guessed it, UCH. |
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1350083)
English translation of the above grievance:
Hi your Honor: Despite the fact that everything was agreed upon by both MEC's, I would like to file a grievance. I know it is legal, but I disagree. You see if little Johnny down the street gets a shiny new bicycle, I should also get a new bicycle, the same day. I tried to explain this to my Daddy, but he smacked me upside the head and told me to grow up. I told my Mommy, and she told me to ask Daddy. Since both seem to be unreasonable people, I hired my uncle Tommy the lawyer to seek justice. This is all because I believe, in 6 months, little Johnny will also receive a new car when he turns 16. This is not fair. I am pretty sure my Daddy is not going to also buy me a new car, so I want justice. Even though none of this has actually happened yet, I want justice, now, because I believe it will. Can you please give me what I deserve. Now. This is not fair. Little Johnny gets everything. Waaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! Get over it. Get on in life. Or just get a life. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:14 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands