Notices

SLI June 18th

Old 06-19-2013, 07:12 AM
  #1  
SLI best wishes!
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default SLI June 18th

The first few pages:
PROCEEDINGS
MR. FREUND: Good morning. We're starting
the United pilots' rebuttal case today.
Oz will be putting on our first witness,
but preliminarily today I have just a little bit of housekeeping that I would like to do.
As the Board knows from testimony that was introduced in the United pilots' case, since the beginning of this case, the United pilots have been trying to obtain, first from the Continental pilots and later from the Company, information reflecting the actual start dates at Continental mainline of those pilots presently on the Continental seniority list who flowed up from Continental Express.
Dan Madruga testified about some of the impediments that were placed in our path to obtain that information.
And as the hearing began, what now seems like years ago, but was only in April, apparently, we still didn't have that material.
At the -- with the assistance of the Board, after several off-the-record conversations, at approximately 2 o'clock yesterday, some three years after we began looking for this information, we received it.I want to put into the record as housekeeping exhibits, so there's no
misunderstanding about the course of efforts of the Board to obtain -- to use its good offices to obtain those materials, the correspondences between the Chairman of the Board and the Company culminating in a conference call yesterday.
So we have marked as housekeeping
exhibit -- Rebuttal Exhibit H-1, H for housekeeping, the email from the Chairman of the Board to Andy Papaleo on May 24 of this year.
And as Rebuttal H-2, the letter from the Chairman of the Board that's attached to that email to Andy Papaleo requesting information.
We have also marked finally as Rebuttal H-3 Andy Papaleo's June 9 email to the respective counsel and chairs of the Merger Committee, responding to the -- that request, repeating what had been told to us for three years, that there was no such database.
And I think the record should be fleshed
out by observing that, in that email from Andy Papaleo, you suggested a conference call and that, in fact, yesterday, there was a conference call.
And for the first time, after three years of inquiry, the Company produced a database which it maintained for the purposes -- for FAA purposes reflecting the indoc dates of the very pilots whose start dates at Continental we have been requesting since 2010.I'm not going to have anything more to say about the contents of that database that was provided to us at 2 o'clock yesterday, at least, at this moment.
But I want to be clear to the Board that, since getting it yesterday, we have been analyzing it, reviewing it. And the Board will see it at some point in the course of our rebuttal case. And what we do with it is still a work in progress.
And in that regard, I'm going to be asking the Board's indulgence, I'm confident, at various times through the course of the next couple of days for early recesses in order to work with our team to analyze material that we have been trying to get for three years.
So I'm simply putting this stuff in the record for the moment so that it's there. So that the Board and the readers of the record will understand and appreciate the efforts of the Board and the efforts of the United pilots to produce all of the evidence that it believes is relevant.
And in addition, so the Board will look kindly upon my request when I make them for early recesses.
That's all I have on that point.
MR. KATZ: Well, I would like to respond. ARBITRATOR EISCHEN: Of course, Dan. Thank you, Jeff.
MR. KATZ: It is the position of the
Continental Merger Committee that as laid out in our memo to the Board on April 17 of this year, that the Continental pilots have certified the correct dates for dates of hire for all the Continental pilots, including pilots who started their employment at Continental Express and that we have correctly certified the furlough time for all of the Continental pilots on the certified list. And that the data that the United Merger Committee has sought to collect and compile is not relevant to the proper dates of hire and furlough time because we have certified the correct date.
We have nonetheless cooperated in every effort by the United Merger Committee to secure this irrelevant data.
We asked the Company years ago for the information that the United Merger Committee was seeking, and you won't be surprised to know that the Company told us they didn't have it.
They said that several times in writing, on the phone, emails. They said they didn't have these files. {Who is Martin Jackson and who does he work for!!)
So the use of the word impediment is totally inappropriate.
The Continental Merger Committee has cooperated every step of the way with the United Merger Committee's efforts to collect this, and I respectfully submit that Company has cooperated, too.
They have recently discovered a database that they didn't realize was responsive to the United Merger Committee's requests and have diligently sought out that data, electronically and
in paper,
and have furnished it.
They have made every effort they could to with the United Merger Committee's
cooperate
requests.
management representatives on the phone yesterday in the conference call was extremely cooperative and answered all of Jeff's questions, including his repeated questions about where are the data files on the furloughs resulting from the Continental Lite furloughs.
And I think that the approach of the
And he was told repeatedly by these management representatives that there were no furloughs in response to the reorganization of the staffing following the Continental Lite drawdown.
So I think it's improper to suggest by the use of a word like impediment that either the Company or the Continental Merger Committee was intentionally obstructing the efforts of the United Merger Committee to secure this data, which, as I noted, is not relevant to the proper calculation of dates of hire or furlough time for Continental pilots.
We are also analyzing the data and are in the midst of reviewing it, as I'm sure the United Merger Committee and their technical wizards are likewise doing. And I think that that effort will be ongoing by both merger committees.
I don't object to the introduction of these Exhibits H-1, H-2, H3.
I think is fairly superfluous as the Board is fully aware of the Board's own letter to Andy Papaleo. But if Jeff wants to have it as part of the record, I have no objection to him making that correspondence part of the record.
But I do think that the innuendos about any impropriety or obstructionism are totally out of line.
MR. FREUND: If I can respond briefly.
First, on the -- on Dan's observations about relevance, and his observations about the Continental pilots having correctly certified the dates of hire and correctly certified the furlough time, this is neither the time nor the room nor the vehicle for rehashing that legal argument that has been floating throughout this case from -- from its beginning.
But I would simply remind the Board that in connection with this precise question, there are two things at work.
Number one, notwithstanding certification, ALPA Merger Policy specifically provides that, to the extent there are disagreements about the correctness of certified employment data, that's a matter for the Board to resolve. I can give you the
citations contained
this very president
to that if you would like it, but it's
in policy.
And more particularly, in connection with precise issue, following a letter from the of the Association that's in evidence in this case, the Continental Merger Committee and the United Merger Committee reached an agreement consistent with the president's letter, making plain that the Board, in its consideration of this case, has the authority and power to place meaning on the words "date of hire," place meaning on the words "furlough," and place meaning on the words "length of service."
So that matter is before you to be resolved in connection with this case.
Again, I'm not going to argue the merits of that question as we sit here today.
Finally, with regard to Dan's umbrage of my use of the word "impediments," there's considerably more I could say on the subject, but won't.
ARBITRATOR EISCHEN: Let me just at this point make a couple of observations.
As this piece of the case began to unwind, I think the record will show that I indicated that the Board was less interested in history than it was in accurate data for our record so that, without prejudice to either parties' position about how the data should be construed, that we did have the most reliable evidence on disputed points so that we might make a fully informed judgment.
And for that reason, the efforts to secure the information that's being discussed here were initiated by the Board.
And I remind all that, as a unanimous Board, we requested that what we viewed as a void in the record, which may have been an impediment to us making a fully informed determination of these contested issues, was something that we would want to attempt to fill.
And that was the sole reason for us understood taking this exercise beginning in May. And I will not comment or characterize,
nor expect will this Board comment or characterize, upon your respective views about what went before. But from the point when this Board began to express an interest in augmenting the record with at least exploring to the fullest extent possible whether there existed data to augment some of the voids in the record, we have received nothing but mutual cooperation of all concerned.
And we thank you for you that.
Having said that, we articulated our request for information as we did, intentionally, that it would go to counsel rather than to us, so that you and your committees might analyze it and have a better opportunity, perhaps, to fill out your positions on those issues, and thus inform us through the traditional adversary process.
We're not gathering our own information.
But we are -- we did intervene to make a request of the Company to make an additional effort to obtain this evidence, not because we're prejudging the point, but because as we expressed to counsel, we are very uncomfortable deciding issues of such import by groping in the dark.
And we need to have the information. We can then assess it and be in a better position to make the determination on your respective positions.
With that, let's go forward.

Last edited by LeeMat; 06-19-2013 at 07:57 AM.
LeeMat is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 09:09 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Coto Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Default

Beating a dead horse worked, it came back to life in this case. It took three years, but the start dates at mainline CAL have finally been "discovered". It was apparently important enough to the panel to have them intervene on behalf of the United merger committee. I commend the United merger committe for their persistence!
Coto Pilot is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 09:26 AM
  #3  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 536
Default

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot View Post
Beating a dead horse worked, it came back to life in this case. It took three years, but the start dates at mainline CAL have finally been "discovered". It was apparently important enough to the panel to have them intervene on behalf of the United merger committee. I commend the United merger committe for their persistence!
Arbitrators said there will be no lying, cheating or stealing allowed in their hearings -
Staller is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 10:35 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
untied's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 521
Default

Wow.

The arbitrators went to the company and demanded the actual list, not the one fabricated by the CAL leadership.

This could be a game changer.
untied is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 11:48 AM
  #5  
Peace Love Understanding
 
LAX Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Default

Originally Posted by untied View Post
Wow.

The arbitrators went to the company and demanded the actual list, not the one fabricated by the CAL leadership.

This could be a game changer.
What's most telling is that the Arbitrators said they were glad to have the accurate data because they had a "hole" of information missing, meaning they didn't believe the "self-certified" list the CAL side gave them.

What was funny was the numerous objections that were overturned by the CAL side trying to stop this data from getting into the arbitrators hands.
LAX Pilot is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 11:57 AM
  #6  
SLI best wishes!
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that all these documents, all of a sudden appear after the Flight Ops leadership changed. I have always heard that Fred Abbott and JP were best (speed dialing) buds!
LeeMat is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:15 PM
  #7  
Peace Love Understanding
 
LAX Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Default

Originally Posted by LeeMat View Post
ARBITRATOR EISCHEN:
And I remind all that, as a unanimous Board, we requested that what we viewed as a void in the record, which may have been an impediment to us making a fully informed determination of these contested issues, was something that we would want to attempt to fill.
Translation.....

We, the arbitrators, didn't believe the self-certified list that CAL tried to pass off, and now we FINALLY have the accurate information to make a decision.

So apparently they ARE going to consider longevity, because why else would they want that information?

The other thing you have to wonder is...

IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE CAL CERTIFIED DATA IS ACCURATE, WHAT ELSE DO THEY NOT BELIEVE FROM THE CAL PRESENTATION?
LAX Pilot is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:20 PM
  #8  
Peace Love Understanding
 
LAX Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: Airbus
Posts: 1,040
Default

Originally Posted by LeeMat View Post
Katz:We asked the Company years ago for the information that the United Merger Committee was seeking, and you won't be surprised to know that the Company told us they didn't have it.
They said that several times in writing, on the phone, emails. They said they didn't have these files.
So then HOW DID THEY PUT THE SENIORITY LIST TOGETHER? So they SOMEHOW had everyone's start dates, but not the dates they were furloughed?

I guess they just forgot there was any furloughs at CAL in the last 20 years and decided to not only state that there were not, but also to try to stop any evidence PROVING THERE WAS!!
LAX Pilot is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:57 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: B767/757 Capt
Posts: 181
Default

Talk about a GAME CHANGER!
sonnycrockett is offline  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:38 PM
  #10  
SLI best wishes!
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B767 Capt
Posts: 399
Default

Originally Posted by LAX Pilot View Post
So then HOW DID THEY PUT THE SENIORITY LIST TOGETHER? So they SOMEHOW had everyone's start dates, but not the dates they were furloughed?

I guess they just forgot there was any furloughs at CAL in the last 20 years and decided to not only state that there were not, but also to try to stop any evidence PROVING THERE WAS!!
Serious question, under the various S-CAL flow through agreements, who is considered furloughed? The CAL pilots that were forced down to COExpress in a down turn, or the COExpress pilot whom is forced out by S-CAL pilot flowing down to express?
LeeMat is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cgull
Major
1
12-15-2012 11:01 PM
Colganguy
Regional
82
06-11-2011 08:14 PM
Browntail
Cargo
21
04-07-2006 04:05 PM
fireman0174
Major
14
03-30-2006 03:02 AM
SWAjet
Major
1
05-20-2005 05:38 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