Scope question for you guys
06-15-2023 | 08:05 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Scope question for you guys
FDX guy, here. I got a question, if you don’t mind. A big point of contention in our recent TA is scope. Basically, at FDX, only flights that touch the Lower 48 are protected. Many of us wanted your scope language. However, our MEC insists that protections for extraterritorial flying are unenforceable under the RLA. I have been told that the IPA’s language protecting 7th freedom flying is nothing more than a promise. Is that true? What do your lawyers say? Thanks in advance.
06-15-2023 | 08:43 AM
#2
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: Bus driver
FDX guy, here. I got a question, if you don’t mind. A big point of contention in our recent TA is scope. Basically, at FDX, only flights that touch the Lower 48 are protected. Many of us wanted your scope language. However, our MEC insists that protections for extraterritorial flying are unenforceable under the RLA. I have been told that the IPA’s language protecting 7th freedom flying is nothing more than a promise. Is that true? What do your lawyers say? Thanks in advance.
06-15-2023 | 08:53 AM
#3
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 37
FDX guy, here. I got a question, if you don’t mind. A big point of contention in our recent TA is scope. Basically, at FDX, only flights that touch the Lower 48 are protected. Many of us wanted your scope language. However, our MEC insists that protections for extraterritorial flying are unenforceable under the RLA. I have been told that the IPA’s language protecting 7th freedom flying is nothing more than a promise. Is that true? What do your lawyers say? Thanks in advance.
This is not meant to be a shot at you, but it’s beyond laughable UPS would do anything that isn’t contractually enforceable. Anyone making such a claim knows zero about UPS and our contract.
06-15-2023 | 08:57 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Sorry for the dumb follow-up question: So, since UPS agreed to that language, it is enforceable; regardless of what the RLA says? I have been told that language is merely an unenforceable “promise” and UPS can basically outsource it with impunity. Thanks, again.
06-15-2023 | 09:00 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: Bus driver
they attempted that in 2015 and lost the ensuing arbitration
06-15-2023 | 10:02 AM
#7
Doing One Pilot's Job
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,891
Likes: 130
Article 1.C.7:Resolution of Disputes Concerning International Operations
If any dispute arises as to the interpretation or application of Article 1 to international operations as defined in paragraph 4 above, the dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with Article 7 and Article 1.F. of this Agreement. The Company, its affiliates, the Association, and their successors agree, that in connection with any dispute before an arbitrator or in court, not to raise as a defense the non-applicability of the Railway Labor Act to international operations as defined in C. above or flights which originate or terminate in the United States. It is also agreed that the provisions of this paragraph are specifically enforceable. The duty to arbitrate as well as the judicial review of any arbitration award under this paragraph shall be specifically enforceable in either the Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky or the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky. For these purposes the parties consent to jurisdiction and venue in these courts. The parties further agree that the choice of law in any such proceeding under this paragraph will be Sections 153 and 184 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq. If the Jefferson Circuit Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction, either party may file suit under this paragraph in any state court which has jurisdiction over the parties.
If any dispute arises as to the interpretation or application of Article 1 to international operations as defined in paragraph 4 above, the dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with Article 7 and Article 1.F. of this Agreement. The Company, its affiliates, the Association, and their successors agree, that in connection with any dispute before an arbitrator or in court, not to raise as a defense the non-applicability of the Railway Labor Act to international operations as defined in C. above or flights which originate or terminate in the United States. It is also agreed that the provisions of this paragraph are specifically enforceable. The duty to arbitrate as well as the judicial review of any arbitration award under this paragraph shall be specifically enforceable in either the Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky or the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky. For these purposes the parties consent to jurisdiction and venue in these courts. The parties further agree that the choice of law in any such proceeding under this paragraph will be Sections 153 and 184 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq. If the Jefferson Circuit Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction, either party may file suit under this paragraph in any state court which has jurisdiction over the parties.
06-15-2023 | 03:52 PM
#8
Line Holder
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 2
From: DC-8 756/767
FDX guy, here. I got a question, if you don’t mind. A big point of contention in our recent TA is scope. Basically, at FDX, only flights that touch the Lower 48 are protected. Many of us wanted your scope language. However, our MEC insists that protections for extraterritorial flying are unenforceable under the RLA. I have been told that the IPA’s language protecting 7th freedom flying is nothing more than a promise. Is that true? What do your lawyers say? Thanks in advance.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
