Merger legistlation law

[radarlove]

Does anyone have a link to the actual legislation that was passed in December requiring Allegheny-Mohawk?

I've been following the banter on the USAir/AWA thread and I saw an argument that now Allegheny-Mohawk is the law of the land (true as far as I know) but that also ALPA seniority list integration procedures will now--due to the new law--be applied in any ALPA-non-ALPA merger.

Am I getting this right? Who has the actual law in front of them?

 

[FDJ2]

Does anyone have a link to the actual legislation that was passed in December requiring Allegheny-Mohawk?

I've been following the banter on the USAir/AWA thread and I saw an argument that now Allegheny-Mohawk is the law of the land (true as far as I know) but that also ALPA seniority list integration procedures will now--due to the new law--be applied in any ALPA-non-ALPA merger.

Am I getting this right? Who has the actual law in front of them?

Absent any contractual protections, airline employees will have A-M as a default protection of their seniority.

ALPA-ALPA merger, ALPA policy.

ALPA-non ALPA, A-M policy

A-M, has as its goal a fair and reasonable integration. Like ALPA policy it doesn't favor any particular integration methodolgy and absent a negotiated agreement A-M utilizes binding arbitration to settle disputes.

 

[STL717]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2764enr.txt.pdf

Go to page 539 in the PDF file that the link above takes you to. Look for Section 117.

 

[radarlove]

the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement
that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving
covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected
by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered
by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-
Mohawk provisions.

What does this mean?

 

[Vne]

so long as those provisions allow for the
protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-
Mohawk provisions.

What does this mean?

It means your contract can say what ever it wants BUT the A/M binding arbitration is the last arbiter in any merger regardless...The days of the "strongest stapling the weaker" are gone.......now only the arbiter can do it......officialy

 

[radarlove]

ALPA says that the law protects their internal merger language, so if UAL were to merge with AMR, then BOTH ALPA and APA merger protection language stays from their individual contracts?

This is a weird rider, I get the Allegheny-Mohak bit, I don't get what they're trying to accomplish with paragraph (2) abover.

 

[AA717driver]

ALPA says that the law protects their internal merger language, so if UAL were to merge with AMR, then BOTH ALPA and APA merger protection language stays from their individual contracts?

No. Just the opposite. ALPA and Non-ALPA would be required to go through binding arbitration.

It's a can of worms opened by people who don't know what they're doing. (But, with Congress, what else is new?) TC

 

[airlinepilot]

Not too specific??

One of our union guys said that this bill is very general in nature. Basically everyone is to be treated "fairly"........normal politician thing

 

[FL510in10min]

What would happen if we(UAL) bought Jetblue? Can we still staple them? I don't understand.

 

[StaySeated]

The new "law" is not much different than 99% of the successorship language out their today. The only real new language is "fair and equitable" and no staple jobs.

Mergers are treated just like before...ALPA with ALPA, then ALPA merger policy. ALPA with something else, then A/M.

The USairways guys are trying to stretch this into something it is not, but if you take 10 minutes and read the bill you will see that not much has changed as most if not all mergers will end up in the hands of an arbitor.

 

[FDJ2]

No. Just the opposite. ALPA and Non-ALPA would be required to go through binding arbitration.

ALPA merger policy also requires binding arbitration if there is an impasse.

This legislation would just prevent unions like the APA from stapling other pilot groups.

It's a non issue for ALPA pilot groups, but it might have an effect on other unions.

 

[radarlove]

But again, para (2) says that the A/M stuff doesn't supercede current collective bargaining language, WTF does that mean? It makes sense if it's ALPA/ALPA, but that is the only scenerio under which it does. Like the poster asked, what about ALPA/Jet Blue? Does this mean ALPA language is followed?

ALPA language is a lot more involved than A/M.

How about United buying Airtran? Two unions, both have language which wins? The one with the more expensive attornies?

 

[AA717driver]

ALPA merger policy also requires binding arbitration if there is an impasse.

This legislation would just prevent unions like the APA from stapling other pilot groups.

It's a non issue for ALPA pilot groups, but it might have an effect on other unions.

Ok, I guess what I meant was that ALPA to ALPA, National policy or contractual policy rules.

APA would have to submit to the decision of an arbitrator. Not all TWA pilots got stapled but a top down ratio or DOH would be devastating to the very group about which this legislation was created. Oh well, no one gives a $h!t anyway...

The TWA FA's got the ball rolling and ALPA slammed it home to avoid any further USAir/AWA-type issues.

Merge away.TC

 

[AA717driver]

ALPA merger policy also requires binding arbitration if there is an impasse.

This legislation would just prevent unions like the APA from stapling other pilot groups.

It's a non issue for ALPA pilot groups, but it might have an effect on other unions.

Ok, I guess what I meant was that ALPA to ALPA, National policy or contractual policy rules.

APA would have to submit to the decision of an arbitrator. Not all TWA pilots got stapled but a top down ratio or DOH would be devastating to the very group about which this legislation was created. Oh well, no one gives a $h!t anyway...

The TWA FA's got the ball rolling and ALPA slammed it home to avoid any further USAir/AWA-type issues.

Merge away.TC

 

[FDJ2]

But again, para (2) says that the A/M stuff doesn't supercede current collective bargaining language, WTF does that mean? It makes sense if it's ALPA/ALPA, but that is the only scenerio under which it does. Like the poster asked, what about ALPA/Jet Blue? Does this mean ALPA language is followed?

It says it doesn't supercede current language, in an ALPA-non ALPA, it would use A-M, since most ALPA contracts have that as a default for non ALPA mergers. In a Union-nonunion merger, the baseline protection would once again be A-M, since it provides a baseline for protection.

ALPA language is a lot more involved than A/M.

Agreed.

How about United buying Airtran? Two unions, both have language which wins? The one with the more expensive attornies?

Allegheny-Mohawk.