Vinny
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2011
- Posts
- 51
From the union's announcement yesterday:
This morning the IBT filed a Motion for Contempt and Further Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, naming the following as Counterclaim-Defendants/Co-Contemnors:
FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC,
FLEXJET, LLC,
ONESKY FLIGHT, LLC,
FLIGHT OPTIONS HOLDINGS I, INC.,
And Henchmen :beer:
ROBERT SULLIVAN, an individual,
JOSEPH SALATA, an individual,
JASON WEISS, an individual,
DENNIS FLORIAN, an individual.
As a result of the Company's and these individuals, failure to comply with the Court's order, the RLA and the 2010 agreement; the IBT was compelled to seek additional legal injunctive relief to protect the best interests of ALL the pilots it represents.
The IBT's Statement of Argument filed in Court today states in part:
"As for contempt, the Carrier has refused to rescind its unlawful Voluntary Separation Program ('VSP') as ordered by the Court and further failed to bargain it in good faith. Indeed, the Union reached an agreement on the VSP but the Carrier refused to sign it, and then furloughed Flight Options pilots once again blaming the Pilots Union for its actions.
As for injunctive relief, the Carrier has not only flagrantly failed to bargain in good faith the VSP, but it has also done so with respect to successor labor contract negotiations under Section 6 of the Act. The Carrier has not made a single good faith counterproposal to the Pilots Union under Section 6 in nearly seven months of bargaining. Moreover, the Carrier threatens to violate the so-called Fence Agreement between the parties, which was imposed by compulsory interest arbitration under the CBA. For, the Carrier has announced that it will transfer Flight Options aircraft to its London, England affiliate FlairJet by the end of this year. This action is indisputably in contravention of the Fence Agreement, will make arbitration of the dispute over this action a nullity, and therefore, must be enjoined."
In the conclusion of the motion, your Union states:
"The Court should find the Carrier and its officers and agents in contempt for failing to rescind the VSP, failing to bargain the VSP in good faith, and order the Carrier to sign the VSP, recall pilots and pay all lost compensation to affected pilots. The Court should also hold that the Carrier violated Section 2, First of the Act as to the VSP as to these allegations. Further, the Court should find that the Carrier has failed to bargain in good faith under Section 6 for the past seven months, order the Carrier to bargain with the Pilots Union, and award the Pilots Union its negotiation costs and attorney fees associated with negotiations and prosecution of this motion. Lastly, the Court should enjoin the transfer of Flight Options aircraft listed on the Fence Arbitration Award Appendix A including Nextant 400XTis pending arbitration of the dispute before Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold."
__________________________________________________________
But what does it all mean, you might ask?
I did a little research and found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
"When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called 'found' or 'held in contempt'; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process... A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court."
And, as we know, going to jail might lead to this: https://youtu.be/jVDN8yR3ig0
This morning the IBT filed a Motion for Contempt and Further Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, naming the following as Counterclaim-Defendants/Co-Contemnors:
FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC,
FLEXJET, LLC,
ONESKY FLIGHT, LLC,
FLIGHT OPTIONS HOLDINGS I, INC.,
And Henchmen :beer:
ROBERT SULLIVAN, an individual,
JOSEPH SALATA, an individual,
JASON WEISS, an individual,
DENNIS FLORIAN, an individual.
As a result of the Company's and these individuals, failure to comply with the Court's order, the RLA and the 2010 agreement; the IBT was compelled to seek additional legal injunctive relief to protect the best interests of ALL the pilots it represents.
The IBT's Statement of Argument filed in Court today states in part:
"As for contempt, the Carrier has refused to rescind its unlawful Voluntary Separation Program ('VSP') as ordered by the Court and further failed to bargain it in good faith. Indeed, the Union reached an agreement on the VSP but the Carrier refused to sign it, and then furloughed Flight Options pilots once again blaming the Pilots Union for its actions.
As for injunctive relief, the Carrier has not only flagrantly failed to bargain in good faith the VSP, but it has also done so with respect to successor labor contract negotiations under Section 6 of the Act. The Carrier has not made a single good faith counterproposal to the Pilots Union under Section 6 in nearly seven months of bargaining. Moreover, the Carrier threatens to violate the so-called Fence Agreement between the parties, which was imposed by compulsory interest arbitration under the CBA. For, the Carrier has announced that it will transfer Flight Options aircraft to its London, England affiliate FlairJet by the end of this year. This action is indisputably in contravention of the Fence Agreement, will make arbitration of the dispute over this action a nullity, and therefore, must be enjoined."
In the conclusion of the motion, your Union states:
"The Court should find the Carrier and its officers and agents in contempt for failing to rescind the VSP, failing to bargain the VSP in good faith, and order the Carrier to sign the VSP, recall pilots and pay all lost compensation to affected pilots. The Court should also hold that the Carrier violated Section 2, First of the Act as to the VSP as to these allegations. Further, the Court should find that the Carrier has failed to bargain in good faith under Section 6 for the past seven months, order the Carrier to bargain with the Pilots Union, and award the Pilots Union its negotiation costs and attorney fees associated with negotiations and prosecution of this motion. Lastly, the Court should enjoin the transfer of Flight Options aircraft listed on the Fence Arbitration Award Appendix A including Nextant 400XTis pending arbitration of the dispute before Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold."
__________________________________________________________
But what does it all mean, you might ask?
I did a little research and found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
"When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called 'found' or 'held in contempt'; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process... A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court."
And, as we know, going to jail might lead to this: https://youtu.be/jVDN8yR3ig0
Last edited: