rptrain
Probationary Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2002
- Posts
- 199
Without getting bogged down in the legal reasons for the appellate court's decision, the moral of this story is that the Pan Am CBA had insufficient protections for the work of the Pan Am pilots. The court cannot step in for ALPA's failure to protect jobs. And we're not talking about "protecting" jobs by featherbedding pay and work rules. Rather, simply maintaining the basic requirement that flying Pan Am airplanes must be the job of Pan Am pilots, unless exceptions are granted. In a word: scope. What a miserable failure. I truly feel sorry for all the Pan Am pilots. Again.
Federal appeals court rules in Pan Am pilots case
February 28, 2005
CONCORD, N. H. -- A federal appeals court in a split decision on Monday rejected the Pan Am pilots' claim of union-busting and ruled that Guilford Transportation acted legally when it transferred its airline business to nonunion Boston-Maine Airways.
The appeals court in Boston ruled in the dispute between the Air Line Pilots Association and Guilford Transportation, which shut down Pan Am in October and transferred its flights to Boston-Maine.
Also that month, U.S. District Judge Joseph DiClerico in Concord issued an injunction requiring Guilford to "restore to the status quo" the pay, rules and working conditions to uphold the contract between the union and the company until all dispute-resolution options are exhausted.
The union argued that the shutdown and use of Boston-Maine charter services for traditional Pan Am flights violated DiClerico's order. But later, U.S. Magistrate James Muirhead said Boston-Maine developed its charter business independently.
Guilford argued the injunction should be overturned because the union didn't arbitrate or mediate the dispute.
The appeals court agreed. It also said the union failed to achieve an agreement that would have prevented the company from outsourcing or "developing parallel businesses" and rejected the pilots' claim that moving the work was a subterfuge to break the union.
"Nothing in the record points to such an artifice," the appeals panel said.
It said that "whatever we may think of the (company's) actions, our jurisdiction is severely limited and the parties must live with the bargain that they struck in the collective bargaining agreement."
The lower court "did not apply the correct legal standards" and "we vacate the injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," the majority of the appeals court ruled.
Federal appeals court rules in Pan Am pilots case
February 28, 2005
CONCORD, N. H. -- A federal appeals court in a split decision on Monday rejected the Pan Am pilots' claim of union-busting and ruled that Guilford Transportation acted legally when it transferred its airline business to nonunion Boston-Maine Airways.
The appeals court in Boston ruled in the dispute between the Air Line Pilots Association and Guilford Transportation, which shut down Pan Am in October and transferred its flights to Boston-Maine.
Also that month, U.S. District Judge Joseph DiClerico in Concord issued an injunction requiring Guilford to "restore to the status quo" the pay, rules and working conditions to uphold the contract between the union and the company until all dispute-resolution options are exhausted.
The union argued that the shutdown and use of Boston-Maine charter services for traditional Pan Am flights violated DiClerico's order. But later, U.S. Magistrate James Muirhead said Boston-Maine developed its charter business independently.
Guilford argued the injunction should be overturned because the union didn't arbitrate or mediate the dispute.
The appeals court agreed. It also said the union failed to achieve an agreement that would have prevented the company from outsourcing or "developing parallel businesses" and rejected the pilots' claim that moving the work was a subterfuge to break the union.
"Nothing in the record points to such an artifice," the appeals panel said.
It said that "whatever we may think of the (company's) actions, our jurisdiction is severely limited and the parties must live with the bargain that they struck in the collective bargaining agreement."
The lower court "did not apply the correct legal standards" and "we vacate the injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," the majority of the appeals court ruled.
Last edited:
