Splert read your contract. Under Section 8. JOB SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!! You have no clue what the truth is. Get your facts together before you call me a liar. Just goes to show your ALPA facts are probably inaccurate as well.
ARBITRATION DECISION
Earlier today the CAL MEC was informed that arbitrator Richard Bloch ruled in favor of ALPA in the expedited arbitration over scope held earlier this month. The arbitration resulted from the group grievance filed regarding management’s post-merger decision to outsource flying using the CO designator code on 70-seat jets from Continental hubs. The Association saw this as a violation of the Continental CBA and an attempt by management to leverage its position in negotiations in favor of outsourcing.
On Oct. 20, 2010, the Company informed the Association of its intent to operate CRJ-700 and EMB-170 aircraft as United Express flights with the CO designator code into and out of Company hubs starting on Jan. 4, 2011. The Association subsequently met with the Company on Oct. 26 to request the Company’s contractual basis for the proposed operation, which they provided on Nov. 3, 2010. In short, the Company cited as their justification 1) that the Transition and Process Agreement authorizes the carriers to integrate their marketing and reservations, 2) that the Continental pilots’ scope clause excludes merger partners’ flying and 3) that the United pilots’ scope clause permits the use of 70-seat aircraft.
In the arbitration hearing that took place Dec. 9, 2010, ALPA attorneys Dan Orfield and Art Luby, our Alliance Committee chairman Alfredo Suarez and outside council Mike Abram presented a vigorous case and an abundance of evidence to support our position.
In our presentation to the arbitrator, our position was that the Continental scope clause makes clear that all flying, not only by the Company, but also for the Company, is to be performed by the Continental pilots, with specific delineated exceptions that can be found under Part 3. The Agreement makes clear that use of the Company’s code is alone sufficient to qualify a flight as Company flying subject to the scope clause. It states that flying by another air carrier can be an exception to the scope obligation, but only if is “authorized by” Part 4 (Express Carriers), Part 5 (Complementary Carriers and Foreign Air Carriers) or Part 7 (a carrier participating in a Complete Transaction).
The arbitrator agreed with our position, stating in his award,
“Placing the CO designator code on the UAX jet aircraft with a certification of fifty-one or greater seats to and from CLE, EWR and IAH is a violation of Section 1 of the Continental/ALPA collective bargaining agreement. The Company is ordered to cease and desist advertising and placing the CO code on such flights.”
We are of course pleased with the arbitrator’s decision and the fact that the language and intent of the CBA that was negotiated by ALPA was affirmed. We are additionally pleased that the system for resolving such disputes worked as intended and that our strategy for handling this issue was affirmed as well. No doubt there will be complex compliance issues following the arbitrator’s decision that we will be monitoring closely. We will continue to provide any updates as needed.
Happy New Year.
One Union. One Voice.
Um..yes, I'm sure they are....
uke:
) then why do you continue to post not with reasoned logic but personal attacks? Do you have reasoned logic?
