Can You believe this!!

[Aspiring to be]

Unknown
From: Kenn Ricci
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:03 PM
To: Robert Sullivan
Cc: Mike Rossi; Chris Herzberg; Joe Salata
Subject: RE: Termination Letter
Can we go over the list?
(My thoughts)
Your recent visit to Flight Options headquarters allowed for interaction with several employees and a chance for
Flight Options to assess whether you could learn to embrace the policies, culture and character of Flight
Options. In particular our principle that “Employees are the foundation of a service company”, is extremely
important and requires the ability to respect and appreciate your coworkers and superiors.
It is our judgment, that you will be unable to espouse these principles and are left with no alternative but to
terminate your employment with Flight Options, LLC.
----- Original Message-----
From: Robert Sullivan
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 6:26 PM
To: Joe Salata; Chris Herzberg; Mike Rossi; Kenn Ricci
Subject: Termination Letter
All,
Please take a look at the attached letter. I used one of the effected pilots as an example.
I know we had discussed being vague for reason initially but, I believe this may be more fitting.
We will also have to amend for Bowden who has not visited HQ.
Let me know your thoughts.
BOB
«File: sample.terrn.rta.doc»
1
FO 002288
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14

 

[GooseHZ]

WHY?

ASSpring to be...or should we say MERLIN..

what dose this prove to anyone? Its on the net so it MUST be true.

Get a life and stop doing what you can to slam options.

 

[sky4]

Can not understand!

I cannot beleve someone has sutuped so low as to post something like this! And I know the IBT is behind this! Whether or not we need representation or not the IBT is the last I would ever consider!!!!! I know this is BS and a very low blow.

Aspiring, go blow yourself!


Fly Safe too the real pilots.

 

[hawkercpt]

its bad enough

that this is on the "teamster" bitch and complain board, but why bring it here? Great way to bolster support!

 

[Grim Reaper]

I find it charming that the IBT Boys are so willing to make known the details of their pleadings well before the judge appointed to the case has had time to consider the information presented.

I suppose the IBT Boys are supremely confident that they will win this one. But, the IBT Boys were supremely confident that they would win the union vote at RTA. We all know that went south on them.

As for myself, I am very encouraged at the positive attitude displayed by the IBT Boys. This signifies that they are not in touch with reality and will once again fall prey to their own BS because every time the IBT Boys display such confidence, they tend to fail miserably.

This law suit is a long way from won or lost by either party. It foolhardy and naive to think the case over before it begins.

For those that still do not get it. The contents of all the web sites are read, printed, and filed for use. I would encourage the IBT Boys to stop hitting themselves in the head with a hammer.

 

[Aspiring to be]

Well I do find it of interest that the bottom of the post it says "Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14".

I must assume it is part of the summary judgment and it was also mention in the press release. If I was one of you FLOPS guys then I would be more concerned by my management than the IBT or some union.

 

[SheGaveMeClap]

Merlin, err, Aspiring, err, Tumlin....

I don't see many complaints about management. I hear of little problems on the road, but you show me someone who works for the perfect company, and I'll show you a lying a$$hole.

These tools involved in the lawsuit filed this over a year ago. Why do you keep bringing this up? I have yet to see any management complaints about Options. They are treating us fairly. As I said earlier, every company has it's little problems, Options is no different. But we don't create an uproar about management and start trying to call in the girls from IBT to solve them.

You are a real jerkoff for posting all this crap.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Aspiring to Be.

The infromation you posted was not part of the MOTION for summary judgement orginially posted. It is perhaps an attached document to the MOTION for Summary Judgement. It was not part of a press release. Be mindful, what you are speaking of is a MOTION for Summary Judgement. The Judge has not ruled on the aspects of the suit. Again, it is foolhardy and naive to consider the case won before it really begins. The MOTION for Summary Judgement does nothing more than mark the end of the discovery phase. At this point, it is purely a matter of opinion as to what was discovered.

The grand exhibit 14 you posted is what you were given or were told to post by your IBT buds. It is not infromation preiviously made public.

You are at best disingenuous and at worst you are lying about the source of your information and the purpose of your post. If you must make a fool of yourself, at least be an honest fool.

I see your pitiful post as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to shape the facts to suit your side of the argument. A typical political move used by ALL who would attempt to attain a desired outcome.

It is possible you are attempting a pathetic fallacy by seeking to endow this grand exhibit 14 with human traits hoping to stir public sentiment to the point that it takes on a life of its own.

This is just one more outdated union organization tactic from an outdated union play book. Resentment of the IBT runs deep because of these tactics. I would encourage you to consider the damage to do to your casue.

 

[Aspiring to be]

Hard to believe but it is a fact!!

“ 1. is an excerpt from the press release that can be seen on this board and the RTA/FO board”


1. Discovery in the litigation revealed that Flight Options targeted the
pilots for firing. An e-mail circulated among its managers in March 2002
shows them scheming to manufacture grounds for terminating the
plaintiffs and stating that they needed to change the reasons for firing
Bowden because he had not yet attended an indoctrination session at
Flight Options headquarters. Bowden was not terminated until late June
2002 and the alleged grounds for discharge did not occur until months
after the March 2002 e-mail.


2. Below is from the summary judgment that can be seen on the RTA/FO board and is public record. . Now what did you say?

2. If Mr. (edited) testimony is not enough to extinguish any dispute that Flight Options was
targeting the Plaintiffs for union activity, a March 24, 2002 e-mail from Human Resource
manager Robert Sullivan shows conclusively that the Defendant manufactured a pretext for
firing the Plaintiffs. [Exh. 14]
Plaintiffs Brunet, Jeter, and Tumlin were purportedly terminated for their demeanor and
interaction with Flight Options staff at indoctrination sessions held for RTA pilots at Flight
Options headquarters in February and March of 2002.5/ Plaintiff Bowden, unlike the other
Plaintiffs, did not attend indoctrination until June 25-27, 2002. [Exh. 2, Bowden Tr. at 154.]
Before Flight Options sent out the final version of the termination letter, Mr. Sullivan and
other managers circulated drafts.6/ In his March 24, 2002 e-mail, Mr. Sullivan wrote regarding
the termination letter that “We also have to amend for Bowden, who has not visited HQ.” [Exh.
16.] The alleged incidents that were the grounds for Mr. Bowden’s termination did not arise,
however, until months after this email and did not involve his conduct at an indoctrination
session. [Exh. 9, Ricci Tr. at 125; Exh. 17, Salata Tr. at 200.]
5 Plaintiffs Brunet, Jeter, and Tumlin, each received identical termination letters dated
March 27, 2002 at their home, which read in pertinent part:
“Your recent visit to Flight Options headquarters allowed us to observe your
interaction with several of our staff, and gave us a chance to observe whether you
could embrace the policies, culture, and character of Flight Options...After
consideration, it is our judgment that you will be unable to meet Flight Options’
expectations in these respects, and that we will terminate your employment with
Flight Options effective immediately.”
[Exh. 16.]
6 Mr. Sullivan testified that the termination letters sent to Brunet, Jeter and Tumlin were
identical. [Sullivan Tr. at 92-94].
– 24 –
Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Ricci, and the other managers at Flight Options were plainly targeting
Bowden and the other Plaintiffs for termination. Their plan was to assert that the Plaintiffs
conducted themselves inappropriately at indoctrination. The foil in Flight Options’ plan was that
Mr. Bowden did not attend indoctrination in March with the others, requiring the managers to
“amend for Bowden” and fabricate a different pretext for firing him.7/

 

[hawkercpt]

Your an..

idiot!

 

[Grim Reaper]

Aspiring to be, I must agree with hawkercrept. You are an idiot. You must be the mighity Merlin in hidding.

So, your info comes from the most honored of sources, the MERLIN board. Man are you stupid.

 

[Grim Reaper]

What the Gentleman is posting is only the IBT side of the story. He shoud be attacked for being stupid enough to assume the case is over before it begins.

 

[Majik]

Because it casts a negative light on Flight Options Management. Plus, those guys fired were trying to get a union started there. I guess it doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

 

[Aspiring to be]

Thanks Griz,

I would ask the same question, if it is true and it is, then why be mad at me. I have not cast a bad light on management. The truth has shown management out to be in the wrong. Management is responsible for this and not my friend.

The one with the clap said that those that filed the lawsuit are fools. I am not sure why he would consider them fools when it was management that broke federal law according to the RLA. Does the clap really believe that someone is a fool for fighting back when his or her rights have been violated? Makes you wonder if the clap has spread to the brain!

It is not a pro or con union thing but it is a right and wrong thing. I wonder how the clap would feel if he was terminated illegally, unjustly and immorally.

The above is a copy of inter office email from management. The email was submitted to the attorney for the plaintiffs by the law firm representing FLOPS by order of the court. The depositions and summary judgment are public record and may be purchased for $4.

FLOPS has not been proven guilty yet by a court of law. Even if the judge denies the request for summary judgment and sends it to trial in Dec., it should be apparent from the documents FLOPS has submitted that FLOPS did violate the RLA. Read the summary judgment, read the depositions then you too will arrive at the only conclusion possible and that is that FLOPS management stepped outside of the law. Ricci is gone, but others guilty in this remain in the management of FLOPS. Those that have truly suffered in this deserve justice, support and restitution.

I will end my comments about this subject but let us not cover up or deny the truth. Put the blame on the guilty and not try to make those that had their rights violated at fault. Management brought this on and not the other way around.

 

[Cliff]

It won't go to trial, they will settle out of court.. That way they won't have to admit to any wrong doing..

They are fried meat and they know it.. I see 100 million dollars coming out of this..

If they target personnel for firing for their support of a UNION or NOT it is wrong!!!

What's next?? Let's fire the guys who support the xyz football team or the abc political party???

I wish I could sit on that JURY.. This action on the company's part is a slap in the face to the American way of life...

Anyone and everyone involved should lose everything they own over this.. Set an example out of them..

Very bad press for RTA/FLOPS, an insult to every working man and woman in America..

OK flame away you anti-union anti's......

 

[marqmarq]

Just a question

...this is from a position of ignorance, is the (alleged) infraction comitted by FLOPs based soley on the fact that there is an association between the terminated pilots and union development or.... is it the fact that they were terminated without a specified cause? I'm trying to understand the legal protections accorded an (at will/non-union) employee.... Does the size of the company come into the equation? Thanx

 

[Aspiring to be]

OK, I will make one last comment. The state of Ohio is an at-will State, which really means they need no real reason to terminate you. This case was in violation of the RLA, which gives every employee the right to organize in a union. Management should remain neutral but they cannot terminate you and of course, that is exactly what they did in this case. Therefore, in this case the protection of those terminated comes from Federal law.

I have read the depositions from the management of FLOPS including that of Ricci. The management of FLOPS in their deposition leave no room for doubt as to the reason these people were terminated.

The 800xp fleet manager from RTA and he was the program manager at FLOPS until he gave his deposition. He was sent home and his position, if any, with FLOPS is not known at this time. Management at FLOPS has said they will let him know. He did testify that he was the direct supervisor for those terminated at RTA and that they were all what the he wanted in a PIC. He stated that he never had any trouble with any of them in any way. He saw their names on a black list. The two assistant chief pilots at RTA and a manager of scheduling made up or contributed to the black list. Both assistant chief pilots are now program managers at FLOPS. The Chief Pilot from RTA and now 135 Chief Pilot at FLOPS at deposition said that those terminated were team players and that he had never had any trouble out of any of those terminated.

That is the truth. What you must understand that when you give a deposition it is sworn testimony. It is fact and cannot be changed. For those that doubt and what to protect those guilty at FLOPS please read the depositions. I do not care if you are for or against having a union how can anyone blame those that only acted within their rights. Truly my last statement.

 

[sky4]

ASSPIRING and CLIF

What do you two have to do with Flight Options? ASSPIRING, you have always posted negetive things about Options, you were obviously turned down by us and thank goodnes.

CLIF, you sound like your too old to WANT fly for us so whats your beef?

I had met a couple of these guys before the merger and they attacked us about union stuff and were very strong against Flight Options, I did not want them or anyone like them flying with me.

Fly Safe

 

[varicam]

I've got no dog in this fight, but the terms bandied about above (stupid, low, morons, idiots, etc.) appear to fit the writers of same far better than their intended target. Calling Aspiring names may make the writers feel better, but it's not very effective in nullifying the the document he/she posted.

Why is Clif too old for FO? Does he sound too mature and/or educated to fit in?

 

[hawkercpt]

I referred...

to Asspiring as an idiot because of his determination to drag Flight Options through the mud in a public forum. Whether the statements from management or the terminated employees is true is for each to form their own opinion. You have to understand, there is a great wall of contention at FLOPS on both sides of the union issue.
These employees were pro union. They were also coming to Flight Options with bad attitude because their Teamster drive at RTA failed. I am not management at Flops, quite far from it. I can tell you however, having heard from some of the individuals that were terminated, it wasn't a bad move on the company's part.