Net Jets

[El Chupacabra]

Please don't feed the Trolls.

Looks like they want to see if there be any discontent with the MEC.

"Tell your MEC to show you the money."


BRRRRAAAHAHHAHHA AHHA HAH HAHA...

You just made IBC Root Beer come out of my nose.

 

[squonk]

The beauty is the class actions may not be over! More money and the holidays are looming!

 

[CE750Driver]

Between personal grievances and what the union has gotten me, I have gotten over $7000 this year, because the company cant follow the current contract. The excel out of the short field and many more to come. Hehehehehehehe. Thats more than the pay raise they offered in that POS TA.

 

[Lord Wakefield]

Thats more than the pay raise they offered in that POS TA.

And we still have SCOPE...

 

[FL450]

we all know what that was really about-
nothing more than the old mec would have done.

Ya might want to reconsider that one-ye of little knowledge. Grievances on 3.13 were nothing new. In fact, they've been filed since this CBA was voted in. However, not until this summer was it ever fought hard up to the SBA level and a new standard set. This led the way to the 3.13 Class Action grievance, which, by the way, deadlocked at SBA and was actually settled prior to Arbitration. The company was eager to settle.

Over 5 million dollars. That's more money than the whole grievance process has produced since EJA was first unionized. That's a Fac, Friend!

 

[FL450]

This is a grievance filed by the union because the rules changed but the contract had not. The company was following the rules and had not gotten a LOA.

In the meantime....

The MEC refuses to hire a reputable auditing firm.
So the pilots sit in abeyance-
what is the MEC excuse this week? Starting to look like Dave Letterman's TOP TEN REASONS....

I figure after they play out- we want Woodbridge and Omaha-
next someone will get the flu-

No, not quite. This is a grievance filed because the contract states that all flying will be done by pilots on the NJA seniority list. Same contract-nothing changed. Problem is, we don't have any Cessna pilots on our seniority list. SBA awarded that payoff. SBA is 2 Union members and 2 company members. They even voted against themselves. Better than a 55K payout. That's how blatant the violation is!

That was recently followed by 21 more Class Action grievances over similar situations. I suspect they will have similar results. You see, contract violations are becoming expensive. They violate, they pay. Pretty simple concept.

As for abeyance, we're meeting more now with the company than we ever did with the mediator. How do you figure that, Frac Muncher?

 

[dsptchrnja]

That was recently followed by 21 more Class Action grievances over similar situations. I suspect they will have similar results. You see, contract violations are becoming expensive. They violate, they pay. Pretty simple concept.

Why would you think that they will have similiar results? From the grievances filed in the last half of the year (I am not aware of grievances much past this) about 90% of all of them were found baseless and thrown out.

SBA is 2 Union members and 2 company members. They even voted against themselves. Better than a 55K payout. That's how blatant the violation is!

The SBA is a just system. The 2 company members aren't exactly voting against themselves or the company, they are there to enforce existing contractual disputes fairly. Awarding the grievance to the "Plantiff" does nothing to suggest how blatent the fault was, it only suggest the "defendant" did not follow the contract. Blatent implies intent.

 

[FL450]

Why would you think that they will have similiar results? From the grievances filed in the last half of the year (I am not aware of grievances much past this) about 90% of all of them were found baseless and thrown out.

They will have similar results because the violations are of the same nature. No NJA seniority listed pilot was on any of those flights. If the company denies these grievances, they will be sent to SBA. How can SBA rightly set precedent for one grievance and not give a similar decision for a similar violation? That would surely be a fishy one, would it not? Also, with such an SBA precedent previously set, it would help influence the arbitrator's decision.

Apparently you are not familiar with the grievance process, other than what you hear. Grievances are not thrown out, they are resolved. Could be in favor of the grievant, could be in favor of the company. Your 90% baseless figure is complete bunk. Sounds nice, but you are wrong. Ask MO or DB how many of those 2,000+ grievances are baseless. Ask them how many of the 27,000 3.13 violations audited were baseless. Why would the company pay 5m for baseless grievances?

Also, ask them how many of those grievances were Section 1 violations, which, by the way, are now heading for arbitration.



The SBA is a just system. The 2 company members aren't exactly voting against themselves or the company, they are there to enforce existing contractual disputes fairly. Awarding the grievance to the "Plantiff" does nothing to suggest how blatent the fault was, it only suggest the "defendant" did not follow the contract. Blatent implies intent.

If you were to read the SBA notes, you would read that it was a willing violation on the part of the company. It was a decision they knowingly made-contrary to the contract. It was, in fact, deliberate. How do you figure it wasn't blatant? How do you figure it wasn't a vote against the company when the decision cost the company 55k+ ?

You can say whatever you want about dispatch. I won't go there because I only deal with the receiving end. For the most part I am amazed at how much you folks do with how little support you seem to receive. I have no problems with your department. But you should get your facts straight about compliance first. Feel free to PM me if you have any other informational myths you need cleared up.

 

[squonk]

FL450 Posted:

That was recently followed by 21 more Class Action grievances over similar situations. I suspect they will have similar results. You see, contract violations are becoming expensive. They violate, they pay. Pretty simple concept.

Pretty simple concept that the company is now trying to come to grips with.

In the past the MO was push it and if they grieve it, well, we'll deal with it later. Some grieved, some did not. The did not block was what they were counting on.

Now that everyone is grieving as they should, the brain trust is finding out that it gets expensive...fast!

I just want to know. Is anyone being held accountable for this waste and this mindset?

 

[squonk]

dsptcherNJA said:

From the grievances filed in the last half of the year (I am not aware of grievances much past this) about 90% of all of them were found baseless and thrown out.

I would double check that statement if I were you. 90% seems just a tad high.

I can tell you I've had two settled in my favor this summer. So have most other pilots I've talked to.