UAL wins temporary injunction against pilots

[Skippy]

9:55 am this morning

ual was going back to the judge to grant a PERMANENT injunction, as if the temporary one wasnt enough.

 

[stlflyguy]

Court issues injunction against United pilot union

United wins injunction against pilot union over sick-outs blamed for summer cancelations

• <LI class=byline>Joshua Freed, AP Airlines Writer
• Tuesday November 18, 2008, 9:55 am EST

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- United Airlines said on Tuesday that a federal judge has barred its pilot union and four pilots from activities that disrupt the airline's activities.


United had accused some pilots of abusing sick time and refusing to fly extra hours. Sick-outs in particular are not allowed under the Railway Labor Act, the federal law that governs airline labor relations.
United said the judge in Chicago found that the actions of the Air Line Pilots Association had violated the act, and issued a preliminary injunction on Monday against four pilots and the union. United said it would next seek a permanent injunction.
Over the summer United blamed the pilots for the cancellation of 329 flights between July 19 and July 27. The carrier said that cost it about $8 million in lost revenue and $3.9 million in operating profit. United filed the lawsuit on July 30.
A spokesman for the United branch of ALPA did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.

"While there is always room for discussion and tough give-and-take about our business, deliberate actions that unfairly or unlawfully impact our customers and employees -- and that keep us from achieving our full potential -- will not go unchallenged," Chief Operating Officer John Tague said in an e-mail to United employees.

 

[swa737-700]

"refusing to fly extra hours"? Since when were pilots EXPECTED to fly extra? Management keeps the staffing artificially low, counting on the greed flyers. When they don' t show up, guess what is going to happen...canceled flights due to lack of crews.

 

[ATA For Now!]

Oh boy....just one more nail in the coffin. Guess I may not be going back someday.

What a f'ing joke.

Good luck everyone. Tilton is there to stay....or kill what's left of a once great company.

RV

 

[ualdriver]

"refusing to fly extra hours"? Since when were pilots EXPECTED to fly extra? Management keeps the staffing artificially low, counting on the greed flyers. When they don' t show up, guess what is going to happen...canceled flights due to lack of crews.

Yeah, one would think that. Unfortunately, the judgment says otherwise. Basically, the company came up with several years' worth of data concerning flying voluntary overtime (we call it JRM/SRM) and said, "look at these bad, bad pilots! Before we had XXX amount of pilots accepting JRM/SRM assignments, and now we only have X amount of pilots accepting it. That's a job action!"

And that's what sucks about the RLA. If the company can prove to a judge that past practices were X and now they're Y, even if such past practices were completely voluntary, that can be construed as a job action. One example of many as to why the RLA needs to be at least brought into the 21st century, if not abolished altogether.

Also, as many of you will eventually read in the memorandum opinion and order, you will see posts from "private, password protected" internet forums used as evidence AGAINST said posters AND their union. Be very careful about what you put into writing either in e-mail form or on internet forums.

 

[michael707767]

Yeah, one would think that. Unfortunately, the judgment says otherwise. Basically, the company came up with several years' worth of data concerning flying voluntary overtime (we call it JRM/SRM) and said, "look at these bad, bad pilots! Before we had XXX amount of pilots accepting JRM/SRM assignments, and now we only have X amount of pilots accepting it. That's a job action!"

The problem with an analysis like that is past practice might have been before we took all the cuts in BK and pilots were only flying 75 hours a month. Easy to pick up overtime when you are only working 12-13 days a month. Kinda hard to expect the same amount of overtime flying when lines are built flying 16-17 days a month. Momma don't like it.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Didnt the pilots shoot themselves in the foot by pushing for a sickout? I assume that is why 4 pilots were specifically named by the Court/UAL?

 

[JD2003]

Fu(K the RLA.

Airplanes don't move without pilots.

Its time we had some respect.

 

[JohnQ]

Fu(K the RLA.

Airplanes don't move without pilots.

Its time we had some respect.

That is the exact kind of attitude that got the pilots in trouble in the first place! Fly what you want (or not), fly the contract, and don't trouble yourself with what any other pilot chooses to do or not to do--UNLESS your MEC has specifically directed a legal withholding of service.

If we would all just adhere to those general guidelines, no company could ever get anywhere with their stupid complaints.

 

[On Your Six]

Gotta love this business... If 2009 is a brutal year for the economy, watch UAL change drastically (i.e., merger, major restructuring via sold off parts or liquidation). I am glad I got out when I did.

 

[D-Bo]

Didnt the pilots shoot themselves in the foot by pushing for a sickout? I assume that is why 4 pilots were specifically named by the Court/UAL?

NO ONE named and NO ONE within ALPA pushed for any sickout.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Press ReleaseSource: United Airlines
> Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against ALPA to Protect
> United Customers, Employees
> Tuesday November 18, 8:30 am ET
>
> Court Puts Halt to Union's Unlawful Job Actions That Disrupted
> Operations
>
> CHICAGO, Nov. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- A federal court granted
> United Airlines' motion for a preliminary injunction against the
> Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and four individual pilots,
> putting a halt to a deliberate, organized and unlawful campaign of
> sick leave abuse, pilot intimidation and other actions that
> resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of flights, inconvenienced
> thousands of customers and cost United millions of dollars in lost
> revenues.
> The court determined that ALPA's actions were in violation of the
> Railway Labor Act, which governs labor relations in the U.S.
> airline industry. United filed the lawsuit seeking relief from the
> court on July 30, 2008.
>
> In its ruling, the court found that the public interest mandates
> that ALPA cannot organize and support activity designed to disrupt
> United's operations and also must exert every reasonable effort to
> stop any organized disruption that occurs. With a preliminary
> injunction in place, the company will seek a permanent injunction
> to conclude the process.
>
> "This is an important ruling because it means our customers and
> employees will not be subject to ALPA's illegal actions intended to
> disrupt our operations and intimidate our employees. We will
> continue to be decisive and proactive in taking all steps necessary
> to ensure the success of our company for the benefit of all of our
> stakeholders," said Pete McDonald, executive vice president and
> chief administrative officer.
>
> McDonald said the company pursued other possible resolutions - at
> significant financial cost - before pursuing litigation, including
> increasing reserve pilot staffing and negotiating with ALPA to
> modify certain work rules in the current agreement.
>
> About United
>
> United Airlines (NASDAQ: UAUA - News) operates nearly 3,000*
> flights a day on United and United Express to more than 200 U.S.
> domestic and international destinations from its hubs in Los
> Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C. With
> key global air rights in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe and Latin
> America, United is one of the largest international carriers based
> in the United States. United also is a founding member of Star
> Alliance, which provides connections for our customers to 975
> destinations in 162 countries worldwide. United's 52,000 employees
> reside in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world.
> News releases and other information about United can be found at
> the company's Web site at http://www.united.com.
>
> *Based on United's flight schedule between October 2008 and October
> 2009.
>
> Editors Note: For a complete copy of the court's motion, visit
> http://www.ualinfo.com.
>
>
> Source: United Airlines

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and
carrying a cross.
Sinclair Lewis, 1935

 

[Sonny Crockett]

Undauntedflyer-

Do you enjoy watching your brothers and sisters get kicked again and again? You seem to have a real hard on for us at UAL?

Enjoy your retirement.....

 

[ualdriver]

The problem with an analysis like that is past practice might have been before we took all the cuts in BK and pilots were only flying 75 hours a month. Easy to pick up overtime when you are only working 12-13 days a month. Kinda hard to expect the same amount of overtime flying when lines are built flying 16-17 days a month. Momma don't like it.

Yup, I agree! United lays off many, many mechanics and then complains when pilot maintenance refusals go up. United makes us all fly 90-95 hours a month then complains when we don't "volunteer" for overtime or "volunteer" to waive what little we have left of our contract. Apparently the judge didn't see it that way.

 

[stlflyguy]

So is the ALPA slogan "Takin' it Back" or "Takin' it in the Back?"

stlflyguy

 

[BigRed1]

"UAL said the union had engaged in a campaign to encourage members to adhere strictly to contract terms and refuse voluntary assignments as a way of pressuring management to open contract talks early. The current contract expires at the end of 2009."

Read that bolded text over and over again. Tell me how that is illegal?

Since when is adhering strictly to the contract, and refusing to fly VOLUNTARY assignments illegal?

We have been working under draconian contract conditions for more than 2000 days. At some point, ya stop doing anything voluntarily, and you don't give the company any extra help. Especially when they are kicking pilots to the curb...AGAIN. There is no more good will left and it just got even worse.

Big Red 1

 

[Jetjockey]

That's exactly what crossed my mind when I read that. I think following the contract to the letter is a must at all times.

 

[WayBack]

So is the ALPA slogan "Takin' it Back" or "Takin' it in the Back?"
stlflyguy

Again, another prime example showing how useless ALPA really is.
Do as the USAir guys did and vote them off.

 

[GuppyWN]

I would suspect that paying higher wages and giving a rats behind about your employees increases extra flying.

They have been kicking you guys in the balls for years - and they want your help?

************************* that.

JMO,
Gup

p.s. How's that PBS workin' for you?

 

[veneratio]

That is so unfair it's not even funny. I agree with GuppyWN, ******************** that.

 

[Freight Dog]

Unfair? Why of course!

Bankruptcy laws are unfairly stacked against labor too. Only in America can a company go bankrupt, employees take massive paycuts and CEO's and management get massive bonuses at the same time.

If ALPA wants to change anything, it will have to resort to revolutionary measures. Yes, it means a wildcat strike. It means walking off the job, and telling the lawmakers, judges, the president of the USA, and everyone else - BITE ME! Address our issues, and we'll get back to work.

It will take drastic actions, and ALPA is unwilling to take them. Oh well... maybe they'll be able to get enough PAC money to overcome the management lobbyists.

 

[DX Rick]

It will take drastic actions, and ALPA is unwilling to take them. Oh well... maybe they'll be able to get enough PAC money to overcome the management lobbyists.

Good luck with that!
ALPA seems to be in managements hip pocket most of the time.

 

[JakeSnake]

"UAL said the union had engaged in a campaign to encourage members to adhere strictly to contract terms and refuse voluntary assignments as a way of pressuring management to open contract talks early. The current contract expires at the end of 2009."

Read that bolded text over and over again. Tell me how that is illegal?

Since when is adhering strictly to the contract, and refusing to fly VOLUNTARY assignments illegal?

We have been working under draconian contract conditions for more than 2000 days. At some point, ya stop doing anything voluntarily, and you don't give the company any extra help. Especially when they are kicking pilots to the curb...AGAIN. There is no more good will left and it just got even worse.

Big Red 1

""Wallach explained that although ALPA could not tell pilots , "here is your Flight Manual, FOM, and pilot agreement. Abide by it." Wallach thus plainly identified these instructions as code words for a work to rule or slowdown action."

The quote above is taken directly from the judges finding. She was even able to cite a previous courts finding that a "work by the book" suggestions by unions are code words and signals to engage in illegal job actions.

Unbelievable to me that a judge can cite a union encouraging some of the most regulated/controlled workers in this country to abide by written rules and contracts as evidence that the union is encouraging illegal activity!!!??? So I guess I can extrapolate that if a union were to encourage its members not to abide by contracts and regulations, then the union would be engaged in perfectly lawful and sanctioned conduct! HAHAHA.

I'd like the court to give me a code and signal interpretation book that will tell me what regulations/flight manual limits/contract provisions that I should not follow....

Here is the link to the courts decision... http://www.ualinfo.com/docs/Mem.Order.11-17-08.pdf

 

[ultrarunner]

"refusing to fly extra hours"? Since when were pilots EXPECTED to fly extra?

Since the company can fall back on the RLA's "Status Quo" provisions.

To use a VERY basic and simple example....

Say you have X number of drivers picking up X number of hrs in open-time, green-slips, whatever...and this goes on for a relatively significant period of time.

Then all of a sudden, those X number of pilots stop doing that....

Well, that's not the Status Quo. And the company can use the Status Quo provision of the RLA to enforce the "previous practice".

I know, I know...it's crazy...and this specific example at UAL underscores the need for someone to introduce legislation to flush the RLA down the toilet.

Why ALPA is not taking the lead on this I have no idea...oh wait, I can't believe I just said that...

Never mind....

 

[hockeypilot44]

Since the company can fall back on the RLA's "Status Quo" provisions.

To use a VERY basic and simple example....

Say you have X number of drivers picking up X number of hrs in open-time, green-slips, whatever...and this goes on for a relatively significant period of time.

Then all of a sudden, those X number of pilots stop doing that....

Well, that's not the Status Quo. And the company and use that provision of the RLA to enforce the "previous practice".

I know, I know...it's crazy...and this specific example at UAL underscores the need for someone to introduce legislation to flush the RLA down the toilet.

Why ALPA is not taking the lead on this I have no idea...oh wait, I can't believe I just said that...

Never mind....

Okay. I'll play devil's advocate. Let's look at Spirit. Block time was done the same way for years. All of the sudden they changed out time from door closing to when the airplane first moves on its own power. I think this is in the process of going to arbitration. I can almost guarantee you the company will win this situation also. Judges are extremely anti-labor these days. Until we conduct an illegal strike and bring credibility back to ourselves, we will continue getting raped.

 

[Kharma Police]

Just be glad McCain won't be in office in Jan.

"McCain, a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam, accused pilots at UAL Corp.'s United Airlines of carrying out "work stoppages to satisfy their personal greed" and noted a sickout by pilots at AMR Corp.'s American Airlines last year."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/14/airlines.delays.reut/index.html

 

[ultrarunner]

Okay. I'll play devil's advocate. Let's look at Spirit. Block time was done the same way for years. All of the sudden they changed out time from door closing to when the airplane first moves on its own power. I think this is in the process of going to arbitration. I can almost guarantee you the company will win this situation also. Judges are extremely anti-labor these days. Until we conduct an illegal strike and bring credibility back to ourselves, we will continue getting raped.

I hear what your saying. I will agree, the company will likely win on your example about. BUT, a "method" under which "pay" is calculated is far different from a Status Quo issue related to operating the schedule. This is there the RLA provisions come into play in my example, and the UAL case and essentially protects the company.

 

[ualdriver]

Since the company can fall back on the RLA's "Status Quo" provisions.

To use a VERY basic and simple example....

Say you have X number of drivers picking up X number of hrs in open-time, green-slips, whatever...and this goes on for a relatively significant period of time.

Then all of a sudden, those X number of pilots stop doing that....

Well, that's not the Status Quo. And the company can use the Status Quo provision of the RLA to enforce the "previous practice".

I know, I know...it's crazy...and this specific example at UAL underscores the need for someone to introduce legislation to flush the RLA down the toilet.

Why ALPA is not taking the lead on this I have no idea...oh wait, I can't believe I just said that...

Never mind....

I'm not sure why you rewrote what I just said in post 5 but........

You talk about ALPA needing to "take the lead" on dismantling the RLA. Do you think that would happen with a Bush (or a Republican) in the White House?

And I think you will see ALPA "take the lead" on making changes to the RLA, or at least trying to. There's a reason why ALPA was happy to see Obama get elected and some Republicans flushed from Congress. Having the opportunity to perhaps make some much needed changes to the RLA is one of many reasons. In fact, I think they have stated that (or written that) before.

 

[ultrarunner]

Ahh...sorry UALdriver, I should have read your post more carefully. I didn't mean to repeat it in my example.

Now, the chance of a modification to the RLA with a the Dem vs. Rep will remain to be seen. I am cautiously optimistic.

But make no mistake...unions are still going to have a rough road.

Think about it....today you've the the CEO's of the big 3 automakers begging for BILLIONS of dollars....at some point, someone is going to say..."ya know...if you release us from these "union" contracts" we'll be MUCH more competitive.

There is a reason the union guys are there too....

My money is not betting on the union over the next several years.

 

[hockeypilot44]

I hear what your saying. I will agree, the company will likely win on your example about. BUT, a "method" under which "pay" is calculated is far different from a Status Quo issue related to operating the schedule. This is there the RLA provisions come into play in my example, and the UAL case and essentially protects the company.

Status-quo is status-quo. We always lose in arbitration. Even when we win in arbitration, we lose somehow. I remember a few years ago, at Chautauqua they changed our health benefits to something less advantageous. It was against our contract. We went to arbitration and won. The companie's reaction was to raise everyone's premium and blame the premium increase on the pilots. The CEO even put out a memo that mentioned the unfortunate result of the arbitration. It is impossible for labor to win in arbitration until we get more labor-friendly judges or more labor-friendly management. You and I both know management will never change so let's hope the judge's do.