Last week, the Airline Division completed negotiations on the resource utilization letter in an effort to enhance the rights and protections of its members and ensure no loss of leverage. Below is a Q&A designed to answer questions raised by the membership.
Why did the Airline Division (AD) negotiate the resource utilization letter?
After achieving its single operating certificate, the Company approached the Union and laid out the narrowbody plan for the rest of 2012. It was evident that there was going to be a substantial shift in the make-up of aircraft in each city. Under the single operating certificate, sub UAL, sub CAL and sub CMI aircraft simply became “United” aircraft. That branding was further supported with the conversion to a single reservation system.
Under each of the three stand-alone Collective Bargaining Agreements, the sub United companies have the right to schedule flights and position their aircraft where they see fit. Along with that right, they have the ability to determine where on their systems those aircraft will be maintained.
Pursuant to the “No Furlough” protections that accompany the Reduction in Force Articles of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, our maintenance technicians have the right to follow their work to whatever city on the system the work is assigned. Moreover, our maintenance technicians have the right to bump junior technicians in their station and/or the system should they become surplus by choosing not to follow the work. The exercise of those rights would potentially disrupt the lives of many of our maintenance technicians. So, when the Company approached us, we agreed to sit down and find a solution. We made every effort to accommodate each side’s interests while adhering to the scope provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreements.
What is the difference between a “No Furlough Clause” and a “Station Protection Agreement”?
“No Furlough” provisions protect your employment. While the carrier has the right to move work around the system, they must offer such work to those employees who are protected by the “No Furlough” provisions. Such protection affords all bumping rights pursuant to the Reduction in Force Articles of the CBA. “Station Protection” provisions protect your employment in the station you are working in with the effective date of such provisions.
Are the parties contractually obligated to meet and discuss such matters?
Yes. Under the Successorship and Mergers language of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, the Company was required to meet promptly with the Union to negotiate the implementation of the requirements set forth in the scope provisions.
Will the members need to vote on this letter?
No. Because the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides the language for the Company and the Union to meet and negotiate the implementation of the requirements of the scope provisions, no vote is required. Contractually it is no different than any other language in the CBA that provides for the Union and the Company to reach Agreement on contractual issues (i.e.: overtime administration, shift and day off patterns etc.).
Does the Union believe the Company is willing to spend the money in relocation expenses?
We do believe the company is willing to pay the cost of relocation. The price of keeping the equipment on their former routes rather than allowing changes to match the aircraft to the markets would be a much costlier endeavor for the Company. We do not see the Company’s plan of relocating mechanics as a bluff of any kind.
What choices did the Airline have once the SOC was reached?
There were two choices. The AD could have forced the company to involuntarily move a large portion of the membership to follow the old subsidiary aircraft or develop a plan to ensure members were not forced to relocate.
Why was the choice made to protect the members in their cities rather than incur massive relocations?
It was the best decision for the membership to avoid having large contingents of mechanics moving and bumping all across the system. Any potential upside in forcing the company to involuntarily move a potentially significant number of the members all over the system would be far outweighed by the hardship it would cause the affected members. Whether we like it or not, the sub United carriers will complete their operational merger sooner rather than later. There will be a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement. Any short-term upside attached to forcing the Company’s hand would disappear, but the hardship caused to the members affected by the execution of such tactics likely would remain for a long time to come.
How did this decision make more economic sense for the membership?
With the Station Protection Agreements, members do not bear additional or personal costs of relocating that are not covered by the Company pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreements. Furthermore, the money the company would have been forced to spend moving members across the system would have been used as an economic bargaining tool in the Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations. In other words, that sum of money would have been taken off the table before negotiations even began.
Did the Airline Division violate the scope of any of the three Agreements to do this?
No. The main purpose of the scope of any agreement is to protect the member’s employment. This letter actually enhances the scope by protecting members in their cities and avoids involuntary displacement and/or furloughs. The agreement does not alter the terms of the sub United Collective Bargaining Agreements, and is instead a short-term implementation of the requirements set forth in the scope provisions contained therein. The agreement remains in effect only through December 31, 2012 unless the parties mutually agree to extend it.
Can either party use the terms of this agreement in any future case involving the related language?
The Agreement states that neither party can rely on the terms contained in it to support or refute any future scope dispute or grievance once the agreement expires.
Did this decision reduce leverage at the negotiating table for the JCBA?
No. Leverage for the Joint Agreement is the 8,800 active mechanics working towards a new agreement in Section 6 bargaining. A decision to force the company to move members across the system would have been detrimental to any such leverage, not to mention the morale of this membership whom we are relying on heavily as we move forward.
Were Locals involved in the process of crafting this letter?
Yes. Either at the table, in face to face caucuses, or weekly by phone, Representatives of Local Unions were updated on what was transpiring and surveyed for direction for the betterment of their respective members.
Are the workforces being interchanged as a result of this letter?
No. The workforces will be kept separate except in cases of an “emergency,” as defined in the definitions article of the agreement.
Does this letter require the company to keep my station open for the duration of its effectiveness?
Yes, except in cases of “Force Majeure” which are described in the letter, the company will keep each member in the city where they currently work for the duration of the letter.
The Airline Division will continue to provide frequent updates on the status of the merger. If you have any additional questions, please contact your Chief Stewards and/or Business Agents.
No comments:
Post a Comment