The Union sends out updates regarding decided and pending grievances. The updates will also be available on the Web Log at www.ibt210mx.typepad.com. If anyone has any questions concerning the material in the updates feel free to contact the Union office anytime.
As in the past, please note, there are may more outstanding and settled grievances of a personal nature that will not be part of these updates unless the decision affects the group as a whole. There are also several more issues/potential grievances in the pipeline that are in the process of being worked out pursuant to Article 19.A.1 and will not be part of these updates unless the issue(s) are reduced to writing.
Grievances Updates
Adverse Conditions (Article 7.J)
A grievance was filed on behalf of the entire local membership (ET-AL) regarding their inability to report to work during the December snow storm. The Union was seeking pay protection, pursuant to Article 7.J.2, for all employees who were turned away by local authorities or unable to get to their work area due to the employee bus not running on Sunday, December 26, 2010. Further, the Union was also seeking pay protection, pursuant to Article 7.J.2 for all employees who were unable to report to work on Monday, December 27, 2010.
The Union has presented the case at System Board and the board had remanded the parties to conference over the issue(s). The grievance has been awarded in part. All those employees who had come forward and reported being turned away from the lot will be pay protected for Sunday night, December 26, 2010. There will be no pay protection for Monday, December 27, 2010. The Union had argued that the CAL personnel in the Ramp department were coded as facility closed and therefore Aircraft Mx. should be treated the same. The Company argued that different departments have different responsibilities and they have the right to declare one facility open while another is closed (Article 7.J).
Contracting Out Work – Scope (Article 1)
A grievance had been filed on behalf of the GSE members due to the Company utilizing an outside vendor to perform tire build up work. This is work that has been performed by unit employees in the past and was recently defined as falling under the job description of the Utility Specialist Craft in the most recently ratified Collective Bargaining Agreement. The grievance had been denied at the first two levels of the appeal process and has been presented at the System Board of Adjustment.
The Company argued that some tire build up work had been performed by outside vendors. The Union argued that all the work that had been done in house should remain our work pursuant to Article 1 of the CBA.
The parties have agreed, in writing, that only those tires which are listed below are the tires in which the company may vendor out for build up. All other tire build-up will continue to be performed by unit members in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
TBL 400 front tires
GT90 tires
Any hard tire/solid tire that may need to be pressed on/off the rim
Work Area Cross-Utilization (LOA #31)
An ET-AL grievance had been filed stating the Company had violated LOA #31 by transferring employees from one work area to another to cover known outages (including sick calls). LOA #31, paragraph two (2), is quite clear and unambiguous and reads as follows:
“The Company will not assign or reassign employees from one bid area or work area to another to cover known outages- for example, scheduled vacations, leaves of absence, training, OJI. Etc., unless and until the overtime call out process for that shift has been exhausted.”
The grievance has been presented at the System Board and has been placed on “Joint Hold.” The Union is working with local management to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pursuant to LOA # 31. The parties have reached agreement on just about all the issues and are working on one last issue pertaining to “Idle Crews” in hangars with scheduled work loads (Mods, PSV, LPV, Hvy Ck. Etc.)
We are confident we will have an agreement shortly. The issue as to when a sick call shall constitute a “known outage” will, in all likelihood, be decided at arbitration.
Field Trip Bypass (Article 12)
The Union alleged the Company violated Article 12 by calling a Field Trip out as “unplanned” when there was more than ten (10) hours advance notice prior to the scheduled departure of the trip.
The Union was asking that all employees who were bypassed due to the improper administration of the Field Trip be made whole for all hours missed. The Company failed to respond to the first level appeal and the grievance had been sent to the Director of Maintenance, pursuant to Article 19.A.4.
During a local grievance meeting with the Director of Maintenance the following was agreed to and will be reduced to a written agreement. While the CBA is silent as to when the Company will begin to make Field Trip call-outs, they have agreed to begin call-outs within one (1) hour of the Shift Manager having notice of the trip.
Job Performance – Disciplinary Action
An employee was disciplined for taking a delay on an aircraft. The employee was assigned two aircrafts. One of which, according to the Concourse Manager (CCM,) had no inbound write ups. The employee was reprimanded for not meeting the aircraft. The aircraft turned out to have inbound write-ups that were not recorded in the CCM.
The Union argued the purpose of CCM was to prevent these types of mistakes and this was a situation where the CCM did not do what it was intended to do. The written reprimand was reduced to a verbal warning and the letter has been removed from the employee’s file.
Holiday Staffing (Article 8.B)
An ET-AL grievance had been filed stating the Company violated Article 8.B by not posting the results of Holiday Staffing properly. Moreover, once the shifts and work areas had been awarded the results were posted only in the respective work areas. This created the inability for all employees to see where they were scheduled to work on the holiday unless they actually worked in the work area they were awarded.
The Union was asking the Company to make whole all employees who were adversely affected by the improper administration of the Holiday Staffing provisions. Further, the Union was asking the Company to address the recent problems to make sure they do not occur again.
The parties have agreed to a “Holiday Staffing” MOU including a sequential order of selection based on seniority as well as posting provisions. A copy of the MOU will be sent out once it is signed by the parties.
Local Updates
COLA Committee
The second System COLA Committee was held in Houston, Texas on June 14, 2011. In attendance was our economist Norman Weintraub. The parties discussed different ideas for a framework regarding a base line city in the US and how to compare the cost of living to those cities where mechanic and related are employed.
The Company has agreed to meet in Washington DC, on July 6, 2011, with the consulting firm selected by the Union. Chief Economist, Kathryn Kobe, of Joel Popkin and Company will be meeting with the Union and the Company to iron out the details for the Joint COLA Committee and agree upon the best way to move forward.
We will schedule a local COLA Committee meeting shortly after the July 6, 2011 sessions in DC.
Seniority Integration Committee
Bill Horn was elected to serve as the Chair of the Local Seniority Integration Committee. The committee has met on one occasion and discussed several concerns, questions and issues the membership has brought forward.
Bill has also been in contact with the other Chair persons from around the system in as much as the other stations have formed local committees as well. We will be scheduling a meeting in the near future to share the information Bill has gathered with the local committee and in turn with the membership.
Benefits Review Committee
The Benefits Sub-committee held its quarterly scheduled meeting with company representatives. The attendees from the company: Jeff Wall (Senior Director Labor Relations), Dixon McKinzie (Managing Director HR Tech. Ops.), Robin Curtis (Staff VP HR) and Mayu Hayashi (SR. Analyst HR). From the committee: Robert Clever, Gary Kagel, Nick Manicone (IBT Attorney), and Audrey Scates. Other participants: Tommy Esposito, Vinny Graziano, Steve Olsen and Norm Weintraub (IBT Consultant).
Committee members took the opportunity with this meeting to question the company on the issue of how the calculations are determined for the employee contribution percentage as it relates to health care costs. An item of great concern was to ensure that our members were not picking up the cost for any subsidy or reduced rate for employees not in our unit. For each example given by the committee we were assured by the company that the burden was not added to our benefit costs. The company suggested they would give us additional documents to verify their position and expect to have it in the next couple weeks.
The topic of active medical claims should they come in under or over budget how is the difference handled. Mrs. Curtis informed the committee that this amount over or under is not factored into the following years plan cost. Instead it has been the company’s position in the past to estimate the cost in favor of the employees.
Items seriously affecting the insurance industry today were discussed. The new health care reform especially requiring the employers to cover dependents to age 26 add an extremely high cost to the system. The fact that more people are laid off keeping COBRA benefits longer is another. Of course the last one really hits home. We are all not getting any younger and the claims tend to go up.
A couple of suggestions were made regarding the Benefits Resources site in My Coair. We ask that beneficiary information be included in reference to the CARP plan. Also it was requested that the company establish the social security estimate and information to the employees’ current status instead of age 65. It was agreed to look at both.
Information was asked of the company to try and calculate the benefit percentage the committee could apply to CARP. With the variables involved such as market/fund condition, individual employee statistics etc… it was not a possible request. The latest form 5500 will be sent to the committee to review the plan funding status and other pertinent information.
In closing, we asked that the company meet with the committee on July 26th to review the costing of next year’s Benefits. In addition the numerous documents required for this review were requested of the company. We as a committee will also take the opportunity at the next meeting to be introduced to the benefits and related personnel of the combined company.
——————————————————————————————————
Copies of all the aforementioned local agreements will be sent out just as soon as they are completed and signed off on.
Should anyone have any questions regarding this update or anything else for that matter please do not hesitate to contact the union office immediately.
In Solidarity,
Ralph Salzano
Business Agent – IBT Local 210
973-681-2750/51 (Office)
973-681-2752 (FAX)