Resource Utilization
This Letter of Interpretation (“Letter”) will confirm our understandings and agreement regarding the redeployment of resources of United Continental Holdings, Inc. and the accompanying protections for Mechanics and Related Employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”) under their respective collective bargaining agreements with subsidiaries United Air Lines (“Sub-UAL”), Continental Airlines (“Sub-CAL”), and Continental Micronesia (“Sub-CMI”) (the “Subsidiaries,” and collectively with United Continental Holdings, Inc., the “Company”).
We have discussed the Company’s plans to optimize revenue flying opportunities by adjusting flight schedules and redeploying aircraft across the new United system. We have agreed, subject to the following conditions, and pursuant to the ongoing integration of operations under the Single Operating Certificate issued on November 30, 2011, that the redeployment of resources (including aircraft, facilities, and equipment) affects the maintenance practices and the allocation and utilization of technicians in the service of the new United’s fleet and operation. We also have agreed that work performed under the three respective collective bargaining agreements covering Mechanics and Related Employees be performed in the best interests of all parties to maximize the efficient utilization and deployment of resources, and subject to certain conditions and protections designed to minimize disruptions, to facilitate continued employment opportunities for Mechanics and Related Employees.
By entering into this Letter, the parties recognize that the collective bargaining agreements’ scope provisions require that each Subsidiary maintain a separate maintenance operation until the completion of the seniority integration process and the ratification of an amalgamated collective bargaining agreement. In light of the specific circumstances the parties face in this situation, whereby the IBT represents all of the maintenance and related employees under each of the three separate maintenance and related collective bargaining agreements, and in an effort to avoid disagreement between the parties and among the affected work groups during this transition period during which the Company moves forward with the merger process, the parties have reached a mutually agreeable interpretation of the scope provisions’ “separate maintenance operations” restrictions that will remain in place for the duration of this Letter.
Accordingly, with respect to the Mechanics and Related Employees represented by the IBT and covered under the Subsidiaries’ collective bargaining agreements with the IBT, we have agreed as follows:
1. The Company will not interchange employees from their respective Subsidiary collective bargaining agreements and will maintain separate maintenance operations pursuant to commitments contained in those agreements, pending final integration of the workforces, execution of an amalgamated collective bargaining agreement and integration of seniority lists. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, however, mechanics and related employees may be allocated work and utilized to perform work, as directed by the Company and according to the needs of the service, in accordance with their respective collective bargaining agreements, without regard to previously-existing Subsidiary-specific distinctions among aircraft certification, or identifications or designations of facilities and equipment. For purposes of this Letter, “interchange of employees” shall mean migration of employees from coverage under one collective bargaining agreement to coverage under another. Accordingly, the Company will not assign or direct mechanics and related employees covered under different Subsidiary collective bargaining agreements to work together in a single intermingled work group or crew (for example, a crew or work group composed of two sub-UAL technicians and two sub-CAL technicians). Moreover, except in the case of an emergency that is recognized as such by both the Company and the IBT, once an assignment (aircraft maintenance or otherwise) has been made to one mechanics and related work group or another, that work group will perform and complete the assignment to the exclusion of the other maintenance and related work groups. Subject only to the “no-interchange” proscriptions set forth herein, all of the Company’s maintenance controllers shall continue to perform their regular and customary work for the Company, and all maintenance and related employees covered under the Subsidiary agreements with the IBT will interact with and take direction from the Company’s maintenance controllers irrespective of previously-existing Subsidiary-specific distinctions among aircraft certification, or identifications or designations of facilities and equipment.
2. The allocation of work and utilization of manpower as provided under this Letter to accommodate the redeployment of Company aircraft, facilities and equipment will not result in any involuntary relocations, involuntary reduction-in-force, or reduction in the status or pay of active Mechanics and Related Employees throughout the new United system for the duration of this Letter.
3. The terms and obligations set forth in paragraph 2 of this Letter shall not apply under the following: an ongoing labor dispute; grounding or repossession of a substantial number of the Company's aircraft by a government agency or a court order; loss or destruction of the Company's aircraft; involuntary reduction in flying operations due either to governmental action(s)/requirement(s) or to a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical materials for the Company's operation; revocation of the Company's operating certificate(s); war emergency; a terrorist act; or a substantial delay in the delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery — provided that the exception(s) (as defined above) relied upon by the Company to avoid the terms and obligations set forth in paragraph 2 of this Letter has (have) a material and substantial impact on the Company.
4. Any and all disputes involving the interpretation or implementation of this Letter will be resolved on an expedited basis. In all such disputes, the IBT and the Company shall each designate an equal number of representatives to sit as a dispute resolution committee; that committee will be charged with the responsibility to promptly investigate and to attempt to resolve the dispute in a mutually acceptable fashion within five working days from the date the dispute arises. Any disputes that remain unresolved will then, at the option of either party, be submitted to expedited arbitration in accordance with the parties’ expedited arbitration procedures under the scope provisions of the collective bargaining agreements.
5. This Letter will remain in effect until December 31, 2012, and will continue in effect thereafter subject to such amendments and modifications as may be agreed to in conference at the request of either party. Either party may serve notice of its desire for such conference upon the other party no earlier than October 31, 2012.
6. Neither this Letter nor any of its terms shall constitute a substantive modification or waiver of any of the scope provisions contained in the current and future collective bargaining agreements covering the mechanics and related employees, including the separate maintenance operations provisions contained therein, nor shall it constitute or be treated as a permanent or precedent-setting interpretation of any of those scope provisions. Except with respect to disputes arising under paragraph 4 of this Letter while it is in effect, this Letter and its terms shall not be entered into any arbitration or courtroom or agency proceeding (including RLA Section 6 mediation) for any purpose.
Please indicate your concurrence by signing one copy of this letter in the place indicated below, and returning it to the undersigned.
Download Resource Utilization Agreement_Dated
Resource Utilization Q&A
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.
Download Resource Utilization Merger Update Q&A 032712
Resource Utilization OJT MOU 10-26-12