The Bankruptcy Judge can modify the Company’s “Ask” — which is the final proposal the Company made to the Union back in March before the hearings on its Section 1113 motion to reject our contract began – to make it fairer to the union.
This is not accurate. The judge has one decision to make – whether to grant or deny AA’s motion to reject our contract. If the judge determines we unreasonably rejected the Company proposal for concessions, our contract will be rejected and the Company will be permitted to impose the terms of it’s “Ask”. Those terms are set out of the TWU website and the Court has no authority to order AA to make them better or otherwise write a contract for the parties. In fact, the Judge directly stated this in court.
After Abrogation the terms and conditions imposed by the Company will be our contract
Company imposed terms and conditions which we never agreed to are not a contract. A contract requires two parties to agree. The company may impose further concessions if it believes they are economically necessary. The law on this matter has rarely been challenged, but there are several disturbing decisions which hold that unless there is an actual agreement in effect the Company does not have an obligation under the RLA to honor the status quo while in negotiations.
The Company must have a consensual agreement with us before it can exit bankruptcy. Therefore, even if our agreement is abrogated, if we hold out it will have to give us a better agreement in order to reorganize.
There is no legal requirement that a Company reach a consensual agreement with a union after it has succeeded in abrogating it’s contract as a condition of exiting bankruptcy. That is the reason that the Bankruptcy Code provides for a contract rejection process when no agreement can be reached. No union has ever ended up better by having its contract abrogated.