Member Log In

User name:


Register For Access

Password Reset

ATSG Single Carrier Information - ABX/ATI

The purpose of this page is to inform the ATI pilots of the Teamsters Local 1224 single carrier filing, to clarify the reasons for the ABX pilot strike, and to provide information for ABX/ATI contract comparison purposes.

Annual Pay Comparisons
Updated: April 2017Annual Pay Comparisons
Misc. News & Information
April 25, 2017Chairman's Update
Single Carrier Filing
October 26, 2016ABX Pilots' Single Carrier Filing with the National Mediation Board - NMB Form
Single Carrier Filing - Brief Position Statement
Single Carrier Filing - Attachments Filed
February 10, 2017ABX Pilots' Single Carrier Supplemental Filing
March 7, 2017Company's Response to Union's Supplemental Filing
March 21, 2017ABX Pilots' Reply to Company's Response
Attachment EE
Attachment FF
 Attachment GG
 Attachment HH
 Attachment II
ABX Pilot Strike Background
March 23, 2017Executive Council Chairman Rick Ziebarth Letter to ATSG Board of Directors & Executive Officers - This letter provides the sequence of events leading up to the ABX pilot strike in November 2016.
February 17, 2017D6 Day - Union/Company - Litigation Settlement Agreement
November 22, 2016ABX Pilots Call Strike Against ABX Air
Summary of the Law Allowing Pilots to Strike
Under the Railway Labor Act, ABX is prohibited from altering contractual rates of pay, rules and working conditions and established past practices while it remains subject to the jurisdiction of the NMB and continues to negotiate with the Union over the amendment of the pilots' collective bargaining agreement. This requirement by ABX is known as the duty to maintain the status quo.

When a RLA carrier violates its duty to maintain the status quo, the affected employees, through their union, have the lawful right to compel the carrier to restore the status quo. The union can, for example, file a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction requiring the carrier to restore the status quo.

The union can also strike the carrier to compel it to restore the status quo. Such a strike is a called a “status quo strike” and, as its name suggests, is for the sole purpose of forcing the carrier to restore the status quo. A union can lawfully engage in such a “status quo strike” even if the collective bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause. Once the carrier “cures” its status quo violation and “restores the status quo,” then the union must stop the strike.

When a carrier unilaterally makes a substantive change to wages or terms and conditions of employment that is contrary to an existing contract, the dispute is characterized as a “major dispute” over which a union may lawfully engage in a status quo strike.

To be sure, not every contract violation by a carrier equates to a status quo violation that allows a union to engage in a status quo strike. If a federal court decides that a carrier’s actions that gave rise to the underlying dispute is a “minor dispute,” then that dispute must be resolved through binding arbitration and does not allow for the union to engage in a status quo strike. Minor disputes relate either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision of a collective bargaining agreement. Actions taken by a carrier for which it can in good faith claim are “arguably justified” by the terms of its collective bargaining agreement, therefore, are considered minor disputes. If, however, a federal court decides that the carrier’s attempted justifications for its actions are frivolous or obviously insubstantial, the dispute is a major dispute over which the union may engage in a status quo strike.