Labor and Legal Proceedings | 11. Labor and Legal Proceedings Labor Pilots of Atlas and Southern Air, and flight dispatchers of Atlas and Polar are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “IBT”). We have a five-year four-year five-year After we completed the acquisition of Southern Air in April 2016, we informed the IBT of our intention to pursue (and we have been pursuing) a complete operational merger of Atlas and Southern Air. The Atlas and Southern Air CBAs both have a defined and streamlined process for negotiating a joint CBA (“JCBA”) when a merger occurs, as in the case with the Atlas and Southern Air merger. Pursuant to the merger provisions in both CBAs, joint negotiations for a single CBA for Atlas and Southern Air should commence promptly. Further, once an integrated seniority list (“ISL”) of Atlas and Southern Air pilots is presented to the Company by the union, it triggers a nine month agreed-upon timeframe to negotiate a new JCBA with any unresolved issues promptly submitted to binding arbitration. The IBT has refused to follow the merger provisions in the Atlas and Southern Air CBAs. This has resulted in significant litigation, arbitrations and delay. As more fully stated below, the Company has prevailed in all of the merger related proceedings. After the merger process began, the IBT also filed an application for mediation with the National Mediation Board (“NMB”) on behalf of the Atlas pilots, and subsequently the IBT filed a similar application on behalf of Southern Air pilots. We have opposed both mediation applications as they are not in accordance with the merger provisions in the parties’ existing CBAs. The NMB conducted a premediation investigation on the IBT’s Atlas application in June 2016, which has remained pending (along with the IBT’s Southern Air application) since 2016. Due to the IBT’s refusal to adhere to the merger provisions of the respective CBAs, in February 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against the IBT to compel arbitration on the issue of whether the merger provisions in Atlas and Southern Air's CBAs apply to the bargaining process. On March 13, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“NY District Court”) ruled in the Company’s favor and ordered arbitration of this issue. The IBT appealed the NY District Court’s decision, and on November 21, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court issued its decision in the Company’s favor affirming the NY District Court’s decision. The Company and the IBT conducted the Atlas and Southern Air arbitrations for this issue in October 2018. The Company prevailed in both the Atlas and Southern Air management grievance arbitrations against the IBT, with decisions rendered on June 12, 2019 and August 26, 2019, respectively. Both arbitrators ruled that the IBT violated the CBAs by refusing to follow merger provisions in the parties’ respective CBAs, which require formulation of a JCBA covering the combined pilot group. The arbitrators each ordered the IBT to promptly comply with the CBAs by submitting an ISL to the Company within 45 days of each arbitration decision, respectively. The IBT failed to comply with both deadlines for submitting the ISL, which passed on July 27, 2019 for Southern Air, and on October 10, 2019 for Atlas. As a result, on October 25, 2019, the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“DC District Court”) to enforce the Atlas and Southern Air arbitration decisions. On March 31, 2020, the DC District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, enforcing the arbitration decisions and directing the IBT to produce the ISL by May 15, 2020. The IBT subsequently requested additional time from the Company to complete the ISL and the parties agreed to a joint stipulation. As a result, on April 24, 2020, the DC District Court issued an order modifying its March 31st order, providing that the nine month timeframe to bargain for a new JCBA will be triggered on May 15, 2020 and that the IBT must produce the ISL by March 31, 2021. Any remaining open issues will then be determined by binding interest arbitration pursuant to the merger provisions in the CBAs. On April 28, 2020, the IBT and Local 2750 filed a Notice of Appeal of the DC District Court’s March 31st order, which remains in place pending appeal. In connection with its opposition to application of the merger provisions, the IBT commenced lawsuits in the DC District Court seeking to vacate both arbitration awards. On January 28, 2020, the DC District Court ruled in the Company’s favor, granting its motions to dismiss both of the IBT’s lawsuits. On April 28, 2020, the IBT and Local 2750 filed a Notice of Appeal of the DC District Court’s January 28th orders, which remains in place pending appeal. The Company and the IBT continue to meet virtually to move the process forward and bargain in good faith for a new JCBA. Substantive progress has been made with tentative agreements for more than half of the articles in a new JCBA. Despite repeated requests from the Company, the IBT has yet to provide the Company with a comprehensive economic proposal. In late September 2019, the Atlas pilots represented by the IBT formed a new local union, IBT Local 2750 to represent them. The Southern Air pilots continue to be represented by IBT Local 1224. The Company continues to work with both Local 2750 and Local 1224 leadership groups. On May 7, 2020, the Company announced that Atlas and Southern Air reached an agreement with IBT Locals 2750 and 1224, which provides for an interim ten percent pay increase for all pilots, effective as of May 1, 2020. In late November 2017, the DC District Court granted the Company’s request to issue a preliminary injunction to stop an illegal work slowdown and require the IBT to meet its obligations under the Railway Labor Act. Specifically, the DC District Court ordered the IBT to stop “authorizing, encouraging, permitting, calling, engaging in, or continuing” any illegal pilot slowdown activities, which were intended to gain leverage in pilot contract negotiations with the Company. In addition, the Court ordered the IBT to take affirmative action to prevent and to refrain from continuing any form of interference with the Company’s operations or any other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations consistent with its status quo obligations under the Railway Labor Act. In December 2017, the IBT appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“Court of Appeals”). On July 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals, in a unanimous three judge panel, affirmed the DC District Court’s ruling and denied the IBT’s appeal. Therefore, the preliminary injunction remains in full force and effect. We are subject to risks of work interruption or stoppage as permitted by the Railway Labor Act and may incur additional administrative expenses associated with union representation of our employees. Matters Related to Alleged Pricing Practices In the Netherlands, Stichting Cartel Compensation, successor in interest to claims of various shippers, has filed suit in the district court in Amsterdam against British Airways, KLM, Martinair, Air France, Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines seeking recovery for damages purportedly arising from allegedly unlawful pricing practices of such defendants. In response, British Airways, KLM, Martinair, Air France and Lufthansa filed third-party indemnification lawsuits against Polar Air Cargo, LLC (“Old Polar”), a consolidated subsidiary of the Company, and Polar, seeking indemnification in the event the defendants are found to be liable in the main proceedings. Another defendant, Thai Airways, filed a similar indemnification claim. Activities in the case have focused on various procedural issues, some of which are awaiting court determination. The Netherlands proceedings are likely to be affected by a decision readopted by the European Commission in March 2017, finding EU competition law violations by British Airways, KLM, Martinair, Air France and Lufthansa, among others, but not Old Polar or Polar. If the Company, Old Polar or Polar were to incur an unfavorable outcome, such outcome may have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. We are unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss for this matter at this time. Brazilian Customs Claim Old Polar was cited for two alleged customs violations in Sao Paulo, Brazil, relating to shipments of goods dating back to 1999 and 2000. Each claim asserts that goods listed on the flight manifest of two separate Old Polar scheduled service flights were not on board the aircraft upon arrival and therefore were improperly brought into Brazil. The two claims, which also seek unpaid customs duties, taxes and penalties from the date of the alleged infraction, are approximately $4.0 million in aggregate based on March 31, 2020 exchange rates. In both cases, we believe that the amounts claimed are substantially overstated due to a calculation error when considering the type and amount of goods allegedly missing, among other things. In the pending claim for one of the cases, we have received an administrative decision dismissing the claim in its entirety, which remains subject to a mandatory appeal by the Brazil customs authorities. In the other case, we received an administrative decision in favor of the Brazil customs authorities and we are in the process of appealing this decision to the Brazil courts. As required to defend such claims, we have made deposits pending resolution of these matters. The balance was $3.2 million as of March 31, 2020 and $4.1 million as of December 31, 2019, and is included in Deferred costs and other assets. We are currently defending these and other Brazilian customs claims and the ultimate disposition of these claims, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other In addition to the matters described in this note, we have certain other contingencies incident to the ordinary course of business. Unless disclosed otherwise, management does not expect that the ultimate disposition of such other contingencies or matters will materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. |