39950 replies to this topic

[Pi brat]

traderjake, on 03 November 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:

Or the USAPA case, KEEP THOSE EXTORTION CHECKS coming or you'll get a Section 29 letter.

The people that do not do what is a requirement of employment get S29 letters. I wonder, has anyone actually been fired? Was it not the same with ALPA?

[Pi brat]

This should get some conversation moving, From the Iron Compass:

ALPA Agrees with USAPA on Non-Nicolau Seniority Option

As many of you may recall, litigation brought by a group of East pilots who previously flew for MidAtlantic is currently pending against ALPA before a federal court in the Eastern District of New York. In that matter, referred to as the Naugler case, the plaintiffs have alleged that ALPA knew of, and stipulated to, the introduction of an erroneous seniority list during the Nicolau arbitration proceedings.

Interestingly enough, ALPA has moved for summary judgment, and its current leading argument is that the case is not ripe for adjudication. ALPA, in furtherance of its ripeness argument, cites the Ninth Circuit’s Addington decision to support its assertion that "implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR." The importance of this admission cannot be overlooked. ALPA, the Union whose internal merger policy created the Nicolau Award, has now recognized in a federal court filing that not only is USAPA free to bargain towards a single CBA without Nicolau, but the non-inclusion of Nicolau in any future CBA does not automatically constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation.

This comment can be found in ALPA’s reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment (Docket 118 in the Naugler litigation, found in USAPA's Legal Library on the website).



That AOL pamphlet is still staring me in the face............

[Crzipilot]

Not for nothing, didn't a west pilot recently marry a senior executive vice president of People and Communications? Wasn't said pilot that married Sr. VP also ex alpa? Hmmmmm

[Ames]

Crzipilot, on 03 November 2010 - 06:13 PM, said:

Not for nothing, didn't a west pilot recently marry a senior executive vice president of People and Communications? Wasn't said pilot that married Sr. VP also ex alpa? Hmmmmm

Yes, he's a great guy, has done a lot for the west pilot group and for alpa. He's just a spectator now so what's your point?

[Ames]

luvthe9, on 03 November 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

This is why we all have to remember.......KEEP THE DONATIONS COMING!

Fortunately we do. Good news in the Leonidas meeting today, finances are good. I also got the impression from the attorneys that they are in this for the long haul, regardless. You guys can keep urinating into the wind. I'll just stand upwind to avoid the spray.

[Barrister]

Pi brat, on 03 November 2010 - 05:51 PM, said:

This should get some conversation moving, From the Iron Compass:

ALPA Agrees with USAPA on Non-Nicolau Seniority Option

As many of you may recall, litigation brought by a group of East pilots who previously flew for MidAtlantic is currently pending against ALPA before a federal court in the Eastern District of New York. In that matter, referred to as the Naugler case, the plaintiffs have alleged that ALPA knew of, and stipulated to, the introduction of an erroneous seniority list during the Nicolau arbitration proceedings.

Interestingly enough, ALPA has moved for summary judgment, and its current leading argument is that the case is not ripe for adjudication. ALPA, in furtherance of its ripeness argument, cites the Ninth Circuit’s Addington decision to support its assertion that "implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR." The importance of this admission cannot be overlooked. ALPA, the Union whose internal merger policy created the Nicolau Award, has now recognized in a federal court filing that not only is USAPA free to bargain towards a single CBA without Nicolau, but the non-inclusion of Nicolau in any future CBA does not automatically constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation.

This comment can be found in ALPA’s reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment (Docket 118 in the Naugler litigation, found in USAPA's Legal Library on the website).



That AOL pamphlet is still staring me in the face............

Well well, let the spin machine begin......

NICDOA
NPJB

[BoeingBoy]

Pi brat, on 03 November 2010 - 05:51 PM, said:

This should get some conversation moving, From the Iron Compass:

Interesting. Using ALPA as a legal authority. Especially when the 9th didn't say what it's claimed that ALPA said it did.

Jim

[767jetz]

Freighterguynow, on 03 November 2010 - 08:23 AM, said:

UAL Mec Chmn message:

Also, a member of the CAL-MEC issued an ultimatum – never the best approach to doing business -- to the United MEC that if there was no agreement that included pay banding suitable to the CAL-MEC, the CAL-MEC was content to wait for years without a JCBA until the United MEC relented

???

Perhaps you could explain to all of us the relevance of your post to USAPA's precarious legal position.

If not, maybe the moderators will consider moving this post to the UA forum where it belongs, so it may be discussed further without hijacking this thread.