traderjake said:
I understand one thing about the law that you don't.
The interpreptation that matters doesn't belong to you or Chip.
Now THAT i would agree with you. However, my interpretation of the law and law to date have been in sync 100% to date. USAPA has the legal high ground and under M/B will STILL prevail over the APA and the Company "claims" that the MOU shifted M/B from judicial/statutory review and LAW to Agency/Contract Law with Arbitrative review. That, in a nutshell is the complete gist of it. If BOTH you and Chip had really READ Judge Silvers order CLOSELY, her "interpretation" of the MOU even in her LAST order denying ALL the parties a revision of her order says it all. TAKE IT UP WITH THE 9TH.
Having said that, if you were to READ the National Pan Am CAB arbitration she relies on, it did NOT say what SHE interpreted. The PARTIES were fully vetted before hand and the ONLY parties were the unions that represented their respected groups. The Arbitration Board was NOT going to allow "sub" parties into the mix and even Judge Silver readily admitted that... "In the Pan American and National Airlines merger, a group of employees had formed a group, known as the Janus Group, to advocate a specific seniority position. The members of the Janus Group were also represented by a union but they believed their union was unlikely to represent the Janus Group’s interests. The various unions had begun negotiating seniority but before that process was even complete the Janus Group asked CAB to grant it “separate arbitration rights under the LPPs.” Nat’l Airlines, Arbitration, 84 C.A.B. 408, 476 (1979). The Janus Group believed it should be entitled to force the matter to arbitration if it concluded “its interests [had] not been adequately represented [during the seniority integration negotiations] by the unions charged with its representation.”
CAB refused to grant the Janus Group “independent arbitration rights” because doing so would “interfere with the established representation format and, in effect, set up another bargaining unit.” Id.
CAB did not wish to “tamper with and inevitably complicate the procedures used to negotiate seniority list integration.” Id. at 476-77."
Judge Silver came to the SAME conclusion: "...the Court is left to arrive at the meaning of McCaskill-Bond on its own. Section 3 requires carriers provide
a “fair and equitable” integration process. And Section 13 requires arbitration between “the organization or organizations representing the employee or employees.” The Court is
persuaded this statutory text should be interpreted in harmony with those CAB decisions allowing participation only by the employees’ certified representatives. When a certified
representative exists, that representative owes a duty of fair representation to all employees.
A “fair and equitable” integration process will involve that representative acting on behalf of the represented employees. And
when a certified bargaining representative exists,
introducing an independent group, such as the West Pilots, would “interfere with the established representation format” and also “
tamper with and inevitably complicate the procedures used to negotiate seniority list integration.” Nat’l Airlines, Arbitration, 84 C.A.B. 408, 476 (1979). In addition, allowing the involvement of any employee or group of employees with sufficiently distinct interests would
be an invitation to chaos; the seniority integration process cannot accommodate the participation of whoever might be affected by the final result.
Therefore, the process contemplated by McCaskill-Bond allows only the certified bargaining representatives to participate in seniority integration proceedings."
In short, Judge Silvers ORDER is actually very sound...with the CONFUSING exception of including paragraph vi. It would be WISE for Chip, Dan, and Doyal (and AOL, AWAPPA and APA) to review the AOL "AMENDED COMPLAINT" along with the ORDER. AOL and the Company got EXACTLY the answer they were looking for CONTRARY to the Dicta (not JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL which Chip keeps parroting from Doyal). USAPA's position (and mine) are %100 correct IF YOU READ USAPA'S well written and LOGICAL answer. You CANNOT evaluate the LAW until ALL the parties claims are read and compared...including Judge Silvers ORDER. Once you reconcile everything there is only one logical and legitimate "opinion" one can come to: only USAPA, APA and the Company (even after a JCBA is agreed to and even IF APA becomes the certified bargaining agent if and when the NMB weighs in) are the ONLY three parties under M/B to arbitrate a SLI for the pilots.
Fear nothing, East pilots....Chip, Doyal, Dan's, AOL, American, AWAPPA WILL be proven wrong in both the ninth AND the DC Circuit. I am %100 correct and so is USAPA.
I will not be writing on the subject any more because anything they say simply refer to this post. I will SHOW them out on the line IN PRINT why they're WRONG....not that they will ever wish to talk to me.
