This was just forwarded to me....
Seniority Integration Protocol: The Facts
You may have seen APA's seniority integration protocol proposal last week and a subsequent USAPA Merger Committee blast accusing the APA Seniority Integration Committee of blindsiding them with a "regressive" proposal. Although we have been patient in an attempt to forge an acceptable agreement, it is now time to set the record straight on some of the misrepresentations contained in the USAPA Merger Committee blast.
To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding.
Last week, before we passed our latest protocol proposal, APA Vice President FO Neil Roghair was invited to speak at USAPA domicile meetings in Charlotte and Philadelphia. The APA talking points were simple:
APA wants a smooth and amicable integration with the pilots of US Airways.
APA is committed to the process that we all agreed to and ratified in the MOU.
APA will take its duty of fair representation to all American Airlines pilots seriously.
FO Roghair communicated that the protocol agreement for seniority integration should be complete and that the only major barriers have been superfluous and unacceptable USAPA demands, including:
Obligating APA to pay post-single carrier USAPA bills, including costs of its current headquarters
Maintaining USAPA's independent operation authority throughout the JCBA and SLI process
Paying for ongoing litigation expenses in Addington and any subsequent DFR cases
Recognizing USAPA as a party to the protocol agreement even after USAPA ceases to be the certified bargaining representative (contrary to its own position in the Addington litigation, the judge's ruling in that case and the specific language of the MOU)
These are not commitments APA is willing to entertain and are what brought seniority protocol negotiations to a halt.
As FO Roghair stated, APA does not take its duty of fair representation lightly. Contrary to USAPA's assertions otherwise, and at their suggestion, APA has proposed that the West pilots be afforded the opportunity to petition a neutral arbitrator for the right to a separate and independent merger committee in the seniority integration process. USAPA, the company and APA would have the right to object or support a West merger committee. The arbitrator would then rule on the issue, and the process would move forward based on the arbitrator's final and binding decision on the West merger committee's status.
At the CLT meeting, a member of the USAPA Merger Committee briefed those in attendance on why the committee found the prospect of a separate West merger committee acceptable. And, upon hearing APA's proposal, the USAPA secretary-treasurer remarked that this proposal came directly from USAPA. This highlights that the USAPA Merger Committee's blast, dated June 20, 2014, is entirely inconsistent with statements made by USAPA leadership to APA.
The USAPA national officers specifically requested that APA disregard the USAPA transition and settlement proposals and present a "seniority protocol only" proposal to USAPA so that we can all point to a seniority integration proposal that represents the path forward. Thus, we made our protocol proposal last week at USAPA's specific request. It could not have surprised them.
Regardless of the circumstances that resulted in APA's passing the protocol document, the proposal was fully consistent with requests and understandings agreed to by USAPA's leadership and communicated to pilots at the CLT and PHL meetings. It meets every legitimate "ask" from USAPA in the seniority protocol. Among other things:
The proposal guaranteed that the USAPA Merger Committee would continue in its current form after APA becomes the single bargaining representative. The USAPA committee would remain completely autonomous, and APA would formally agree not to interfere with its staffing, decision-making, operations or funding. Who gives direction to that committee is not within APA's control.
The proposal accepted USAPA's position that APA not have the unilateral right to appoint a West merger committee but the West pilots be required to seek representation through final and binding arbitration.
The proposal accepted USAPA's procedure for the selection of the seniority Arbitration Board.
While the proposal provided that the company and APA would be the only parties to the protocol after APA becomes the single bargaining representative which is consistent with the RLA and the duty of fair representation and has always been APA's position APA would formally commit that it had no legal authority to make any modification to the protected status of the USAPA Merger Committee.
Nothing in the APA proposal was a surprise to USAPA or its merger counsel. The only written additions to our latest proposal were to codify the previous understanding that USAPA would drop its litigation in federal district court asking for an alternative process to MOU paragraph 10 and to provide that USAPA drop its opposition at the NMB to the single-carrier determination.
The day after our counsel transmitted the protocol proposal, the USAPA Merger Committee released its blast to USAPA membership, in which they claimed our proposal blindsided them and was unacceptable and regressive. They listed five points of deep concern.
Their first four points object to APA suggesting that everyone follow the process spelled out in MOU paragraph 10 the process approved 11-0 by the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives and ratified by three-quarters of the USAPA membership. USAPA's position that complying with a signed agreement (the MOU) is somehow optional can only be described as beyond the pale. At no time did USAPA suggest that any other party to the MOU could unilaterally disregard its provisions.
The fifth point of objection is that APA is asserting the right to change and control their merger committee. That is false. The very premise of our protocol proposal is that the merger committees, including specifically the USAPA Merger Committee, will be autonomous and independent after the certification of a single bargaining representative. While APA will be the bargaining representative and will not formally agree to USAPA party status, USAPA may continue as an organization, with a board and national officers, albeit at their own expense.
This seniority integration process will be difficult and complex. APA is deeply committed and obligated to an autonomous USAPA Merger Committee. APA also has a duty to guarantee a process that will give the West pilots a fair opportunity to make their case in arbitration.
The APA Seniority Integration Committee made our proposal public for simple reasons. The proposal reflects every commitment we have made to USAPA with regard to the seniority integration process and contradicts false assertions being made by USAPA in an effort to delay a single-carrier finding by the NMB. It is time to agree to a protocol before this affects the ability of APA and USAPA to move forward in areas of mutual interest, such as the JCBA.
Please forward this email to every US Airways pilot you know and tell them that APA is committed to the fair process that we all signed up for.
