2014 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 2,148
When I tried to place my bet, they wantded to sell me a tie instead. You're not gonna believe how much they wanted for it!Schultz said:
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Candy Boyluvthe9 said:
http://www.nbcsports.com/horse-racing/jimmy-fallon-presents-kentucky-derby-contenders
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
A small portion of a 22 page document from the company....
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 27 Filed 05/02/14
The US Airways/American Seniority-Integration Process. The US Airways/American merger closed on December 9, 2013, and the MOU became effective on that day. Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 4. The first procedural step contemplated by the MOU Seniority-Integration Process was for the parties to negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement to “set forth the process and protocol for conducting negotiations and arbitration, if applicable.” See MOU ¶ 10(f) (“A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement (‘Protocol Agreement’) consistent with McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date.”). Although there was agreement on virtually all issues for the Protocol Agreement – including on a procedure for the selection of a three-arbitrator panel pursuant to MOU Paragraph 10(a) – the parties were unable to finalize the agreement due to a disagreement over USAPA’s role in the seniority-integration process if and when USAPA were decertified by the National Mediation Board (“NMB”). Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 35.2 USAPA and APA did not reach a negotiated agreement on an integrated seniority list within 90 days of the closing of the US Airways/American merger. Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 36. In this circumstance, MOU Paragraph 10(a), as quoted above, provides that a panel of three arbitrators will be designated by the parties to resolve the seniority-integration dispute. See MOU Paragraph 10(a).
CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, the Company respectfully moves this Court to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute over the interpretation of the MOU and to stay these proceedings pending the result of that arbitration.
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 27 Filed 05/02/14
The US Airways/American Seniority-Integration Process. The US Airways/American merger closed on December 9, 2013, and the MOU became effective on that day. Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 4. The first procedural step contemplated by the MOU Seniority-Integration Process was for the parties to negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement to “set forth the process and protocol for conducting negotiations and arbitration, if applicable.” See MOU ¶ 10(f) (“A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement (‘Protocol Agreement’) consistent with McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date.”). Although there was agreement on virtually all issues for the Protocol Agreement – including on a procedure for the selection of a three-arbitrator panel pursuant to MOU Paragraph 10(a) – the parties were unable to finalize the agreement due to a disagreement over USAPA’s role in the seniority-integration process if and when USAPA were decertified by the National Mediation Board (“NMB”). Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 35.2 USAPA and APA did not reach a negotiated agreement on an integrated seniority list within 90 days of the closing of the US Airways/American merger. Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 36. In this circumstance, MOU Paragraph 10(a), as quoted above, provides that a panel of three arbitrators will be designated by the parties to resolve the seniority-integration dispute. See MOU Paragraph 10(a).
CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, the Company respectfully moves this Court to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute over the interpretation of the MOU and to stay these proceedings pending the result of that arbitration.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
APA MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION APA respectfully moves this Court to compel Plaintiff US Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA”) to arbitrate the MTA Dispute #5 pursuant to the procedure set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement (“MOU”), and to stay the case, including the discovery time line in the Court’s Order of April 22, 2014, until the arbitrator has ruled on the dispute. The basis for this Motion is set forth in the Memorandum in Support of Motion and the Declaration of Mark Stephens. APA also adopts the Motion and Memorandum submitted by its co-defendants, American and US Airways.
APA requests that oral argument be permitted on this Motion.
Dated: May 2, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edgar N. James EDGAR N. JAMES D.C. Bar No. 333013 James & Hoffman, P.C. 1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 950 Washington, D.C. 20036
APA requests that oral argument be permitted on this Motion.
Dated: May 2, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edgar N. James EDGAR N. JAMES D.C. Bar No. 333013 James & Hoffman, P.C. 1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 950 Washington, D.C. 20036
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 26-1 Filed 05/02/14 more interesting points..
Defendant-Counterclaimant Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) moves this Court to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute over the interpretation of their Memorandum Of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement (“MOU”), and to stay proceedings pending the result of that arbitration. In support of this motion, APA submits this Memorandum in Support of Motion and adopts the Motion and Memorandum submitted by American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), and US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), (collectively, the “Company”).
Accordingly, these four parties signed the MOU in January 2013 to provide a
framework for the integration of the pilot seniority lists in the event of a merger involving US Airways and American. Declaration of Mark Stephens (“Stephens Decl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. 1 MOU. To this end, MOU Paragraph 10(a) establishes a schedule and guidelines for negotiating and [SIZE=10pt]arbitrating the seniority integration dispute, and specifies that the arbitration shall be heard by a [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]three-member panel and shall not commence until the parties have finalized a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (“JCBA”). Id. USAPA negotiated, agreed to and had its members ratify all of the MOU’s seniority-integration provisions. Id. Yet USAPA now seeks to escape the procedures to which it agreed. USAPA claims that it is not bound by the MOU’s seniority- [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]integration provisions, because the parties could not reach agreement on the terms of the “Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement” (“Protocol Agreement”) referenced in Paragraph 10(f) of the MOU. Because the deadline for finalizing a Protocol Agreement under [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 10(f) has passed, USAPA argues, the rest of the seniority integration framework to [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]which the parties agreed in MOU Paragraphs 10, 26 and 27 is no longer in effect. The truth is that the parties were able to agree on all material aspects of a Protocol Agreement – which incorporated an agreement, pursuant to MOU Paragraph 10(a), concerning [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]how to select the arbitrators for the seniority arbitration panel – save one: USAPA insisted on [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]remaining a party to the seniority integration even after it ceased to be a collective bargaining [/SIZE]
representative for the pilots at US Airways
Stephens Decl. ¶¶ 33-34. According to Stephens:
APA and [the American pilot merger committee] were unwilling to agree to [USAPA’s insistence on] a reservation of rights, for the precise reason that USAPA had argued to the court in Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No. 13- cv-00471, Doc. 298 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2014), that only the certified bargaining representative is a proper party to the seniority list arbitration, albeit with separate committees representing the pre-merger seniority list pilots, and that APA would be that representative when the arbitration would occur under the MOU. The court held that it “has no doubt that—as is USAPA’s consistent practice— USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.” Stephens Decl., Ex. 11 (quoting Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass'n, CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS
Defendant-Counterclaimant Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) moves this Court to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute over the interpretation of their Memorandum Of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement (“MOU”), and to stay proceedings pending the result of that arbitration. In support of this motion, APA submits this Memorandum in Support of Motion and adopts the Motion and Memorandum submitted by American Airlines, Inc. (“American”), and US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), (collectively, the “Company”).
Accordingly, these four parties signed the MOU in January 2013 to provide a
framework for the integration of the pilot seniority lists in the event of a merger involving US Airways and American. Declaration of Mark Stephens (“Stephens Decl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. 1 MOU. To this end, MOU Paragraph 10(a) establishes a schedule and guidelines for negotiating and [SIZE=10pt]arbitrating the seniority integration dispute, and specifies that the arbitration shall be heard by a [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]three-member panel and shall not commence until the parties have finalized a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (“JCBA”). Id. USAPA negotiated, agreed to and had its members ratify all of the MOU’s seniority-integration provisions. Id. Yet USAPA now seeks to escape the procedures to which it agreed. USAPA claims that it is not bound by the MOU’s seniority- [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]integration provisions, because the parties could not reach agreement on the terms of the “Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement” (“Protocol Agreement”) referenced in Paragraph 10(f) of the MOU. Because the deadline for finalizing a Protocol Agreement under [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Paragraph 10(f) has passed, USAPA argues, the rest of the seniority integration framework to [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]which the parties agreed in MOU Paragraphs 10, 26 and 27 is no longer in effect. The truth is that the parties were able to agree on all material aspects of a Protocol Agreement – which incorporated an agreement, pursuant to MOU Paragraph 10(a), concerning [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]how to select the arbitrators for the seniority arbitration panel – save one: USAPA insisted on [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]remaining a party to the seniority integration even after it ceased to be a collective bargaining [/SIZE]
representative for the pilots at US Airways
Stephens Decl. ¶¶ 33-34. According to Stephens:
APA and [the American pilot merger committee] were unwilling to agree to [USAPA’s insistence on] a reservation of rights, for the precise reason that USAPA had argued to the court in Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No. 13- cv-00471, Doc. 298 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2014), that only the certified bargaining representative is a proper party to the seniority list arbitration, albeit with separate committees representing the pre-merger seniority list pilots, and that APA would be that representative when the arbitration would occur under the MOU. The court held that it “has no doubt that—as is USAPA’s consistent practice— USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.” Stephens Decl., Ex. 11 (quoting Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass'n, CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Who's being difficult?
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 27 Filed 05/02/14 Page 10 of 22
Pursuant to MOU Paragraph 10(a), the Company made a proposal to APA and USAPA regarding the manner in which the three arbitrators would be selected. Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 38. APA indicated that it was willing to accept the Company’s proposal or, alternatively, that it was willing to accept the arbitrator-selection proposal to which all parties – including USAPA – had agreed in the negotiations for the Protocol Agreement. Id. ¶ 39. The Company responded to APA’s proposal, indicating that either proposal for selecting arbitrators was acceptable to the Company. Id. ¶ 40. USAPA never responded to either proposal. Id. ¶ 41.
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 27 Filed 05/02/14 Page 10 of 22
Pursuant to MOU Paragraph 10(a), the Company made a proposal to APA and USAPA regarding the manner in which the three arbitrators would be selected. Dkt. 26-2 (Stephens Decl.) ¶ 38. APA indicated that it was willing to accept the Company’s proposal or, alternatively, that it was willing to accept the arbitrator-selection proposal to which all parties – including USAPA – had agreed in the negotiations for the Protocol Agreement. Id. ¶ 39. The Company responded to APA’s proposal, indicating that either proposal for selecting arbitrators was acceptable to the Company. Id. ¶ 40. USAPA never responded to either proposal. Id. ¶ 41.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Proposed orders:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
US AIRWAYS, INC.; AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC.; and ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00328
(BAH)
[PROPOSED ORDER] GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
Having considered the submissions and arguments of the parties on the Motion of US Airways, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The Motion is GRANTED; and The parties are directed to arbitrate MTA Dispute #5 pursuant to the procedures set out in Paragraph 20 of the parties’ Memorandum Of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement; and This suit is hereby stayed pending a decision by the arbitrator in MTA Dispute #5; and The parties shall provide a joint status report to this Court within 60 days of entry of this Order.
Dated: May ___, 2014
Hon. Beryl A. Howell
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
US AIRLINE PILOTS )
ASSOCIATION )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 14-0328 (BAH)
v. )
)
US AIRWAYS, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Allied Pilots Association’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration, and, after considering the arguments for and against the entry of an order granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted and the parties are directed to arbitrate MTA Dispute #5 pursuant to the expedited procedures set forth as Paragraph 20 of the Parties’ Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement; and it is further, ORDERED that this case is stayed, including the discovery time line set forth in the Order dated April 22, 2014, pending a decision by the Arbitrator on MTA Dispute #5; and it is further, ORDERED that the Parties shall provide a joint status report to this Court within 60 days of the entry of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
_______ ____________________________
Date Order Entered:___District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
US AIRWAYS, INC.; AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC.; and ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00328
(BAH)
[PROPOSED ORDER] GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
Having considered the submissions and arguments of the parties on the Motion of US Airways, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The Motion is GRANTED; and The parties are directed to arbitrate MTA Dispute #5 pursuant to the procedures set out in Paragraph 20 of the parties’ Memorandum Of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement; and This suit is hereby stayed pending a decision by the arbitrator in MTA Dispute #5; and The parties shall provide a joint status report to this Court within 60 days of entry of this Order.
Dated: May ___, 2014
Hon. Beryl A. Howell
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
US AIRLINE PILOTS )
ASSOCIATION )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 14-0328 (BAH)
v. )
)
US AIRWAYS, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Allied Pilots Association’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration, and, after considering the arguments for and against the entry of an order granting the motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is granted and the parties are directed to arbitrate MTA Dispute #5 pursuant to the expedited procedures set forth as Paragraph 20 of the Parties’ Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement; and it is further, ORDERED that this case is stayed, including the discovery time line set forth in the Order dated April 22, 2014, pending a decision by the Arbitrator on MTA Dispute #5; and it is further, ORDERED that the Parties shall provide a joint status report to this Court within 60 days of the entry of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
_______ ____________________________
Date Order Entered:___District Judge
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Source: Exhibit 20
Via First Class Mail & Electronic Mail
Richard Bloch, Arbitrator
4335 Cathedral Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Re: MTA Dispute No.5
Dear Arbitrator Bloch:
USAPA
US AIRLINE PILOrS ASSOClAilON
April 25, 2014
200 E. Woodlawn Road, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28217
This acknowledges receipt of your email, dated April 23, 2014, advising of your availability to hear the captioned grievance. The issues identified by the Carriers and the Allied Pilots Association for arbitration in this matter are before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in USAPA v. US Airways, Inc., et aI., Case No. 14-cv-00328-BAH, filed Feb. 27,2014. Both Carrier defendants and the APA have answered and filed counterclaims against USAPA.
Because the issues raised by the captioned grievance, including its arbitrability, are to be adjudicated by the Court, arbitration of MTA Dispute No.5 is inappropriate until the Court rules in the litigation. For this reason, USAPA is unwilling to submit any of the issues identified by the Company or APA to the System Board. Without waiving any right USAPA possesses, therefore, we must decline to appear and arbitrate this
matter.
cc: (via electronic mail)
William R. Wilder, Esq.
Brian O'Dwyer, Esq.
Captain Gary Hummel
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
Robert Siegal, Esq.
Ed James, Esq.
Captain Keith Wilson
Respectfully submitted,
lsi Matthew Bradley
Matthew Bradley, Esq
From: RICHARD BLOCH [mailto:blochdc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:07 PM
To: Holdren, Beth
Cc: Matthew Bradley
Subject: Re: MTA Dispute #5
I will consider the June 17-19 and July 1-3 dates as firm for DC.
Richard Bloch
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Holdren, Beth <beth.holdren@aa.com> wrote:
Dear Arbitrator Bloch --
Please hold the first two groups of dates: June 17-19 and July 1-3.
1
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 26-22 Filed 05/02/14 Page 6 of 8While Matthew Bradley of USAP A has informed you that USAP A will decline to participate in this arbitration, the Company and the Allied Pilots Association intend to file a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel USAP A to engage in this arbitration pursuant to the requirements of the Railway Labor Act and Paragraph 20 of the MOD. According to a scheduling order issued by that Court, the motion will be filed on or before May 2, 2014, and we believe the motion will be resolved prior to the June dates offered in your message. We will keep you fully apprised regarding the status of the motion and any ruling.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Beth
Via First Class Mail & Electronic Mail
Richard Bloch, Arbitrator
4335 Cathedral Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Re: MTA Dispute No.5
Dear Arbitrator Bloch:
USAPA
US AIRLINE PILOrS ASSOClAilON
April 25, 2014
200 E. Woodlawn Road, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28217
This acknowledges receipt of your email, dated April 23, 2014, advising of your availability to hear the captioned grievance. The issues identified by the Carriers and the Allied Pilots Association for arbitration in this matter are before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in USAPA v. US Airways, Inc., et aI., Case No. 14-cv-00328-BAH, filed Feb. 27,2014. Both Carrier defendants and the APA have answered and filed counterclaims against USAPA.
Because the issues raised by the captioned grievance, including its arbitrability, are to be adjudicated by the Court, arbitration of MTA Dispute No.5 is inappropriate until the Court rules in the litigation. For this reason, USAPA is unwilling to submit any of the issues identified by the Company or APA to the System Board. Without waiving any right USAPA possesses, therefore, we must decline to appear and arbitrate this
matter.
cc: (via electronic mail)
William R. Wilder, Esq.
Brian O'Dwyer, Esq.
Captain Gary Hummel
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
Robert Siegal, Esq.
Ed James, Esq.
Captain Keith Wilson
Respectfully submitted,
lsi Matthew Bradley
Matthew Bradley, Esq
From: RICHARD BLOCH [mailto:blochdc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:07 PM
To: Holdren, Beth
Cc: Matthew Bradley
Subject: Re: MTA Dispute #5
I will consider the June 17-19 and July 1-3 dates as firm for DC.
Richard Bloch
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Holdren, Beth <beth.holdren@aa.com> wrote:
Dear Arbitrator Bloch --
Please hold the first two groups of dates: June 17-19 and July 1-3.
1
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 26-22 Filed 05/02/14 Page 6 of 8While Matthew Bradley of USAP A has informed you that USAP A will decline to participate in this arbitration, the Company and the Allied Pilots Association intend to file a motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel USAP A to engage in this arbitration pursuant to the requirements of the Railway Labor Act and Paragraph 20 of the MOD. According to a scheduling order issued by that Court, the motion will be filed on or before May 2, 2014, and we believe the motion will be resolved prior to the June dates offered in your message. We will keep you fully apprised regarding the status of the motion and any ruling.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Beth
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
"Man who posteth/protesteth over much, while wearing excessively-patriotic tie, is man who has over much burden to prove. Him should lighten load and use Motrin." ~~ Chief Hunkered Brokenback, Grandson of Sitting Bull, Son of Upin Smoke
The NMB has issued a list of arbitrators under the MB Statute. Hmmm, what to do.. What to do...
The NMB has issued a list of arbitrators under the MB Statute. Hmmm, what to do.. What to do...
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
So exactly how did Leonidas come into possession of documents of which they are not legal addressees, much less legal participants....? Maybe it was a chief pilot.snapthis said:
Take a Motrin, we are now officially on "court time." T-minus clocks operate on "months, and years".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
