Then I guess that eliminates a whole bunch of folks from the management side of the industry!
A letrer from USAPA's Law Firm (EAST THREAD 8/17-24)
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
- Status
Then I guess that eliminates a whole bunch of folks from the management side of the industry!
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,513
- Reaction score
- 0
Luvn737s wrote:
"I don't. The east can't be trusted to live up to their obligations, therefore they give up the right to be a party to negotiations. You must have the credible expectation that each party will live up to what they agreed to , or bargaining is meaningless."
So by default that leaves the AWA MEC left to negotiate with themselves. This is great.
It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. I blame ALPA National's lack of leadership for this quagmire. When ALPA quit being a union, the stage was set. BTW. When was the last time an ALPA president went to jail for fighting what is right for our combined memberships?
"I don't. The east can't be trusted to live up to their obligations, therefore they give up the right to be a party to negotiations. You must have the credible expectation that each party will live up to what they agreed to , or bargaining is meaningless."
So by default that leaves the AWA MEC left to negotiate with themselves. This is great.
It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. I blame ALPA National's lack of leadership for this quagmire. When ALPA quit being a union, the stage was set. BTW. When was the last time an ALPA president went to jail for fighting what is right for our combined memberships?
E
EastUS
Guest
I find the most pathetic thing about all this western "We love and support Alpo" BS to be that they were seriously considering dumping Alpo, that their top MEC guy was apparently ALL FOR dumping Alpo....and now, in the wake of the St Nic presents? = "Alpo's GREAT!!!!"...."And a purely Righteous institution staffed only with noble knights!!"...."umm..except for those few dishonorable, untrustworthy, and treacherous dogs out east of course!" My understanding is that their efforts towards an Alpo "dump" only ceased when the merger was imminent, but that yet constitues a "Righteous Position", and shouldn't be wrongly seen to be purely opportunistic of course.
The unimaginable hypocrisy cannot be measured even in industrial level terms of scale.
I swear that if I hear one more little AWA pimple spouting off about "integrity", or "trust", or "obligations"....I'm flat-out gonna' puke.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
U-Turn and the Parker Letter
[If you haven’t been into the crew room to check your V-File in the last four days or logged onto either the AWA Web Board or “The Hub,†you might have missed this gem, reprinted in its entirety below.]
Dear US Airways Pilot:
We’ve received some questions from pilots about the company’s reaction to the resolution passed by the East MEC yesterday. The resolution states that East ALPA is withdrawing from joint contract negotiations (JNC) and does not intend to return unless the company immediately increases East pilot pay to West pilot rates (actually their proposal goes above West pilot rates in many cases).
The company’s reaction to this hopefully comes as no surprise to anyone, because we have been consistently stating it for quite some time now: We are not interested in engaging in contract negotiations with either the East or West pilots without the other group present. Doing so would only continue to drive a wedge between the two groups – plus drive all sorts of divisive issues in the future as new aircraft types and flying come on line and we have to decide which contract to fly it under.
We are, however, very interested in having discussions with both groups present with a goal of reaching a joint contract.
The fact is the company has already offered “pay parity†to our pilots. We put a joint contract proposal on the table back in May that would take all US Airways pilots to AWA rates plus 3%. Even though that proposal would increase the company’s costs by approximately $122 million per year, we were prepared to sign it then and are prepared to sign it now, because we want very much to get our pilots working together as one team with one contract.
The problem, of course, is not the company’s unwillingness to increase pay – we’ve already offered that – it is the fact that our goal of reaching a joint contract has been complicated significantly by the ALPA seniority integration dispute. We fully appreciate the magnitude of that issue to our pilots and the fact that it is an ALPA issue. As such, we are not trying to influence the ALPA process in any way.
We are, though, seriously concerned about how this seniority integration dispute is dividing our pilots. I have personally expressed those concerns to both MEC chairmen and the ALPA international president. I have been told the Rice Committee is hard at work and hopes to have recommendations/solutions within the next month or so. We hope that is the case – if it goes much longer, the company will probably request a mediator be added to our JNC talks, which the Transition Agreement allows either party to do. We’d rather not do that without the full support of both MECs and I’m optimistic that we won’t have to, but if this goes on for much longer, it may be the next best step for all of us. We found a mediator to be extremely helpful to all parties in our IAM joint negotiations over the past few weeks.
I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified. I happen to believe that if we could get everyone together at the negotiating table, we could work something out that meets everyone’s needs – though both sides would need to move some from their increasingly hardening positions. We are hopeful that the Rice Committee will facilitate some creative solutions and do so quickly. I know we have some ideas that we have shared with ALPA and I’m sure they have many more of their own.
So that’s where the company stands: we are anxious to get all of our pilots working together, on the same pay scale with the same work rules, under the same contract. The East MEC resolution correctly notes that some other contract employees have received pay parity, but in each case that came with a joint contract. That is what needs to happen with our pilots as well and we are willing to commit significant financial resources and time to make that happen. To do so, though, we need to get everyone to work together, not apart. Once that happens, we are optimistic that solutions can be found that allow us all to move forward.
In the meantime, please do what you can to treat each other with respect and professionalism. We will find a way through all of this – let’s try to do so without creating wounds that will take a long time to heal. Thank you.
Doug Parker ( August 16, 2007)
We posted this on the AWA Web Board, expecting sparks to fly. There was some reaction, but not nearly what we had expected. Comments ranged from it being typical company double-talk, to Ray Burkett’s missive: “The problem is the west is unwilling to reorder the list and the east wants it all and more, something we just can't giveâ€, to some angst that Parker might be seeing both the East position and the Rice Committee as being legitimate. Some pilots just read through the letter as being nothing more than a big yawn…
Those who thought it was a yawn must have missed this paragraph:
I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified. I happen to believe that if we could get everyone together at the negotiating table, we could work something out that meets everyone’s needs – though both sides would need to move some from their increasingly hardening positions. We are hopeful that the Rice Committee will facilitate some creative solutions and do so quickly. I know we have some ideas that we have shared with ALPA and I’m sure they have many more of their own.
Whether you fly for the East or the West, you’ve got to find something to be concerned about in not only the paragraph above but in this one:
The fact is the company has already offered “pay parity†to our pilots. We put a joint contract proposal on the table back in May that would take all US Airways pilots to AWA rates plus 3%. Even though that proposal would increase the company’s costs by approximately $122 million per year, we were prepared to sign it then and are prepared to sign it now, because we want very much to get our pilots working together as one team with one contract.
So, East and West Pilots…what say you? Seniority integration (now or later) with 3% pay parity or continued separate operations with pay disparity? This is not a battle that U-Turn is going to get into. We report, so you can decide.
But we will remind you who aided and abetted the company in keeping this East-West battle going: ALPA National, the Rice Committee and the EC. Know your enemy. More to the point: know who your real enemy is.
Herndon: Where the ALPA Constitution is treated as a “minor inconvenience.â€
US Airways ALPA MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - August 21, 2007
This is Arnie Gentile with a US Airways MEC update for Tuesday, August 21st, with three new items.
Item 1. To demonstrate their unanimous position, the MEC and MEC Officers signed and emailed a letter Yesterday to the pilots, that discusses the resolution the MEC passed last week and includes a copy of the resolution in its entirety. The resolution calls for the end of pay discrimination that this pilot group has suffered under for nearly two years. The letter highlights the fact that the East members of the JNC will cease to engage management until the pay discrimination against us stops and equal pay is granted to all pilots. In addition, as of September 1, 2007, any deal we sign will include retro pay from that day forward, with 8% interest." This letter will be posted under What's New.
Item 2. On Wednesday, August 8th, the AWA MEC filed a motion in Federal Court to join ALPA as a necessary party and include ALPA as a defendant in our suit over the Nicolau Award. This is an attempt by the AWA MEC to take ALPA off a position of neutrality and use union dues money and resources to defend the flawed award. Yesterday, our attorneys filed a motion to remand our lawsuit from the federal court back to the D.C. Superior Court, and takes the position that the federal court has no jurisdiction over our lawsuit to set aside the Nicolau Award. The motion to remand will be posted on the Pilot’s Only Web Site.
Item 3. The Bid Closing Committee is reporting that due to the amount of movement generated by the bid, processing of the bid is moving more slowly than usual. Results aren't expected to be available until late Tuesday or Wednesday.
News you can use:
W.A.R. Item 819
AIM 8-1-2
A sinus block is prevented by not flying with an upper respiratory infection or nasal allergic condition. Adequate protection is not usually provided by decongestant spray or drops to reduce congestion around the sinus openings. Oral decongestants have side effects that can impair pilot performance.
Educate to Vacate:
The Nicolau award integrates the bottom AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05, senior to all US Airways pilots who were actively flying EMB Aircraft under the ALPA US Airways CBA. Arbitrator Nicolau’s opinion incorrectly states that the US Airways Merger Committee’s Certified list shows these pilots as furloughed. This placed the AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05 senior to the AAA pilot hired on 7/18/88, who and had never been furloughed.
Equal pay for Equal Work:
The US Airways pilots have worked under a B Scale for 692 Days.
From September 27th, 2005 to August 19th, 2007, Due to the lack of =PAY4=WORK
Every Group 2 US Airways Captain has lost $31,948
Every Group 2 US Airways First Officer has lost $14,631
Follow the three-prong approach, fly safe and thanks for listening.
[If you haven’t been into the crew room to check your V-File in the last four days or logged onto either the AWA Web Board or “The Hub,†you might have missed this gem, reprinted in its entirety below.]
Dear US Airways Pilot:
We’ve received some questions from pilots about the company’s reaction to the resolution passed by the East MEC yesterday. The resolution states that East ALPA is withdrawing from joint contract negotiations (JNC) and does not intend to return unless the company immediately increases East pilot pay to West pilot rates (actually their proposal goes above West pilot rates in many cases).
The company’s reaction to this hopefully comes as no surprise to anyone, because we have been consistently stating it for quite some time now: We are not interested in engaging in contract negotiations with either the East or West pilots without the other group present. Doing so would only continue to drive a wedge between the two groups – plus drive all sorts of divisive issues in the future as new aircraft types and flying come on line and we have to decide which contract to fly it under.
We are, however, very interested in having discussions with both groups present with a goal of reaching a joint contract.
The fact is the company has already offered “pay parity†to our pilots. We put a joint contract proposal on the table back in May that would take all US Airways pilots to AWA rates plus 3%. Even though that proposal would increase the company’s costs by approximately $122 million per year, we were prepared to sign it then and are prepared to sign it now, because we want very much to get our pilots working together as one team with one contract.
The problem, of course, is not the company’s unwillingness to increase pay – we’ve already offered that – it is the fact that our goal of reaching a joint contract has been complicated significantly by the ALPA seniority integration dispute. We fully appreciate the magnitude of that issue to our pilots and the fact that it is an ALPA issue. As such, we are not trying to influence the ALPA process in any way.
We are, though, seriously concerned about how this seniority integration dispute is dividing our pilots. I have personally expressed those concerns to both MEC chairmen and the ALPA international president. I have been told the Rice Committee is hard at work and hopes to have recommendations/solutions within the next month or so. We hope that is the case – if it goes much longer, the company will probably request a mediator be added to our JNC talks, which the Transition Agreement allows either party to do. We’d rather not do that without the full support of both MECs and I’m optimistic that we won’t have to, but if this goes on for much longer, it may be the next best step for all of us. We found a mediator to be extremely helpful to all parties in our IAM joint negotiations over the past few weeks.
I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified. I happen to believe that if we could get everyone together at the negotiating table, we could work something out that meets everyone’s needs – though both sides would need to move some from their increasingly hardening positions. We are hopeful that the Rice Committee will facilitate some creative solutions and do so quickly. I know we have some ideas that we have shared with ALPA and I’m sure they have many more of their own.
So that’s where the company stands: we are anxious to get all of our pilots working together, on the same pay scale with the same work rules, under the same contract. The East MEC resolution correctly notes that some other contract employees have received pay parity, but in each case that came with a joint contract. That is what needs to happen with our pilots as well and we are willing to commit significant financial resources and time to make that happen. To do so, though, we need to get everyone to work together, not apart. Once that happens, we are optimistic that solutions can be found that allow us all to move forward.
In the meantime, please do what you can to treat each other with respect and professionalism. We will find a way through all of this – let’s try to do so without creating wounds that will take a long time to heal. Thank you.
Doug Parker ( August 16, 2007)
We posted this on the AWA Web Board, expecting sparks to fly. There was some reaction, but not nearly what we had expected. Comments ranged from it being typical company double-talk, to Ray Burkett’s missive: “The problem is the west is unwilling to reorder the list and the east wants it all and more, something we just can't giveâ€, to some angst that Parker might be seeing both the East position and the Rice Committee as being legitimate. Some pilots just read through the letter as being nothing more than a big yawn…
Those who thought it was a yawn must have missed this paragraph:
I should clarify that a joint contract does not necessarily mean immediate seniority integration. I have spoken with enough of our East pilots to know that such a proposal would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get ratified. I happen to believe that if we could get everyone together at the negotiating table, we could work something out that meets everyone’s needs – though both sides would need to move some from their increasingly hardening positions. We are hopeful that the Rice Committee will facilitate some creative solutions and do so quickly. I know we have some ideas that we have shared with ALPA and I’m sure they have many more of their own.
Whether you fly for the East or the West, you’ve got to find something to be concerned about in not only the paragraph above but in this one:
The fact is the company has already offered “pay parity†to our pilots. We put a joint contract proposal on the table back in May that would take all US Airways pilots to AWA rates plus 3%. Even though that proposal would increase the company’s costs by approximately $122 million per year, we were prepared to sign it then and are prepared to sign it now, because we want very much to get our pilots working together as one team with one contract.
So, East and West Pilots…what say you? Seniority integration (now or later) with 3% pay parity or continued separate operations with pay disparity? This is not a battle that U-Turn is going to get into. We report, so you can decide.
But we will remind you who aided and abetted the company in keeping this East-West battle going: ALPA National, the Rice Committee and the EC. Know your enemy. More to the point: know who your real enemy is.
Herndon: Where the ALPA Constitution is treated as a “minor inconvenience.â€
US Airways ALPA MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE - August 21, 2007
This is Arnie Gentile with a US Airways MEC update for Tuesday, August 21st, with three new items.
Item 1. To demonstrate their unanimous position, the MEC and MEC Officers signed and emailed a letter Yesterday to the pilots, that discusses the resolution the MEC passed last week and includes a copy of the resolution in its entirety. The resolution calls for the end of pay discrimination that this pilot group has suffered under for nearly two years. The letter highlights the fact that the East members of the JNC will cease to engage management until the pay discrimination against us stops and equal pay is granted to all pilots. In addition, as of September 1, 2007, any deal we sign will include retro pay from that day forward, with 8% interest." This letter will be posted under What's New.
Item 2. On Wednesday, August 8th, the AWA MEC filed a motion in Federal Court to join ALPA as a necessary party and include ALPA as a defendant in our suit over the Nicolau Award. This is an attempt by the AWA MEC to take ALPA off a position of neutrality and use union dues money and resources to defend the flawed award. Yesterday, our attorneys filed a motion to remand our lawsuit from the federal court back to the D.C. Superior Court, and takes the position that the federal court has no jurisdiction over our lawsuit to set aside the Nicolau Award. The motion to remand will be posted on the Pilot’s Only Web Site.
Item 3. The Bid Closing Committee is reporting that due to the amount of movement generated by the bid, processing of the bid is moving more slowly than usual. Results aren't expected to be available until late Tuesday or Wednesday.
News you can use:
W.A.R. Item 819
AIM 8-1-2
A sinus block is prevented by not flying with an upper respiratory infection or nasal allergic condition. Adequate protection is not usually provided by decongestant spray or drops to reduce congestion around the sinus openings. Oral decongestants have side effects that can impair pilot performance.
Educate to Vacate:
The Nicolau award integrates the bottom AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05, senior to all US Airways pilots who were actively flying EMB Aircraft under the ALPA US Airways CBA. Arbitrator Nicolau’s opinion incorrectly states that the US Airways Merger Committee’s Certified list shows these pilots as furloughed. This placed the AWA pilot hired on 4/4/05 senior to the AAA pilot hired on 7/18/88, who and had never been furloughed.
Equal pay for Equal Work:
The US Airways pilots have worked under a B Scale for 692 Days.
From September 27th, 2005 to August 19th, 2007, Due to the lack of =PAY4=WORK
Every Group 2 US Airways Captain has lost $31,948
Every Group 2 US Airways First Officer has lost $14,631
Follow the three-prong approach, fly safe and thanks for listening.
Your erroneous presumption is that the arbitrator can just make up stuff as he "arbitrates".
Sorry, there are guidelines that were not followed. Therefore, the "award" becomes moot.
Take it to an extreme. I mean, what if the arbitrator had ruled that the "winners" had to kill their first-born? Would the "fact" that the "award" were binding have any meaning?
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 599
Exactly what makes you think voting in a new union invalidates previous agreements? You're setting yourself up for more disappointment.
AAA73Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,513
- Reaction score
- 0
The first part? That is still to be determined.
The second part? I won't be disappointed if it means removing ALPA from the property. After 20+ years on this property alone, I have have had all I can stand from the good ole boys/girls in Herndon. It's really sad when our dues pay a secretary more than some pilots here.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 178
Hasn't ALPA, at least preliminarilly, found no procedural defects in the process and Award? What guidelines weren't followed?
The arbitrator's job is to fashion a result after hearing the evidence and listening to arguments by the respective sides.
Sorry, but I made no presumptions. The Award is what it is, a resolution to a full and binding arbitration which both sides agreed to abide by.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Exb717flyer said: "Exactly what makes you think voting in a new union invalidates previous agreements? You're setting yourself up for more disappointment."
USA320Pilot comments: According to USAPA attorney Lee Seham, "A successor union, which codified in its own constitution a commitment to the rational goal of date of hire seniority integration, would not be constrained by the dictates of ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy (with the Nicolau Award)."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot comments: According to USAPA attorney Lee Seham, "A successor union, which codified in its own constitution a commitment to the rational goal of date of hire seniority integration, would not be constrained by the dictates of ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy (with the Nicolau Award)."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
You're a couple of steps behind. Even the East MEC has moved off this loser position by now and effectively acknowledged the extremely broad discretion an arbitrator has to interpret "guidelines" which courts will not touch.
767jetz
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,286
- Reaction score
- 2,779
For FUTURE mergers. It does not change what is already done. It is already binding. USAPA's policies do not apply retroactively.
You are setting yourselves up for disappointment.
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 599
USA320Pilot:
767jetz is correct. You really need to read what you post more carefully. If in doubt, ask your attorney Seham.
Edit:
I just read on another thread from two days ago you posting the same quote and others informing you of your reading comprehension problem. If you can't differentiate from present, past, and future there's no point in debating the obvious with you.
767jetz is correct. You really need to read what you post more carefully. If in doubt, ask your attorney Seham.
Edit:
I just read on another thread from two days ago you posting the same quote and others informing you of your reading comprehension problem. If you can't differentiate from present, past, and future there's no point in debating the obvious with you.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
According to USAPA's attorney Lee Seham, whose firm "kicked" ALPA off of the American Airlines property the US Airways pilots may have no other option to remove ALPA from both of our properties to vacate the Nicolau Award.
Why? It is my understanding that in 1954 the Teamsters sued the NLRB over control of a seniority list because the Teamsters desired to re-write a seniority list outside contract negotiations. The NLRB disapproved this action, which resulted in the Teamsters complaint filed in court. The case was filed with the Second District Federal Court who ruled in favor of the union; however, the lower court’s decision was appealed and over turned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRB when it issued Citation # 107 NLRB 837; NLRB v Teamsters, 225 F. 2d. 343. On page 19 the Supreme Court said, “In 1954, the NLRB ruled that seniority status in mergers must be resolved by agreement between the employer and the union, not by the union unilaterally.â€
What is germane to our pilot group dispute and important to note is that the Nicolau Award is a private agreement among the parties, ALPA is a party to the Award, and ALPA is pledged to defend it. However, according to Seham what is very important to understand is that if ALPA is no longer present than it cannot defend the Award!
Apparently, seniority rights live in a CBA and not necessarily in an outside agreement. As you know, Section 22 of our current contracts is not closed and paragraph 22.B.1 of the East contract says, “Seniority of a pilot shall be based upon the length of service of an airline pilot in the employ of the Company or its predecessor airline companies whose operations have been taken by the Company.â€
The Supreme Court ruling above, the removal of ALPA from the seniority integration process, current contract rights afforded in Section 22 of the ALPA contract, and the removal of ALPA from both of our properties can vacate the Nicolau Award.
Once USAPA takes control over the combined pilot group there will be a new seniority integration negotiation. USAPA cannot deprive, and will not deprive, the West their right to negotiate a new seniority integration agreement and they will allow the process to carry out. USAPA and their Counsel clearly understands they cannot “lock out†the minority group (the AWA pilots) because this would create a DFR lawsuit, which could be won by the plaintiff. But, the majority group can “vote out†the minority group and implement a seniority integration, which can be effectively imposed. Basically USAPA could close the question, call the vote, call for the “I’s†who would decide the matter, the case would be closed, and seniority imposition would occur.
Also noteworthy, as USAPA grows their case and position continues to gain strength through the expertise of their Counsel. They are very close to filing the application for a card count and representational election.
Now, it is my understanding that the Rice Committee hopes to have recommendations/solutions by around Labor Day.
To make it perfectly clear what will happen, without a “realistic solution†that will likely be proposed by the Rice Committee, USAPA will become the new bargaining agent for the US Airways and the AWA pilots in the not-to-distant future. Next the seniority award/seniority integration will be re-visited. USAPA will not deprive the minority group of pilots of their legal rights to participate in the seniority negotiation process. Once the minority group presents their case in argument, with no agreement between the parties a new seniority list can be presented to the membership and imposed on the minority list.
With that said, the Company must agree to the new list and as long as it is reasonable, I believe that will not be a problem.
How can you avoid this imposition? By agreeing to the two EC resolutions, working with the Rice Committee and the US Airways MEC, move from your increasingly hardening position, and find a “realistic solution†to the problem to the seniority integration.
Again, the US Airways pilots will not be unreasonable nor do they want to take any PHX/LAS-based pilots position, job, or flying. Instead they want to keep their flying and are willing to discuss solutions per the EC and Rice Committee’s desires. If not then the US Airways pilots will have no option but to support USAPA efforts to remove ALPA from both properties.
Separately, I understand John Prater heard that loud and clear yesterday and then again today in DCA.
Also noteworthy, according to US Airways ALPA MEC Communications Committee Chairman Arnie Gentile, "To demonstrate their unanimous position, the MEC and MEC Officers signed and emailed a letter yesterday to the pilots, that discusses the resolution the MEC passed last week and includes a copy of the resolution in its entirety. The resolution calls for the end of pay discrimination that this pilot group has suffered under for nearly two years. The letter highlights the fact that the East members of the JNC will cease to engage management until the pay discrimination against us stops and equal pay is granted to all pilots. In addition, as of September 1, 2007, any deal we sign will include retro pay from that day forward, with 8% interest."
Gentile also indicated, "On Wednesday, August 8th, the AWA MEC filed a motion in Federal Court to join ALPA as a necessary party and include ALPA as a defendant in our suit over the Nicolau Award. This is an attempt by the AWA MEC to take ALPA off a position of neutrality and use union dues money and resources to defend the flawed award. Yesterday, our attorneys filed a motion to remand our lawsuit from the federal court back to the D.C. Superior Court, and takes the position that the federal court has no jurisdiction over our lawsuit to set aside the Nicolau Award."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Why? It is my understanding that in 1954 the Teamsters sued the NLRB over control of a seniority list because the Teamsters desired to re-write a seniority list outside contract negotiations. The NLRB disapproved this action, which resulted in the Teamsters complaint filed in court. The case was filed with the Second District Federal Court who ruled in favor of the union; however, the lower court’s decision was appealed and over turned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRB when it issued Citation # 107 NLRB 837; NLRB v Teamsters, 225 F. 2d. 343. On page 19 the Supreme Court said, “In 1954, the NLRB ruled that seniority status in mergers must be resolved by agreement between the employer and the union, not by the union unilaterally.â€
What is germane to our pilot group dispute and important to note is that the Nicolau Award is a private agreement among the parties, ALPA is a party to the Award, and ALPA is pledged to defend it. However, according to Seham what is very important to understand is that if ALPA is no longer present than it cannot defend the Award!
Apparently, seniority rights live in a CBA and not necessarily in an outside agreement. As you know, Section 22 of our current contracts is not closed and paragraph 22.B.1 of the East contract says, “Seniority of a pilot shall be based upon the length of service of an airline pilot in the employ of the Company or its predecessor airline companies whose operations have been taken by the Company.â€
The Supreme Court ruling above, the removal of ALPA from the seniority integration process, current contract rights afforded in Section 22 of the ALPA contract, and the removal of ALPA from both of our properties can vacate the Nicolau Award.
Once USAPA takes control over the combined pilot group there will be a new seniority integration negotiation. USAPA cannot deprive, and will not deprive, the West their right to negotiate a new seniority integration agreement and they will allow the process to carry out. USAPA and their Counsel clearly understands they cannot “lock out†the minority group (the AWA pilots) because this would create a DFR lawsuit, which could be won by the plaintiff. But, the majority group can “vote out†the minority group and implement a seniority integration, which can be effectively imposed. Basically USAPA could close the question, call the vote, call for the “I’s†who would decide the matter, the case would be closed, and seniority imposition would occur.
Also noteworthy, as USAPA grows their case and position continues to gain strength through the expertise of their Counsel. They are very close to filing the application for a card count and representational election.
Now, it is my understanding that the Rice Committee hopes to have recommendations/solutions by around Labor Day.
To make it perfectly clear what will happen, without a “realistic solution†that will likely be proposed by the Rice Committee, USAPA will become the new bargaining agent for the US Airways and the AWA pilots in the not-to-distant future. Next the seniority award/seniority integration will be re-visited. USAPA will not deprive the minority group of pilots of their legal rights to participate in the seniority negotiation process. Once the minority group presents their case in argument, with no agreement between the parties a new seniority list can be presented to the membership and imposed on the minority list.
With that said, the Company must agree to the new list and as long as it is reasonable, I believe that will not be a problem.
How can you avoid this imposition? By agreeing to the two EC resolutions, working with the Rice Committee and the US Airways MEC, move from your increasingly hardening position, and find a “realistic solution†to the problem to the seniority integration.
Again, the US Airways pilots will not be unreasonable nor do they want to take any PHX/LAS-based pilots position, job, or flying. Instead they want to keep their flying and are willing to discuss solutions per the EC and Rice Committee’s desires. If not then the US Airways pilots will have no option but to support USAPA efforts to remove ALPA from both properties.
Separately, I understand John Prater heard that loud and clear yesterday and then again today in DCA.
Also noteworthy, according to US Airways ALPA MEC Communications Committee Chairman Arnie Gentile, "To demonstrate their unanimous position, the MEC and MEC Officers signed and emailed a letter yesterday to the pilots, that discusses the resolution the MEC passed last week and includes a copy of the resolution in its entirety. The resolution calls for the end of pay discrimination that this pilot group has suffered under for nearly two years. The letter highlights the fact that the East members of the JNC will cease to engage management until the pay discrimination against us stops and equal pay is granted to all pilots. In addition, as of September 1, 2007, any deal we sign will include retro pay from that day forward, with 8% interest."
Gentile also indicated, "On Wednesday, August 8th, the AWA MEC filed a motion in Federal Court to join ALPA as a necessary party and include ALPA as a defendant in our suit over the Nicolau Award. This is an attempt by the AWA MEC to take ALPA off a position of neutrality and use union dues money and resources to defend the flawed award. Yesterday, our attorneys filed a motion to remand our lawsuit from the federal court back to the D.C. Superior Court, and takes the position that the federal court has no jurisdiction over our lawsuit to set aside the Nicolau Award."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
You are 100% totally wrong and you are not comparing apples to apples.
ALPA's merger policy is legit, seniority is controlled by the union, seniority in a CBA just sets up how things happen by seniority order.
I have told you time and time again and given you factual cases, changing unions does not change your CBA, does not change any greivance or arbitration awards.
By the RLA inherits those and has to enforce them or be sued.
The only time a union that has newly one can negotiate is when section 6 negotiations are ready to take place at the amendable date or they are negotiating for their first CBA.
Nothing you do will stop enforcement of the award, guess your MEC does not know the meaning of "binding arbitration".
Actually it is a process under the RLA and it has to be heard in federal court as the RLA is a Federal Law, not a state or municipality law.
Stop posting false information.
ALPA's merger policy is legit, seniority is controlled by the union, seniority in a CBA just sets up how things happen by seniority order.
I have told you time and time again and given you factual cases, changing unions does not change your CBA, does not change any greivance or arbitration awards.
By the RLA inherits those and has to enforce them or be sued.
The only time a union that has newly one can negotiate is when section 6 negotiations are ready to take place at the amendable date or they are negotiating for their first CBA.
Nothing you do will stop enforcement of the award, guess your MEC does not know the meaning of "binding arbitration".
Actually it is a process under the RLA and it has to be heard in federal court as the RLA is a Federal Law, not a state or municipality law.
Stop posting false information.
- Status
