A letrer from USAPA's Law Firm (EAST THREAD 8/17-24)

[700UW]

If you want to stalk me and take every topic off on a tangent then the mods will get involved and shut them down.

As soon as I get the information from the district I will post it.

Rome was not born in a day.

Now go to Wendy's and get a Frosty, you need to chill out and stop the stupid following me from thread to thread only to take the thread off topic.

 

[P51Pilot]

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.

The list cannot be used until there is a joint contract. Given what you just said, would the East pilots be better served with USAPA, their constitution, and their collective bargaining goals on seniority, as the union or ALPA?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Aw shucks I am back from the cornfield.

I have to ask the AWA guys this:

Did a high company executive recently tell you this: "You have a lottery ticket that you cannot cash." And, did your union subsequently buy this company executive a lottery ticket?

What this says is the company isn't going to allow the Nicolau List on the property and they aren't going DOH either.

Furthermore, it's obvious that the company is going to retaliate against the group that does not cooperate with getting a new list together. I have a feeling the first blast across the bow for those that don't cooperate will be new aircraft deliveries going to the other side.

Later,
Eye

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Furthermore, it's obvious that the company is going to retaliate against the group that does not cooperate with getting a new list together. I have a feeling the first blast across the bow for those that don't cooperate will be new aircraft deliveries going to the other side.

Later,
Eye

Maybe threatened. But I think the aircraft will go where they will make the most money. Just my opinion.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Maybe threatened. But I think the aircraft will go where they will make the most money. Just my opinion.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner...

As per quarterly earnings reports 95% of the money is being made in the east. That's not fuzzy math.

Later,
Eye

 

[exB717Flyer]

I have to ask the AWA guys this: Did a high company executive recently tell you this: "You have a lottery ticket that you cannot cash." And, did your union subsequently buy this company executive a lottery ticket?

Nope, never heard this. Until proven legit I don't believe it, either.

 

[ussnark]

Exactly what makes you think voting in a new union invalidates previous agreements? You're setting yourself up for more disappointment.

Uh, different constitution and bylaws? Does that help you?

What about this?

Vote in new union with Constitution and Bylaws similar to AFA merger rules, say, any joint agreements will only recognize DOH for bidding (non-rev also?). Old agreements in force until renegotiated with management, then out. Since there is no "joint" or merged agreement in effect, so far, Nicholau gets parked in the permanent impound lot.

 

[ussnark]

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.

Actually, sir, you are well behind.

Define "windfall".

 

[ussnark]

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.

Uh, is there a "joint" contract already?

Had the westies been quicker on their feet, they would have had a joint contract signed sealed and delivered before the ruling. Then, your implication would have been correct.

You also forgot to note the last paren where the attorney included "Nicholau" as a guideline that could be excluded.

 

[AWA320]

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.

You are 100% correct in that it does not apply retroactively. Their only hope would be to prevail in a law suit however they were informed via that letter that those efforts would too be fruitless. The west I see will have no choice other than to file suit against the east members jointly and severly! That's goin to leave a mark on this industry like no other in history. Sad really sad...

 

[AWA320]

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!

Accept that your crack legal team is attempting to disallow ALPA as a party to that useless law suit you filed. Now you can't in one area state that ALPA should not be a party then attempt to site an off point case only to turn around then ask that they are!!!

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€￾

Ask your attorney time again for you I see!! You gave up that right the same as we did when one you mergerd and second when you agreed to have a federal arbitrator preside over your case. You guys are beginning to sound like a three stooges episode...


Regards,

USA320Pilot

Wasted time and money on usless efforts

 

[AWA320]

Aw shucks I am back from the cornfield.

I have to ask the AWA guys this:

Did a high company executive recently tell you this: "You have a lottery ticket that you cannot cash." And, did your union subsequently buy this company executive a lottery ticket?

What this says is the company isn't going to allow the Nicolau List on the property and they aren't going DOH either.

Furthermore, it's obvious that the company is going to retaliate against the group that does not cooperate with getting a new list together. I have a feeling the first blast across the bow for those that don't cooperate will be new aircraft deliveries going to the other side.

Later,
Eye

Too much time in the sun with a bag on your head in the cornfield I see. Kirby's remark yep sure did however PARKER stated publically that the list is just fine with the company and the stand READY with a press release when they get it!!! Now I tend to follow the CEO over the president everytime.

Welcome back btw, i think...

 

[Bear96]

Uh, different constitution and bylaws? Does that help you?

OK, let's go with that.

1. The new union adopts a bylaw or constitutional provision which states, "We don't like how pilots were paid when they were ALPA. It is our policy that all pilots should be paid at least $1m/yr." Does that immediately obligate management to bargain with the new union over pilot pay, even though the current CBA doesn't become amendable for two more years?

2. Say two years ago ALPA lost a hypothetical contractual grievance at the System Board of Adjustment, and the arbitrator decided against ALPA. As an example, let's say it was over scheduled duty time limitations. ALPA's interpretation of a certain provision in the contract was that under certain circumstances pilots were limited to a 12 hour duty day, while the company interpreted the same provision as permitting a 16 hour duty day. The arbitrator sided with the company. Is the new union free to ignore the decision because it is not ALPA, and instruct its pilots to walk off after 12 hours?

3. How about the reverse of # 2. The arbitrator sided with the union, not the company, and the decision prohibited the company from scheduling pilots for more than 12 hours of duty under certain circumstances. Can the company now ignore the arbitrator's decision, and start scheduling pilots for 16 hour duty days? After all, the grievance and resulting arbitration decision was between the company and ALPA, not the new union, and ALPA no longer exists, so the losing side is free to pretend the arbitration never happened, right?

4. Legal fees are piling up, so the new union decides it needs more money to operate. It adopts a bylaw or constitutional provision that establishes union dues are 5% of pay. Can the union go back ten years and make all pilots pay the 5% of pay for the time before the new union was voted in and before the new 5% dues policy was even adopted? Now with ALPA gone, the new union is free to go back retroactively and change the past so that all is in harmony with the new C&BL, right? Money problem solved. It's just like waving a magic wand!

 

[Bear96]

Actually, sir, you are well behind.

Define "windfall".

Why bother? It matters not how you or I define "windfall" or interpret any other provision of the ALPA merger policy.

All that is legally binding is the arbitrator's interpretation of such terms and provisions, even if you or I -- or even if you AND I -- think the arbitrator got it "wrong."

Binding arbitration is funny like that. Too bad your union leaders didn't sufficiently educate you as to what you were getting into.

 

[hp_fa]

OK, let's go with that.

1. The new union adopts a bylaw or constitutional provision which states, "We don't like how pilots were paid when they were ALPA. It is our policy that all pilots should be paid at least $1m/yr." Does that immediately obligate management to bargain with the new union over pilot pay, even though the current CBA doesn't become amendable for two more years?

2. Say two years ago ALPA lost a hypothetical contractual grievance at the System Board of Adjustment, and the arbitrator decided against ALPA. As an example, let's say it was over scheduled duty time limitations. ALPA's interpretation of a certain provision in the contract was that under certain circumstances pilots were limited to a 12 hour duty day, while the company interpreted the same provision as permitting a 16 hour duty day. The arbitrator sided with the company. Is the new union free to ignore the decision because it is not ALPA, and instruct its pilots to walk off after 12 hours?

3. How about the reverse of # 2. The arbitrator sided with the union, not the company, and the decision prohibited the company from scheduling pilots for more than 12 hours of duty under certain circumstances. Can the company now ignore the arbitrator's decision, and start scheduling pilots for 16 hour duty days? After all, the grievance and resulting arbitration decision was between the company and ALPA, not the new union, and ALPA no longer exists, so the losing side is free to pretend the arbitration never happened, right?

4. Legal fees are piling up, so the new union decides it needs more money to operate. It adopts a bylaw or constitutional provision that establishes union dues are 5% of pay. Can the union go back ten years and make all pilots pay the 5% of pay for the time before the new union was voted in and before the new 5% dues policy was even adopted? Now with ALPA gone, the new union is free to go back retroactively and change the past so that all is in harmony with the new C&BL, right? Money problem solved. It's just like waving a magic wand!

Excellent post. It brings light to the subject that you can't just pick and choose what agreements you plan on honoring and expect the other parties to those agreements to just allow you to do that picking and choosing.