AAA thread 11/2-11/8

[nostradamus]

Yes, yes, no, no, no.

You sound like my first girlfriend.

 

[Bear96]

You sound like my first girlfriend.

 

[BoeingBoy]

In this case, the Nicolau seniority list has no more value right now than say a list that you put out, I put out or anyone else puts out. It has to be voted on...voted on by the MAJORITY.

Wrong. There is no vote required for an arbitrated decision. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that you meant that the award has no value until a joint contract is ratified by the MAJORITY on both sides. This also ties into nycbusdriver's earlier post:

Assuming USAPA becomes the bargaining agent AND when that happens there is not already a joint contract ratified and in place, then USAPA would become the contract administrator for TWO contracts (east and west) and TWO separate seniority lists. Both of these lists are already set in stone, and these are the lists with which USAPA will work.

Again, wrong. The arbitrated list becomes the "official" combined list when it's passed to the company. I'd be willing to bet that this will happen before a vote is cast in a representational election. Until the joint contract is ratified (by both sides) - the single "official" list is not effective. Assuming the likely sequence of events (list passed to company, USAPA possibly voted in, joint contract), USAPA will administer the two separate lists/contracts until a joint contract is ratified, then will have to administer the single existing list/new single contract.

What I am saying is USAPA or any other labor union has NO OBLIGATION to support, defend, enforce, or call it what you like, the previous CB agents constitution/bylaws/policy. That should go without saying.

And at least for me, it does go without saying that USAPA would have no obligation to "support, etc" (or to replicate) ALPA's C&BL or policy. But USAPA will be stuck with agreements reached before it becomes the bargaining agent, including the combined list. Proactively, USAPA can have any constitution/bylaws/policy it wants, but it can't retroactively nullify or amend agreements by virtue of being voted in. Without risk, however, USAPA cannot fail to "support, etc" agreements that existed when it becomes the bargaining agent.

As I replied to someone else earlier, it earlier seemed that you were saying that USAPA's victory would make previous agreements null and void - hence my question about other previous arbitrated lists. Your later posts seem to indicate that what you are really saying is that the Nic list can not become effective without a majority vote - which I agree with and have all along.

Jim

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Jim,
They would have to be careful. Loading the docket with a bunch of "lame-duck" agreements can backfire. I think the company is smart enough to realize that they are better off negotiating with the union that represents the majority of the pilots....whatever that turns out to be.

Just my two cents.

Later,
Eye

 

[end_of_alpa]

End,

I disagree. The arbitration was between the two pilot groups. I think Jim’s question goes to the heart of your argument.

I believe that any attempt to combine the two pilot groups with a single seniority list is bound by the arbitration regardless of the representational body for the CBA. You state that the Nic award has not been implemented and therefore may be negated. I do not think the validity of an arbitration award rests with its implementation. The Nic award is the contractual adjudicated culmination of the dispute between the two pilot groups. Not ALPA National or the company. ALPA National was not a participant in the seniority arbitration between the two pilot groups, nor did it represent the two pilot groups in the arbitration process. If successful in wining a representational election, USAPA will have to address the seniority dispute between the two pilot groups adhering to the prior contractual obligations of the two pilot groups through the arbitration, same as adhering to the contractual obligations of the two pilot groups through their CBAs.

If, as you state, that the arbitration award has no value because, “USAPA or any other labor union has NO OBLIGATION to support, defend, enforce, or call it what you like, the previous CB agents constitution/bylaws/policy.â€￾, and therefore is not required to defend the award then Jim’s question comes into play. If USAPA’s constitution/bylaws/policy define placement on a combined or merged seniority list as strictly DOH or LOS, then when creating or implementing a seniority list for the new US Airways to treat all members in an equal and fair fashion they would have to use original DOH or LOS with the entire pilot group. How can USAPA defend an arbitration award derived under the ALPA constitution/bylaws/policy in one case and not all? How would USAPA argue in court that the empire or shuttle pilots are not entitled to their original DOH or LOS on the new seniority list in accordance with the USAPA constitution/bylaws/policy?

To selectively implement the constitution/bylaws/policy would invite a DFR lawsuit.

It is specious to argue that a contractually adjudicated arbitration award to settle a dispute concerning a combined seniority list is not valid until implemented in a single CBA, but then when implementing a combined list saying the arbitration award is not valid because the lists were never combined in a single CBA.

And no, I am not a lawyer!

Certainly...disagree, that is your right and your opinion. Let's look at the history like this:

Piedmont pilots wanted slotting, US Air/PSA wanted DOH. Piedmont pilots had roughly the same amount of pilots as US Air/PSA.
If the Piedmont pilots felt it was unfair, they had a choice to try to decertify ALPA for another union and then renegotiate the contract with the company to implement their position when the Kagel award came out. They could never muster the sufficient number of pilots necessary to do that so they had to live with it. The MAJORITY accepted it.

Empire pilots wanted DOH and the Piedmont pilots felt they were a commuter airline. Piedmont really only bought them for the F-28. The company could have taken the jets and put the empire pilots on the street. The Piedmont pilots felt that they should work for Piedmont so they wouldn't lose their jobs. Empires pilot group was very small compared to Piedmont. They, in short, had NO leverage of any signifigance to accept anything but what the majority of the Piedmont pilots offered them. The MAJORITY accepted it.

The shuttle pilot group was a small group of about 185-200 pilots to the best of my recollection. When the ruling from Nicolau came out then, his logic and reasoning actually made sense. They brought planes with them, they were capturing their attrition and due to the size of the Shuttle pilot group the career advancement projections made such a small advancement footprint in relation to the whole that it had a negligilble effect on the pilot group as a whole. What the insidious nature of George Nicolau was is that his logic there at shuttle led the US Airways MEC to believe he would be like a judge and use prior caselaw and rule logically. The MAJORITY accepted it.

That is obviously NOT the case with US Airways/AWA. The MAJORITY is NOT accepting it.

You are NOT a lawyer. The Nic award is NOT a contractually adjudicated award. ALPA merger policy is in ALPA's Constitution/bylaws/policy. It is NOT a contract. ALPA merger policy could be equated to congressional statutes. It is not a contract, it is a law...a law under ALPA. Change your collective bargaining agent to another bargaining agent then you are exchanging one set of laws for another. THE CONTRACT OR CONTRACTS REMAIN...THE PREVIOUS BARGAINING AGENT AND HIS CONSTITUTION,BYLAWS AND POLICY DOESN'T.

As far as a DFR lawsuit from the Empire/Shuttle guys, they are now so few and far between that it would take a ton of cash from them to pursue it and even if they did, it wouldn't amount to anything with USAPA because they have been working under these awards for several years and any so-called statute of limitations, if any existed, would have expired. Besides, they're already merged in and have been doing this for quite some time. They are estopped from DFR because they are flying under it. This is NOT selective implimentation. I do not know how your coming to THAT conclusion. Their positions have been accepted, flown and established. The AWA/US Airways integration is NOT.

What you are implying is that if USAPA says Date of Hire for US Airways/AWA you are saying USAPA has to apply that to ALL the prior mergers. That assessment could'nt be further from the truth. As I said before, they are integrated and flying. US Airways/AWA is not.

ALPA did have a roll in the seniority integration...THEY PROVIDED THE PROCESS. ALPA law, if you will. Here is the problem:

Just like the Arbitrator had virtually no limits in establishing a list according to what he thought it should be, ALPA merger policy has no appealable limits once the award is complete. As long as ALPA remains the bargaining agent, ALPA merger policy is law. Going to Federal court is a waste of time UNLESS you could prove fraud, unconscionable policy or a flawed process. But it is also a double edge sword and the Achilles heal of the same policy...it cannot be applied OUTSIDE of ALPA. PERIOD. There no longer exists a medium to enforce the award because IT WASN'T written into the policy. Even if it was, you still couldn't enforce it if you vote in a new collective bargaining agent.

You say your not a lawyer. So tell me, how are you going to enforce it?

It is specious to argue that ALPA Merger policy contractually adjudicated arbitration award. It is NO SUCH THING!

Look, why don't you just get your own labor attorney that specializes in RLA law. I'm sure you could pay him several hundred dollars for the same answers I'm giving you. The main difference is we'll all get to see it in action, most likely.

Look, were going to find out here eventually. Everyone is going to find out how labor unions really work. Labor unions are run by the MAJORITY. Thats the way it works. Sorry, that is just the fact of life. Why do you think every labor union makes the statement "united we stand, divided we fall."? without overwhelming numbers in the majority, you can't easily make a difference.

FYI.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Wrong. There is no vote required for an arbitrated decision. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that you meant that the award has no value until a joint contract is ratified by the MAJORITY on both sides. This also ties into nycbusdriver's earlier post:



Again, wrong. The arbitrated list becomes the "official" combined list when it's passed to the company. I'd be willing to bet that this will happen before a vote is cast in a representational election. Until the joint contract is ratified (by both sides) - the single "official" list is not effective. Assuming the likely sequence of events (list passed to company, USAPA possibly voted in, joint contract), USAPA will administer the two separate lists/contracts until a joint contract is ratified, then will have to administer the single existing list/new single contract.



And at least for me, it does go without saying that USAPA would have no obligation to "support, etc" (or to replicate) ALPA's C&BL or policy. But USAPA will be stuck with agreements reached before it becomes the bargaining agent, including the combined list. Proactively, USAPA can have any constitution/bylaws/policy it wants, but it can't retroactively nullify or amend agreements by virtue of being voted in. Without risk, however, USAPA cannot fail to "support, etc" agreements that existed when it becomes the bargaining agent.

As I replied to someone else earlier, it earlier seemed that you were saying that USAPA's victory would make previous agreements null and void - hence my question about other previous arbitrated lists. Your later posts seem to indicate that what you are really saying is that the Nic list can not become effective without a majority vote - which I agree with and have all along.

Jim

Look...if USAPA gets in, and it has a better than 50-50 chance that it will, then a DFR suit will be filed. Good. I look forward to the vindication. Hopefully, that time will come soon. ALPA could pass the list to the company right now. It would have no meaning without the vote. The company cannot selectively accept the award but leave the rest of the contracts hanging. You and I agree. However, everyone reads too much into the Transition agreement. The transition agreement is, well, like the "pirates code". It's more of a guideline than anything else. It is NOT a contract, however. It is an agreement to negotiate. That's it. No negotiation...no contract and therefore, no Nicolau award.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Gee, that's fascinating. (Really.) Now, what does it matter if I or you use Lexis, Westlaw, or Loislaw?




Ah, I see your confusion. This is in fact an anonyomus internet discussion board that anyone can sign up for and participate it. You are free to start a "members only" discussion board where you can verify all participants are LCC pilots. But this ain't that.




As I have previously mentioned, I simply don't have the time to chase down and disprove all the false paths and obfuscations some people here throw out as they contort logic and law in their attempts to show that binding arbitration is indeed not binding. People like you and USA320pilot (RIP) are like bunch of squid squirting ink in their wake to try to cloud some relatively simple issues. I just don't have the time or the inclination to clear up all the clouds you leave in your wake.

Plus, I don't want to do things only half-baked. Doing a half-ass job at legal esearch only leads to such embarassing mistakes as stating, "The law is that the FAA does not apply to employment contracts," without realizing the Supreme Court disagrees. Oops!




? Translation please? Did I make a Bluebooking error?




Wrong again. At least you're consistent. (And if you practiced labor law, I guarantee you would have heard of my firm.)




That's it. I state the law is on the side of the West pilots in the instant dispute and against the East pilots, and you conclude I am against ALL pilots because of some "chip" (again, RIP) on my shoulder. You very funny man.




Have you ever worked for a major firm? Obviously not, since you have no concept of the billing structure Lexis has for large firms. I have unlimited access to Lexis. It's a lot like a law school account.




Pretty poorly.

Now let me guess about you.

You are an East pilot bitter about how his career has gone.

As part of your mid-life crisis, you had this brilliant idea to go to law school.

You spent tens of thousands of dollars (maybe racking up huge debt) to go to a mediocre law school and got mediocre grades.

After barely passing the bar, you couldn't get hired by a decent firm and so hung up a shingle out of desperation.

You now draw up a few codicils for Aunt Millie's will every few months, and handle a few residential real estate closings and divorces between miserable people who hate each other and gripe about your small bill, and maybe defend a few DUIs or other petty criminals for a pitifully low rate.

You desperately wish you could have gotten on with a firm that actually has a labor law practice since, as an airline pilot, you know everything about everything to do with labor law.

But you couldn't, so you are reduced to hurling insults at someone on the other side of a computer screen who has the non-airline job you want.

Boy, I sure struck a nerve with you. Enjoy!!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Gee, that's fascinating. (Really.) Now, what does it matter if I or you use Lexis, Westlaw, or Loislaw?




Ah, I see your confusion. This is in fact an anonyomus internet discussion board that anyone can sign up for and participate it. You are free to start a "members only" discussion board where you can verify all participants are LCC pilots. But this ain't that.




As I have previously mentioned, I simply don't have the time to chase down and disprove all the false paths and obfuscations some people here throw out as they contort logic and law in their attempts to show that binding arbitration is indeed not binding. People like you and USA320pilot (RIP) are like bunch of squid squirting ink in their wake to try to cloud some relatively simple issues. I just don't have the time or the inclination to clear up all the clouds you leave in your wake.

Plus, I don't want to do things only half-baked. Doing a half-ass job at legal esearch only leads to such embarassing mistakes as stating, "The law is that the FAA does not apply to employment contracts," without realizing the Supreme Court disagrees. Oops!




? Translation please? Did I make a Bluebooking error?




Wrong again. At least you're consistent. (And if you practiced labor law, I guarantee you would have heard of my firm.)




That's it. I state the law is on the side of the West pilots in the instant dispute and against the East pilots, and you conclude I am against ALL pilots because of some "chip" (again, RIP) on my shoulder. You very funny man.




Have you ever worked for a major firm? Obviously not, since you have no concept of the billing structure Lexis has for large firms. I have unlimited access to Lexis. It's a lot like a law school account.




Pretty poorly.

Now let me guess about you.

You are an East pilot bitter about how his career has gone.

As part of your mid-life crisis, you had this brilliant idea to go to law school.

You spent tens of thousands of dollars (maybe racking up huge debt) to go to a mediocre law school and got mediocre grades.

After barely passing the bar, you couldn't get hired by a decent firm and so hung up a shingle out of desperation.

You now draw up a few codicils for Aunt Millie's will every few months, and handle a few residential real estate closings and divorces between miserable people who hate each other and gripe about your small bill, and maybe defend a few DUIs or other petty criminals for a pitifully low rate.

You desperately wish you could have gotten on with a firm that actually has a labor law practice since, as an airline pilot, you know everything about everything to do with labor law.

But you couldn't, so you are reduced to hurling insults at someone on the other side of a computer screen who has the non-airline job you want.

Boy, I sure struck a nerve with you. Enjoy!!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Gee, that's fascinating. (Really.) Now, what does it matter if I or you use Lexis, Westlaw, or Loislaw?




Ah, I see your confusion. This is in fact an anonyomus internet discussion board that anyone can sign up for and participate it. You are free to start a "members only" discussion board where you can verify all participants are LCC pilots. But this ain't that.




As I have previously mentioned, I simply don't have the time to chase down and disprove all the false paths and obfuscations some people here throw out as they contort logic and law in their attempts to show that binding arbitration is indeed not binding. People like you and USA320pilot (RIP) are like bunch of squid squirting ink in their wake to try to cloud some relatively simple issues. I just don't have the time or the inclination to clear up all the clouds you leave in your wake.

Plus, I don't want to do things only half-baked. Doing a half-ass job at legal esearch only leads to such embarassing mistakes as stating, "The law is that the FAA does not apply to employment contracts," without realizing the Supreme Court disagrees. Oops!




? Translation please? Did I make a Bluebooking error?




Wrong again. At least you're consistent. (And if you practiced labor law, I guarantee you would have heard of my firm.)




That's it. I state the law is on the side of the West pilots in the instant dispute and against the East pilots, and you conclude I am against ALL pilots because of some "chip" (again, RIP) on my shoulder. You very funny man.




Have you ever worked for a major firm? Obviously not, since you have no concept of the billing structure Lexis has for large firms. I have unlimited access to Lexis. It's a lot like a law school account.




Pretty poorly.

Now let me guess about you.

You are an East pilot bitter about how his career has gone.

As part of your mid-life crisis, you had this brilliant idea to go to law school.

You spent tens of thousands of dollars (maybe racking up huge debt) to go to a mediocre law school and got mediocre grades.

After barely passing the bar, you couldn't get hired by a decent firm and so hung up a shingle out of desperation.

You now draw up a few codicils for Aunt Millie's will every few months, and handle a few residential real estate closings and divorces between miserable people who hate each other and gripe about your small bill, and maybe defend a few DUIs or other petty criminals for a pitifully low rate.

You desperately wish you could have gotten on with a firm that actually has a labor law practice since, as an airline pilot, you know everything about everything to do with labor law.

But you couldn't, so you are reduced to hurling insults at someone on the other side of a computer screen who has the non-airline job you want.

Boy, that was funny!! Lady, you need to get a life. Good luck with that!

 

[N924PS]

You are or were flight attendant for United Airlines. You are also a lawyer, pilot wannabe, you were too lazy to attain licenses for either of these professions, so you are now living your life vicariously using this message board.

Sad lonely life you have.

"A little bit of knowledge is truly dangerous."

And you are a pilot and lawyer wannabe, who probably failed the bar a time or two and are simarly living your life vicariously on these boards.

"A little bit of knowledge is truly dangerous." You should know.

Better get back to your Cheetos and "M.A.S.H." reruns.

 

[usabusdriver]

End_of_ALPA wrote:

The Nic award is NOT a contractually adjudicated award. ALPA merger policy is in ALPA's Constitution/bylaws/policy. It is NOT a contract. ALPA merger policy could be equated to congressional statutes. It is not a contract, it is a law...a law under ALPA. Change your collective bargaining agent to another bargaining agent then you are exchanging one set of laws for another. THE CONTRACT OR CONTRACTS REMAIN...THE PREVIOUS BARGAINING AGENT AND HIS CONSTITUTION,BYLAWS AND POLICY DOESN'T.


End,

I seem not to have made my point. By stating a contractually adjudicated arbitration award I mean that it is a non-judicial or apart from litigation in the court system. In this situation two parties have a dispute concerning seniority integration. Both parties are members of an association. That association has a process defined by which members of the association would settle disputes that arise concerning seniority integration. The parties contracted with each other for binding arbitration under the auspices of the NMB in accordance with the association’s policies but not in conjunction with the association. Thereby arriving at a contractually adjudicated arbitration award. The association’s policies provide a method of redress for the parties if they disagree with the award, although the award is not governed by those policies but by US law. Since this method of appeal has been unsuccessful in changing the award, a convoluted process has been proposed to delay implementation by one party to the arbitration through a change in the representational organization. A change in representation may change the process by which disputes among those represented are handled, but it will not change the way US law applies to contractually adjudicated arbitration awards. USAPA will be bound to implement the Nic award for a combined CBA, although it may be many years henceforth.


As far as a DFR lawsuit from the Empire/Shuttle guys, they are now so few and far between that it would take a ton of cash from them to pursue it and even if they did, it wouldn't amount to anything with USAPA because they have been working under these awards for several years and any so-called statute of limitations, if any existed, would have expired.

The DFR would be with USAPA in the scenario I described. You argued that ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy defines seniority integration and if ALPA is not the collective bargaining agent then the new collective bargaining agent can ignore the arbitration award. USAPA states that the new Constitution/bylaws/policy defines that all merged lists will now be created using DOH or LOS as the criteria for placement on the list and so must be used equally for all of the pilots represented. The Empire / Shuttle pilots argue that their true DOH or LOS was arbitrarily cut with the awards under ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy and want their true DOH or LOS for the new seniority list in accordance with the USAPA Constitution/bylaws/policy.

...it cannot be applied OUTSIDE of ALPA. PERIOD. There no longer exists a medium to enforce the award because IT WASN'T written into the policy. Even if it was, you still couldn't enforce it if you vote in a new collective bargaining agent.

You say your not a lawyer. So tell me, how are you going to enforce it?

Enforcement is through the court system. Contractual or non-judicial arbitration awards are governed by US Law not ALPA’s or USPA’s Constitution/bylaws/policy.

 

[EastUS]

End_of_ALPA wrote:

The Nic award is NOT a contractually adjudicated award. ALPA merger policy is in ALPA's Constitution/bylaws/policy. It is NOT a You say your not a lawyer. So tell me, how are you going to enforce it?

Enforcement is through the court system. Contractual or non-judicial arbitration awards are governed by US Law not ALPA’s or USPA’s Constitution/bylaws/policy.

"Enforcement is through the court system." Well...that does sound just a wee bit vague.

 

[end_of_alpa]

End_of_ALPA wrote:

The Nic award is NOT a contractually adjudicated award. ALPA merger policy is in ALPA's Constitution/bylaws/policy. It is NOT a contract. ALPA merger policy could be equated to congressional statutes. It is not a contract, it is a law...a law under ALPA. Change your collective bargaining agent to another bargaining agent then you are exchanging one set of laws for another. THE CONTRACT OR CONTRACTS REMAIN...THE PREVIOUS BARGAINING AGENT AND HIS CONSTITUTION,BYLAWS AND POLICY DOESN'T.


End,

I seem not to have made my point. By stating a contractually adjudicated arbitration award I mean that it is a non-judicial or apart from litigation in the court system. In this situation two parties have a dispute concerning seniority integration. Both parties are members of an association. That association has a process defined by which members of the association would settle disputes that arise concerning seniority integration. The parties contracted with each other for binding arbitration under the auspices of the NMB in accordance with the association’s policies but not in conjunction with the association. Thereby arriving at a contractually adjudicated arbitration award. The association’s policies provide a method of redress for the parties if they disagree with the award, although the award is not governed by those policies but by US law. Since this method of appeal has been unsuccessful in changing the award, a convoluted process has been proposed to delay implementation by one party to the arbitration through a change in the representational organization. A change in representation may change the process by which disputes among those represented are handled, but it will not change the way US law applies to contractually adjudicated arbitration awards. USAPA will be bound to implement the Nic award for a combined CBA, although it may be many years henceforth.


As far as a DFR lawsuit from the Empire/Shuttle guys, they are now so few and far between that it would take a ton of cash from them to pursue it and even if they did, it wouldn't amount to anything with USAPA because they have been working under these awards for several years and any so-called statute of limitations, if any existed, would have expired.

The DFR would be with USAPA in the scenario I described. You argued that ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy defines seniority integration and if ALPA is not the collective bargaining agent then the new collective bargaining agent can ignore the arbitration award. USAPA states that the new Constitution/bylaws/policy defines that all merged lists will now be created using DOH or LOS as the criteria for placement on the list and so must be used equally for all of the pilots represented. The Empire / Shuttle pilots argue that their true DOH or LOS was arbitrarily cut with the awards under ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy and want their true DOH or LOS for the new seniority list in accordance with the USAPA Constitution/bylaws/policy.

...it cannot be applied OUTSIDE of ALPA. PERIOD. There no longer exists a medium to enforce the award because IT WASN'T written into the policy. Even if it was, you still couldn't enforce it if you vote in a new collective bargaining agent.

You say your not a lawyer. So tell me, how are you going to enforce it?

Enforcement is through the court system. Contractual or non-judicial arbitration awards are governed by US Law not ALPA’s or USPA’s Constitution/bylaws/policy.

You are correct, you have not made your point.

You said: "The parties contracted with each other for binding arbitration under the auspices of the NMB in accordance with the association’s policies but not in conjunction with the association."

I'll tell you what. I would like to post a link to the NMB website but it is down this morning.

Look, if you go there you will see a listing of all the docketed cases before them. You will not find one between East or West. The only thing you may find eventually is if ALPA national files for single carrier status between East and West. It will have a docketing number if and when that comes about. ALPA national can't file that (or at least it would be premature to file without a combined contract) yet. The NMB does NOT get involved with intra union politics. That is not how their process works nor is that the "process" used to handle this.

You said: "The association’s policies provide a method of redress for the parties if they disagree with the award, although the award is not governed by those policies but by US law. Since this method of appeal has been unsuccessful in changing the award, a convoluted process has been proposed to delay implementation by one party to the arbitration through a change in the representational organization. A change in representation may change the process by which disputes among those represented are handled, but it will not change the way US law applies to contractually adjudicated arbitration awards. USAPA will be bound to implement the Nic award for a combined CBA, although it may be many years henceforth."

You are confused. This statement you made makes no sense. There is no appeal process after ALPA merger policy. You submit the award to the EC, they look at it (for what, I couldn't tell you) and the President submits it to the company. As long as the list conforms to the comapnies conditions AND as long as ALPA remains the CB Agent, the company would be bound to honor it IF ALPA remains the CB Agent AND the majority votes for a contract with that in it. That is the ONLY method for redress, ALPA stays and the MAJORITY ratifies a contract with the award in it. Period.

THERE IS NO "CONSTITUTIONAL" CONTRACT. THERE IS NO SUCH AN ANIMAL. YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

You said: "By stating a contractually adjudicated arbitration award I mean that it is a non-judicial or apart from litigation in the court system."

You contradict yourself then. If it is non-judicial or apart from litigation in the court system, then you do not have a contract because you can not enforce it, just like you said. That is what I am telling you. You do not have a contract if there is NO place to adjudicate. I understand your trying to understand.

You are putting apples and wood glue together. Constitutions/Bylaws/Policies are NOT contracts. Remember Newt Gingrich talking about a "contract" with America? He was using that in a semantical way, but Constitutions are not contracts. They are the fundamental foundation that state how the organization is structured. It is a map of the organization.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. The transition agreement is more of a contract between East and West MEC's. The MEC's are political bodies organized under ALPA constitution. These are NOT contractual positions like employment. The same thing goes for local state and national positions. They agree to negotiate together, with ALPA national's assistance...and ultimately their support and signature. If ALPA loses it's status as the CB agent, by law, the entity that assumes the mantle has what is called EXCLUSIVE bargaining rights. They pick up, if you will, where ALPA left off. It doesn't mean they cannot change the terms of this or any negotation...they can. Becasue if they couldn't we would be in a "catch 22" situation...it would be contract stagnation and that would NOT be collective bargainng as we know it. A craft or class gets ONLY one bargaining agent. PERIOD, by law. You have the Transition agreement, which is an agreement to negotiate. It is not and solidified contract agreement, as I have alreeady stated.

If the ALPA constitution no longer applies and the transition agreement has no teeth if the next CB agent chooses to "renegotiate", which is the new CB agents liccense, if you will, ALPA national can have no involvement. They are out, both MEC's are out and negotaitons start over. The company can't negotiate with either East or West MEC's because there is no longer an MEC on either side to negotiate with. That is how it works in either RLA and NLRA. One to a customer.

I'll tell you what....we'll let the process play out. If an election happens and USAPA gets in I will make a prediction...any DFR suit will be short-lived.

Time will tell.

 

[end_of_alpa]

And you are a pilot and lawyer wannabe, who probably failed the bar a time or two and are simarly living your life vicariously on these boards.

"A little bit of knowledge is truly dangerous." You should know.

Better get back to your Cheetos and "M.A.S.H." reruns.

Thanks for chiming in. I feel it is important to talk to the people who truly want to make a difference at this airline. What are her motives from an outsiders perspective? She seems to be trying to impress someone.

One would do well to ignore her on this forum. For some reason she wants to prove her masculinity. Maybe she feels she is going to get a client for her company if she keeps sticking her nose into business she doesn't understand. Paralegals have the same problems in law offices that secretaries often have in business in general. If they want attention they go to extraordinary attempts to get it.

Oh well, it takes all kinds.

 

[sharktooth]

I'll tell you what....we'll let the process play out. If an election happens and USAPA gets in I will make a prediction...any DFR suit will be short-lived.

Time will tell.

Thanks for sticking with it, end.

Thanks for the info about "Bear". Wonder if he works for Glass.