AAA thread 11/2-11/8

[end_of_alpa]

Thanks for sticking with it, end.

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

I think "he's" a she. Not that it matters. I wouldn't think s/he does. Judging buy his/her responses my guess is Glass would work with someone considerably more qualified than him/her. S/he evidently needs a place to play...US Airways misfortures seem to attract the worst in us at times. Just like moths to a flame.

Oh well....

 

[prechilill]

I think "he's" a she. Not that it matters. I wouldn't think s/he does. Judging buy his/her responses my guess is Glass would work with someone considerably more qualified than him/her. S/he evidently needs a place to play...US Airways misfortures seem to attract the worst in us at times. Just like moths to a flame.

Oh well....

USAviaition is a beautiful snapshot of a small group of emotional east pilots, a collection of delusional old men desperately convincing each other that the law isn't really the law. Good luck in your efforts with USAPA- many of your dreams will never see the daylight of reality. You have all endured so much disappointment in your aviation careers swallowing the nicolau award, as fair as it is for all pilots involved in this mess, should be pretty easy. Peace.

 

[EastUS]

USAviaition is a beautiful snapshot of a small group of emotional east pilots, a collection of delusional old men desperately convincing each other that the law isn't really the law. Good luck in your efforts with USAPA- many of your dreams will never see the daylight of reality. You have all endured so much disappointment in your aviation careers swallowing the nicolau award, as fair as it is for all pilots involved in this mess, should be pretty easy. Peace.

If you've a manageable moment away from playing Dr. Phil's little apprentice; perhaps, as an allegedly trained attorney, you might be so kind as to elucidate a bit on the actual basis in law for your assumptions? You're evidently either suffering from excessive indigent sloth, or you're unable to actually do so.

I did get a chuckle from your "swallowing the nicolau award, as fair as it is for all pilots" One might wonder why anything "fair" so easilly finds itself next to any notions of "swallowing"?

"many of your dreams will never see the daylight of reality" I've been pretty blessed in that a number of my dreams have actually seen the sun's warmth...certainly not all by any means, but, while part of "a collection of delusional old men", I'm not dead as of yet On that dreams note though: Many of yours won't either...'Tis called the Human Condition...and isn't any reason not to try and do the right things in life.

 

[end_of_alpa]

USAviaition is a beautiful snapshot of a small group of emotional east pilots, a collection of delusional old men desperately convincing each other that the law isn't really the law. Good luck in your efforts with USAPA- many of your dreams will never see the daylight of reality. You have all endured so much disappointment in your aviation careers swallowing the nicolau award, as fair as it is for all pilots involved in this mess, should be pretty easy. Peace.

Same to you, my child, same to you. I sincerely hope that with every passing day you come to know the peace and love this world truly has to offer. Unfortunately, it seems your legal career is taking a turn for the worst. Since the last bastion of legal opinion has escaped your grasp here on this forum I fear your ability to truly recognize the reality of your situation seems to have brought you to an emotional Waterloo. I believe that you may wish to stay with your flying career because a law license in two states seems to be a useless burden in your situation. Far be it from me to offer an opinion about your emotional health which is certainly beyond my ability to diagnose, but I would sincerely attempt to refrain from mixing your flying with your legal career as the strain between the two could pose a serious threat to your long-term health and well being.

I think I can speak for all of us here that we wish you nothing but the best.

May peace be with you as well, my friend.

 

[nycbusdriver]

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.

Nope. The Nicolau list is the result of an intra-ALPA process, not a legal process. Seniority rests in the two contracts, at least according to court precedents. Nicolau doesn't take on the weight of a contract until a joint contract is signed. Both east and west contracts have language in them which invokes the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs in the event of a merger. These LPPs use DOH as the basis for any arbitration. If USAPA comes in with two contracts to administer, and both have the A-M LLPs in them, that is how the process will work. Nicolau is a pipe dream absent a joint contract.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Nicolau is a pipe dream absent a joint contract.

This part is what I've consistently said - the combined list is moot until a joint contract is ratified. Could such a joint contract contain provisions (i.e. so-called "fences") that modify the effects of putting the list into effect? Certainly, but they would have to be agreed to by the company and ratified by both sides. In other words, both the list becoming effective and the effects of it becoming effective are dependent on a joint contract. Who negotiates that contract does not affect the first, only the second.

However, I think you'll be disappointed if you're pinning your hopes on the rest, especially the M-A LPP's concerning seniority integration. Those LPP's do not contain the words "Date of Hire" or the shortened "DOH" version anywhere. The LPP's do contain the words "The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties", however.

Jim

 

[usabusdriver]

End,

You are correct, I misstated that it was under the NMB. The parties went through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration but it was not under the NMB.

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.

This is patently false. The whole framework of the arbitration process is to settle a dispute out of the court system; it may be binding or not binding upon the parties. The arbitration agreement between the parties, or contract, specifies the rules and guidelines for settling the dispute and if the parties agree to be bound by the decision of the arbiter. ALPA National was not a signatory to this agreement. The two parties hired council and litigated their dispute before the panel in accordance with ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy. ALPA National did not select the arbiter, impanel the neutrals, nor did they participate in the litigation process. The arbiter derived a solution and presented the award.

The arbitration process is sanctioned and governed by US Law not by ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy. Please show me where ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy defines evidentiary and testimonial rules and procedures for arbitrations. ALPA National has say on the award through its merger policy. If the award does not comply with the conventions of ALPA merger policy, and since both parties are members of the association, then ALPA National through Executive Council resolution may modify, nullify, or remand the award. The company only has say on the award through the Transition Agreement. The company’s requirements to accept the list where incorporated along with ALPA merger policy as guidelines set forth in the arbitration agreement that the award must comply with.

The avenue of redress for the parities in this case is through ALPA merger policy since both parties are members of the association, or through litigation in the court system since US law governs arbitration agreements. The rights of the parties as defined in the award, in reference to the dispute, remain with the parties regardless of whom they choose as their collective bargaining agent. The dispute between the two pilot groups, arising out of integrating seniority lists, as been settled by the two parties through binding arbitration. The Nic award will bind USAPA and the company in implementing an integrated seniority list.

Your line of reasoning is analogous to a person who loses a litigation stating to the court that they are firing council and will hire new representation so the judgment against them is not valid anymore.

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.

You are correct, and that is why I stated earlier that “USAPA will be bound to implement the Nic award for a combined CBA, although it may be many years henceforth.â€￾

 

[end_of_alpa]

End,

You are correct, I misstated that it was under the NMB. The parties went through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration but it was not under the NMB.

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.

This is patently false. The whole framework of the arbitration process is to settle a dispute out of the court system; it may be binding or not binding upon the parties. The arbitration agreement between the parties, or contract, specifies the rules and guidelines for settling the dispute and if the parties agree to be bound by the decision of the arbiter. ALPA National was not a signatory to this agreement. The two parties hired council and litigated their dispute before the panel in accordance with ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy. ALPA National did not select the arbiter, impanel the neutrals, nor did they participate in the litigation process. The arbiter derived a solution and presented the award.

The arbitration process is sanctioned and governed by US Law not by ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy. Please show me where ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy defines evidentiary and testimonial rules and procedures for arbitrations. ALPA National has say on the award through its merger policy. If the award does not comply with the conventions of ALPA merger policy, and since both parties are members of the association, then ALPA National through Executive Council resolution may modify, nullify, or remand the award. The company only has say on the award through the Transition Agreement. The company’s requirements to accept the list where incorporated along with ALPA merger policy as guidelines set forth in the arbitration agreement that the award must comply with.

The avenue of redress for the parities in this case is through ALPA merger policy since both parties are members of the association, or through litigation in the court system since US law governs arbitration agreements. The rights of the parties as defined in the award, in reference to the dispute, remain with the parties regardless of whom they choose as their collective bargaining agent. The dispute between the two pilot groups, arising out of integrating seniority lists, as been settled by the two parties through binding arbitration. The Nic award will bind USAPA and the company in implementing an integrated seniority list.

Your line of reasoning is analogous to a person who loses a litigation stating to the court that they are firing council and will hire new representation so the judgment against them is not valid anymore.

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.

You are correct, and that is why I stated earlier that “USAPA will be bound to implement the Nic award for a combined CBA, although it may be many years henceforth.â€￾

Let me supply the link to my prior post. Please read it first and then respond.

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=540989

http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...st&p=541213

In short, you are referring to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). My prior post will explain that it doesn't apply to labor union CONTRACTS. ALPA MERGER POLICY IS NOT A CONTRACT. ALPA merger policy is ALPA merger policy. It is NOT contractual. In fact it is SELF-CONTAINED within ALPA. As I said before, it's more like a law, enforced by ALPA as long as both MEC"S exist as ALPA MEC's and the MAJORITY votes for a contract with Nicolau in it.

You said:"The arbitration process is sanctioned and governed by US Law not by ALPA Constitution/bylaws/policy."

It is NOT "sanctioned" by US law....ANYWHERE!

Read ALPA merger policy and SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT! (I'm from missouri when it comes to law...you need to show me.)

ALPA merger policy is an arbitrative policy that it has designed WITHIN ALPA's own framework. It is self-contained, designed by ALPA, for ALPA. If you are a member of a labor union, labor union LAWS, if you will, are like their own country. The courts RARELY involve themselves in a unions business; any unions business, especially under RLA...a body of law that has been around since almost the beginning of this nation. It has been around so long that it is probably THE most advanced body of law in this country. It is highly developed.

First you correct yourself about the NMB and agree with me that I'm right about that. Then you proceed to tell me a constitution is a contract. You then tell me I'm correct but then contradict yourself again by some UNKNOWN requirement to implement the award. I think you need to refrain from the vacillation you are doing for a while and think about it for a few days. ALPA merger policy is contained in ALPA merger policy. PERIOD. There is nothing outside of it to support it. I do not know how to say it to you any simpler. USAPA nor any other union that comes in here is bound to support ALPA merger policy any more than they are ALPA's Constitution/Bylaws/Policy. PERIOD. The only thing that supports ALPA merger policy is if they don't get replaced by another union.

You can continue to try and convince yourself otherwise but there is TOO much caselaw out there that simply CONTRADICTS your assertions.

May I recommend something to you that an old legal friend of mine taught me? Give yourself a few days to respond. Read these posts over a couple of times and sleep on it. Everyone usually does their best thinking after a good nights rest. LABOR LAW IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST PAIN IN THE A** LAWS YOU'LL EVER DEAL WITH. Especially when it comes to unions. You CAN'T learn it overnight! (Wouldn't it be COOL if this were like the movie Matrix, where you could just plug yourself in and then "wham"....instant law degree.) Look, don't feel TOO bad, even lawyers who are NOT labor union lawyers have problems with this stuff. It's a pain in the toukas! :-o

I hope that doesn't sound TOO unreasonable.

 

[700UW]

Arbitration, in the context of United States law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution — specifically, a legal alternative to litigation whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party (the arbitrator(s) or arbiter(s)) for resolution. In practice arbitration is generally used as a substitute for judicial systems, particularly when the judicial processes are viewed as too slow, expensive or biased. Arbitration is also used by communities which lack formal law, as a substitute for formal law.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Arbitration, in the context of United States law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution — specifically, a legal alternative to litigation whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party (the arbitrator(s) or arbiter(s)) for resolution. In practice arbitration is generally used as a substitute for judicial systems, particularly when the judicial processes are viewed as too slow, expensive or biased. Arbitration is also used by communities which lack formal law, as a substitute for formal law.

Hey 700UW, I'm glad you showed up! That's a great definition. Have you seen the merits briefs for Hall Street Associates v. Mattel?

Here is the link. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/bri...ov07.shtml#hall

This is going to be the "case of the century" according to Souter.

Questions Presented

1. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err when it held, in conflict with several other federal Courts of Appeals, that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAAâ€) precludes a federal court from enforcing the parties’ clearly expressed agreement providing for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award than the narrow standard of review otherwise provided for in the FAA?

Throughout modern day courts in the 20th century there has always been a tug of war between government courts and independent courts...aka arbitrative "courts" over the finality of its descisions. I am certainly going to follow this case. Arbitration takes away business from the court system. I'm sure they think it cuts into their territory. Can you say "Godfather"?

The following quote comes from the respondents brief:

"Petitioner’s reliance on W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 (1983), to claim that this Court has recognized a public policy exception to Section 9 of the FAA is also misplaced because that case did not involve the FAA. It dealt with the enforcement of arbitration awards made pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. As explained by the Court in the Steelworkers’ Trilogy, that body of arbitration case law is rooted in federal common law and not an arbitration-specific statute. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960). It thus does not bear on the correct interpretation of the FAA."

The Federal Arbitration Act is an arbitration-specific statute. Just to enhance this along further, ALPA policy as explained before is EXTERNAL to the contract because the policy is used to determine how a SPECIFIC Section of the CONTRACT will be written or negotiated. The award would be written into the contract...NOT the policy.

Here is a footnote in the Petitioners brief:

Other circuits have not squarely addressed the enforceability of judicial review provisions in arbitration agreements. For example, in Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 935 F.2d 1501, 1504-05 (7th Cir. 1991), the Seventh Circuit stated in dicta that the parties “cannot contract for a judicial review†of a labor arbitration award “because federal jurisdiction cannot be created by contract.†Id. at 1505. That case did not involve an agreement to expand judicial review, did not involve the FAA and is inapposite because the FAA, unlike Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, does not create an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 26 (so stating).

 

[Bear96]

I didn't think it was possible, but your spinning is becoming even more amusing with each additional post.

The ultimate logical end of your argument seems to be that ALPA merger policy simply doesn't exist. It's not this; it's not that; it's not the other; soon there's nothing left for it to be, so it must not be anything at all. It is a legal fiction and a legal impossiblity. Therefore there is absolutely no way to merge East and West seniority lists (except by submitting to the will of the USAPA supporters, of course; then I'm sure you will find a way to rationalize how it can be done). Did I get it right?

This goes back to my earlier question, which you said you simply did not understand: Under what circumstances would a union's seniority integration process be "valid" in your world? You put forth argument after argument why such policies are not contract law; why they are not under NMB jurisdiction; why courts can't touch it; and now even the entire concept of arbitration is at risk. I guess no two airlines can ever merge seniority lists? After all, there seems to be no legal way to do it!

You sure are willing to turn a lot of legal principles upside-down and ignore them just because you don't like the outcome of one arbitration decision.

It must be nice living in a world where you don't have to provide actual solutions to real problems.

 

[Bear96]

Here is a footnote in the Petitioners brief:

Other circuits have not squarely addressed the enforceability of judicial review provisions in arbitration agreements. For example, in Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 935 F.2d 1501, 1504-05 (7th Cir. 1991), the Seventh Circuit stated in dicta that the parties “cannot contract for a judicial reviewâ€￾ of a labor arbitration award “because federal jurisdiction cannot be created by contract.â€￾ Id. at 1505. That case did not involve an agreement to expand judicial review, did not involve the FAA and is inapposite because the FAA, unlike Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, does not create an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 26 (so stating).

Wow, a footnote, in one side's brief, quoting dicta. I am persuaded.

Do you also cite complaints as proof that a defendant is liable? After all, it says right there in a court filing that the defendant did it.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I didn't think it was possible, but your spinning is becoming even more amusing with each additional post.

The ultimate logical end of your argument seems to be that ALPA merger policy simply doesn't exist. It's not this; it's not that; it's not the other; soon there's nothing left for it to be, so it must not be anything at all. It is a legal fiction and a legal impossiblity. Therefore there is absolutely no way to merge East and West seniority lists (except by submitting to the will of the USAPA supporters, of course; then I'm sure you will find a way to rationalize how it can be done). Did I get it right?

This goes back to my earlier question, which you said you simply did not understand: Under what circumstances would a union's seniority integration process be "valid" in your world? You put forth argument after argument why such policies are not contract law; why they are not under NMB jurisdiction; why courts can't touch it; and now even the entire concept of arbitration is at risk. I guess no two airlines can ever merge seniority lists? After all, there seems to be no legal way to do it!

You sure are willing to turn a lot of legal principles upside-down and ignore them just because you don't like the outcome of one arbitration decision.

It must be nice living in a world where you don't have to provide actual solutions to real problems.

Hey Bear....why don't you put up or shut up? You criticize but yet provide NO CITATION of rebuttal. Everyone sees you for what I already said. You evidently have no shame.

I already told everyone who you are. Good luck.

 

[Bear96]

Hey Bear....why don't you put up or shut up? You criticize but yet provide NO CITATION of rebuttal. Everyone sees you for what I already said. You evidently have no shame.

In the months since the arbitration, I have spend a lot of time on here explaining why I think the award is binding and enforceable. I spent a lot of time researching, rebutting and posting. I do not recall you posting during that time so maybe you do not know this and maybe you did not see all of those posts. You are free to dig them up if you wish. (Here's my citation: See, e.g., my previous posts on the matter.)

I have no desire (or time) to rehash the same arguments over and over, and frankly I have grown tired of putting the effort into researching and rebutting the latest theory du jour from the newest off-base poster opining why binding arbitration is not really binding and trying to justify East weaseling out of something they agreed to.

I already told everyone who you are.

?

 

[end_of_alpa]

In the months since the arbitration, I have spend a lot of time on here explaining why I think the award is binding and enforceable. I spent a lot of time researching, rebutting and posting. I do not recall you posting during that time so maybe you do not know this and maybe you did not see all of those posts. You are free to dig them up if you wish. (Here's my citation: See, e.g., my previous posts on the matter.)

I have no desire (or time) to rehash the same arguments over and over, and frankly I have grown tired of putting the effort into researching and rebutting the latest theory du jour from the newest off-base poster opining why binding arbitration is not really binding and trying to justify East weaseling out of something they agreed to.




?

Show me the link where YOU posted YOUR views. I'll review it. If you spent a lot of time rebutting and posting, then flaming me should be a shoo in. GIVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT WOMAN! If it's anything like you've been posting for the last several days, however, I would definitely find a new line of work if I were you. Rational thought seems to be beyond your comprehension. The West pilots are intelligent enough to see through you're schtick. Your sanity is obviously impaired.

Weasel...now there's an apt description that must come to your mind when you admire yourself in the mirror.

I wish you the best of luck.