AAA thread 11/2-11/8

[Bear96]

AWA320: It is obvious you can not read the information so read my post again....the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) does NOT apply to labor union contracts. There is NO channel through the FAA. The history of labor unions AND companys revealed that they did not want to be compelled into arbitration without the ultimate use of SELF HELP (strike or lockout). I know you can't read long posts so I will explain this to the rest in short, quoting from above the pertinent part: "but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." "The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not apply to employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements. That was the holding of a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30580 (12/2/98)." http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126752.html

OK. Please explain your point here. What is the significance exactly of repeating that "The FAA does not apply to labor union contracts" and that "there is NO channel through the FAA"? Do you even know what that means? Are you saying that there is no such thing as arbitration for labor and employment disputes? Does that not sound wrong to you? Obviously being exempted from the FAA does not mean you cannot enter into binding arbitration. So what is your point? NOAA does not regulate the aviation industry, so does that mean the aviation industry is not impacted by weather?

This is leaving aside the issue of whether the seniority arbitration is even an "employment" contract for FAA purposes, which typically means a cotnract between employer and employee(s), which this is not.

BTW, I let it slide the first time, but since you've got this bee in your bonnet and are repeating bad law, you should know that Campbell Soup has been overruled. Even before it was overruled, the Ninth Circuit was in the extreme minority of Circuits in holding the FAA does not apply to employment contracts. Then in 2001 the Supreme Court found that the FAA DOES apply to employment contracts. See Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). Now, in that case the Court also found that the FAA does not apply to workers in the transportation industry, but it is not correct to say, "the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) does NOT apply to labor union contracts."

 

[Phoenix]

CHAIRMAN'S MESSAGE
November 6, 2007


Regarding the second issue, last week your MEC met at our union headquarters in
Washington, DC. The meeting was called by Captain Prater to discuss the current
representation dispute on our property. As we reported on our code a phone, your MEC
took the opportunity at that meeting to address issues of concern to the AAA pilots. The
MEC spent the bulk of the meeting in closed session and agreed to continue meeting the
following day to further strategize and prepare for the Joint meeting with the AWA MEC
called for by Captain Prater for later this week. Specifically, the MEC wanted to address
up front the second agenda item for that meeting: Developing and staffing a process for
resolving issues of importance to both pilot groups in order to develop a common
strategy.

a new merger prospectus process?

this critical process.

What happened to the original merger prospectus?

looking forward to attending the joint meeting to work with them on developing a process so that we might move forward

Looking forward to making the original process obsolete and replacing it with a new one?


Soooooo...

ALPO is getting three reps from both sides to develop a new merger process that effectively declares the alleged "merger policy" in the Bylaws to be a total failure????? Didn't they learn anything about "processes" absent of meaningful and enforcable terms defining seniority?

They collect dues for this? <_< :huh:

 

[Bear96]

Labor law is a deep subject. I do a lot of legal work in this area.

Yet you are repeatedly misstating the law and quoting a case that has been overruled?

I take it you are one of the people giving advice to the East pilots and their new union effort. This explains a lot.

 

[Bud8EE]

The Cards

Love them or hate them but you gotta respect them...
for what they have done and the Rolex that they aren't wearing.

Good Job guys and good luck!

 

[Frank Bama]

This is NOT the first time this process or this arbitrator have been used to decide airline merger cases. Representing that there is no jurisdiction is grasping at straws.
In fact I'm told, no arbitration has ever been overturned in the history of the process.

Try another tactic, you're wasting your time.


Bama

 

[end_of_alpa]

OK. Please explain your point here. What is the significance exactly of repeating that "The FAA does not apply to labor union contracts" and that "there is NO channel through the FAA"? Do you even know what that means? Are you saying that there is no such thing as arbitration for labor and employment disputes? Does that not sound wrong to you? Obviously being exempted from the FAA does not mean you cannot enter into binding arbitration. So what is your point? NOAA does not regulate the aviation industry, so does that mean the aviation industry is not impacted by weather?

This is leaving aside the issue of whether the seniority arbitration is even an "employment" contract for FAA purposes, which typically means a cotnract between employer and employee(s), which this is not.

BTW, I let it slide the first time, but since you've got this bee in your bonnet and are repeating bad law, you should know that Campbell Soup has been overruled. Even before it was overruled, the Ninth Circuit was in the extreme minority of Circuits in holding the FAA does not apply to employment contracts. Then in 2001 the Supreme Court found that the FAA DOES apply to employment contracts. See Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001). Now, in that case the Court also found that the FAA does not apply to workers in the transportation industry, but it is not correct to say, "the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) does NOT apply to labor union contracts."

No, I am not saying there is no arbitration. I'm saying the FAA does not provide the judicial remedy implied by other posters on these forums that the Nicolau award is "federal binding arbitration". But I'm glad you brought up Adams, which proves my point exactly. Adams overruled the 9th regarding INDIVIDUAL employment contracts but NOT labor unions. Their situations are different like night and day. You are confusing two completely separate bodies of law. Please read both Adams and Campbell again. If the Plaintiff-Appellant in Craft v. Campbell was appealed to the Supreme Court then I can find no record of that hearing...it's cert. must have been denied, if they filed it. Adams came from the 9th cir. as well. Adams was over-ruled and the mention of Craft v. Campbell was made, but no reference to their overruling Craft, which was NOT before the court in this case.

The NLRA establishes the NLRB. The NLRB has mediation/Arbitration provisions for employer/employee disputes. These provisions require VOLUTARY participation between both the employee group and the employer in major disputes to settle disputes over CONTRACT language. Mediation/Arbitration can and generally also be used in minor disputes. If neither participates, then self help results. This process is essentially the same under the RLA and the NMB. The main difference is that sometimes, in cases not pertinent here, NLRA cases can be filed in state courts. RLA cases are FEDERAL contracts. Some other differences exist of course. However, if the CB Agent and the company enter into arbitration in either of these instances through their respective sides, that award becomes final and binding and only becomes appealable if fraud, conflict of interest or unreasonable/unconsionable/violation of civil rights are offended. i'm sure you can come up with other differences.

However, in addressing ALPA merger policy, it is as much a part of ALPA as its Constitution and Bylaws. In fact the hierarchy of it is:

1: Constitution
2: Bylaws
3: Policy

Policy cannot reverse cut...put another way, policy cannot overrule Bylaws and Bylaws cannot overrule Constitution.

ALPA merger policy is intra-ALPA. It is their policy and theirs ALONE. A new Collective Bargaining Agent is no more bound to ALPA Consitution/Bylaws/Policy then say, the IAM is. It becomes a NEW DAY. Of course, it takes a majority to do that. Their are many instances in labor law where this has been done. One to speak of is TRAILMOBILE CO. V. WHIRLS , 331 U.S. 40 (1947). It can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...331&page=40. Please read this one example carefully, if your interested.

I repeat what I said. The FAA does not apply to "labor union" contracts. In any case, you agreed with me that the FAA does not apply to transportation workers and ALPA/airline pilots are transportation workers so the remainder of the argument becomes moot. We both agree...the FAA does not apply to transportation (or railway workers) in any case.

Their (or our) process is separate from the FAA. Employment contracts are between employee and employer, and if the arbitration is written into the contract, as it was in Adams, then it applies. Ohterwise you adjudicate it in state court. Adams walked in the door at Circuit City, filled out an application and got a job. His "employment contract" is different than our "collective bargaining agreement". His contract is like ours in that it is a contract between employer-employee, but the difference is he negotiates for himself while we, collectively, negotiate through a bargaining agent. Arbitration clauses are more commonly found in "adams" contracts because they generally favor the employer over the employee. Remember the employee doesn't normally have the benefits of a agent like we supposedly do.

As far as seniority "arbitration" in this context, I beg to differ, but it IS a part of the contract. Please read Section 22 Seniority in the US Airways Pilot contract and Section 22 in the AWA pilots contract. Seniority, like pay, work rules and all the other benefits are in the contract...PERIOD. This is the Supreme court talking, not me.

By the way, thank you for the thoughtful questioning and non-flaming responses. If this form of recourse continues, I would be glad to debate these discussions with anyone. I hope that this dialog can continue amicably and set the example for all of us. I hope you feel the same way. By the way, do you use Westlaw, LoisLaw, Nexis or some other form of citation? Everything is expensive out there.

 

[700UW]

Umm, the NLRA and the NLRB have nothing to do with workers in the airline industry, that would be the RLA and the NMB.

And arbitration in the industry is guided by the RLA.

 

[boeingplt]

That is just too funny!!! "we have over 3000 cards" " we are filing in two weeks" " we are filing on Oct 31" Yeah right!! You ain't got it my man nevever did and never will but it was a rather cool 6 month scare tactic for national but that too will very soon run out.

I'll bet you one round of golf at the club of your choice in PHX (not requiring a credit check for the green fee plz) that we have a convincing amount of cards to force a decert vote.

Condition: We stow this nonsense and enjoy a good round of golf, talking only of women, cool airplanes, my power fade... anything but the conflict.

 

[nycbusdriver]

http://usairlinepilots.org/card_party.htm

Looks like a s**t-load of cards to me.

P.S. - To USAirways Pilots: If you did not receive an EMAIL to your personal email account from USAPA today, they do not have your card. Get it in and join the party! The text of the email sent today is the same as that in the "Card Party" link above.

 

[end_of_alpa]

This is NOT the first time this process or this arbitrator have been used to decide airline merger cases. Representing that there is no jurisdiction is grasping at straws.
In fact I'm told, no arbitration has ever been overturned in the history of the process.

Try another tactic, you're wasting your time.
Bama

Actually, arbitration awards, in their appropriate venues, are overturned all the time. Do not believe everything you hear. However, if you are interested, you can read a history of seniority integrations here:

http://usairlinepilots.org/library/Seniori...tsInMergers.pdf

I know that thought of even going to an opposing parties website may be antithetical but how will you know what to argue if you don't know their tactics??

 

[luvthe9]

http://usairlinepilots.org/card_party.htm OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUMP ALPA NOW!!!!

 

[Bear96]

No, I am not saying there is no arbitration. I'm saying the FAA does not provide the judicial remedy implied by other posters on these forums that the Nicolau award is "federal binding arbitration".

OK. I agree that the Nic process was outside the NMB process another poster was describing. I do not agree if you are trying to argue that this somehow does not make it binding.

If the Plaintiff-Appellant in Craft v. Campbell was appealed to the Supreme Court then I can find no record of that hearing...it's cert. must have been denied, if they filed it. Adams came from the 9th cir. as well. Adams was over-ruled and the mention of Craft v. Campbell was made, but no reference to their overruling Craft, which was NOT before the court in this case.

I did not say that Circuit City was the direct appeal of Craft v. Campbell. However, Circuit City most definitely overruled the pertinent parts of any cases which held employment contracts are exempt from the FAA (which is what you were stating), even if the Court did not explicitly say, "We overrule Craft v. Campbell."

 

[end_of_alpa]

OK. I agree that the Nic process was outside the NMB process another poster was describing. I do not agree if you are trying to argue that this somehow does not make it binding.
I did not say that Circuit City was the direct appeal of Craft v. Campbell. However, Circuit City most definitely overruled the pertinent parts of any cases which held employment contracts are exempt from the FAA (which is what you were stating), even if the Court did not explicitly say, "We overrule Craft v. Campbell."

Dear Bear, please REREAD my post to AWA320:

"AWA320: It is obvious you can not read the information so read my post again....the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) does NOT apply to labor union contracts. There is NO channel through the FAA. The history of labor unions AND companys revealed that they did not want to be compelled into arbitration without the ultimate use of SELF HELP (strike or lockout). I know you can't read long posts so I will explain this to the rest in short, quoting from above the pertinent part: "but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." "The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not apply to employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements. That was the holding of a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30580 (12/2/98)." http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126752.html"

What the Supreme Court was addressing in Adams was that the 9th was wrong in their "blanket" exclusion of the FAA to ALL employment contracts, both union and individual. Craft was a union contract issue. Adams was not. That was why Adams was reversed and remanded but not Craft. The court addresses Craft because in that ruling, which came out while they were addressing Adams, they (the 9th) incorrectly interpreted that ALL employment contracts were excluded from the FAA again, confirming what the Supreme court was hearing which was contrary to the remaining circuits. I was knowledgeable of Adams and I should have addressed that first, that was my mistake. However, if you remove the "employment contracts or" from the Craft ruling that I just quoted then that statement would be correct. Craft was a correct ruling, the interpretation of the "ALL" part was not. Craft lost. We have our OWN process, which I previously described. Again, please reread my post.

This does not change my original premise that the FAA does not apply to RLA unions. So if you agree that the award is outside the NMB and also is outside the FAA (since the FAA doesn't apply to transportation workers as you confirmed), where is it enforceable?

As far as "binding" you have to have a place to go to enforce it. If you read ALPA merger policy and the Transition agreement CAREFULLY, ALPA holds the policy. The FAA is NOT that tool. PERIOD. So if the award is enforcable and Scott Kirby just said last week that the East pilots won't vote for any contract with Nicolau in it, how are you planning on making the company enforce it? Take our vote away, sue the COMPANY or strike? Just curious.

As far as ALPA merger policy...let's talk about this issue. I quote:

"The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA."

The parties under the Transition agreement are:

THIS LETTER OF AGREEMENT is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions of
the Railway Labor Act, as amended (the “Actâ€), by and between:

AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION (“AWHCâ€),
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. (“AMERICA WESTâ€),
US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. (“US AIRWAYS GROUPâ€),
US AIRWAYS, INC. (“US AIRWAYSâ€),

and the

AIR LINE PILOTS in the service of AMERICA WEST and US AIRWAYS, respectively, as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter referred to as “the Associationâ€) by and through the

Master Executive Councils of the America West and US Airways pilots (“America West MEC†and “US Airways MEC†respectively)

(collectively referred to as the “Partiesâ€). I underlined the parties for everyones assistance. There are four company parties and three union parties.

Do you agree?

So, hypothetically, lets say a new collective bargaining agent is voted in by the MAJORITY, what happens to the three Association parties, namely ALPA national, AWA MEC and the US Airways MEC?

Doesn't all the MEC officers lose their positions....the ones on BOTH sides of the arbitration?

Do they still have standing to negotiate the collective bargaining agreement?

If ALPA is no longer there to defend it and, BY LAW, the government allows only ONE CB Agent per craft or class, who is going to defend it?

Will ALPA spend their members dues on a group that are no longer members of their organization?

ALPA National officers have a fiduciary duty to the EXISTING membership only. They could be sued by the many labor unions that they represent if they spend dues money to defend the minority group here by using THEIR dues money who are NO LONGER part of their union. Not only will they not do it, they CAN'T spend dues money on nom-members EXCEPT in the defence of a CB agreement they no longer have a duty or standing to defend. The labor parties that existed under the "transition agreement" no longer exist. If the IAM, Teamsters or any other collective bargaining agent became the new CBA for the pilots here, they would not be bound by it either. The company even said this is an "intra" union thing. The company doesn't care who goes first...they only care if it's going to cost them anything.

Don't you agree?

Also, the company has already stated the timeline for them to continue negotiations has already expired on 30 June 2006...their just doing it from the kindness of their hearts.

Do you believe that?

By the way, I'm simply trying to provide a reasonable dialog between the two sides. If the dialog remains reasonable, I would like to continue participate. If these discussions begin to denegrate into something worst I will simply and "respectfully" not participate.

Thanks again for your respectful responses.

 

[AWA320]

AWA320: It is obvious you can not read the information so read my post again....the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) does NOT apply to labor union contracts. There is NO channel through the FAA. The history of labor unions AND companys revealed that they did not want to be compelled into arbitration without the ultimate use of SELF HELP (strike or lockout). I know you can't read long posts so I will explain this to the rest in short, quoting from above the pertinent part: "but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." "The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not apply to employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements. That was the holding of a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30580 (12/2/98)." http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126752.html


I have seen you post this here about the award and it is simply NOT TRUE.

However, this IS TRUE, if anyone reads my previous post it is this simple and it applies to ALL labor unions...change your Collective Bargaining Agent and you change your CONTRACT. The former CBA has NO BUSINESS with the company after that....PERIOD. There IS NO NICOLAU AWARD. It is back to negotiations with the company because labor contracts under RLA are always amenable...PERIOD!! Even the ALPA attorneys verify this.

I know you want to jump in front of every pilot here. I also know your buddy 700UW doesn't understand anything more about unionism than he does about cleaning airplanes. So before you spout off about what you DON"T know about arbitration maybe you could do some homework and SHOW ME the case law where it says NICOLAU is binding???

Case law?? Well I will say that you have a policy that YOU as a union member agreed to and that policy states that "seniority awards will be final and binding" NOw the courts will look at this and ask the very simple question, "did you know that you agreed to final and bindings"?? Answer yes BUT!! You agreed to this policy and now you ask the courts for relief? What case law can you provide that grants that relief??

Everyone....expect AWA320 and 700UW to flame me now. Don't expect any law or legal precedence here. Flaming is what they refer to when they get proven wrong! WATCH!

BTW, we have the finest maintenence in the industry...still.

Please allow me to retort! First I never said anything about the Fed Arb Assoc, what I said is that there is a process to follow OUTSIDE of the court system. You are sadly mistaken if you feel that by a change in bargining agents you get to change your collective agreement. If that were true don't you think unions would change all thie time, C'mon , you have to be smarter than that. Now regarding the AWARD, you chose to use a third party thus you have little to no recourse in that regard. The federal courts will are extremely reluctant to interfere with arbitrated cases for several reason many of which I am sure you can guess. The DC district court will inform your group shortly that they don't have jurisdiction over this issue.

I don't know 700W but I agree with much of what he has said, I have never flamed you and I challenge you to show where I did however you have done that of me after asking for direction to a web site!!!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Please allow me to retort! First I never said anything about the Fed Arb Assoc, what I said is that there is a process to follow OUTSIDE of the court system. You are sadly mistaken if you feel that by a change in bargining agents you get to change your collective agreement. If that were true don't you think unions would change all thie time, C'mon , you have to be smarter than that. Now regarding the AWARD, you chose to use a third party thus you have little to no recourse in that regard. The federal courts will are extremely reluctant to interfere with arbitrated cases for several reason many of which I am sure you can guess. The DC district court will inform your group shortly that they don't have jurisdiction over this issue.

I don't know 700W but I agree with much of what he has said, I have never flamed you and I challenge you to show where I did however you have done that of me after asking for direction to a web site!!!

Unions don't change all the time because mergers are not as common occurance as you may think with RLA/NLRB companies.

However, I can show you SEVERAL cases where changing Cb agents changes the CONTRACT and this has happened. How many can you show me? (I already quoted you one)

As far as the "Fed Arb Assoc", that has NOTHING TO DO WITH US and is misleading. As I explained before, that process is DIFFERENT from ours and has no "correlation" to our process. It is simply misleading to imply that the "Fed Arb Assoc." or anything else falling under the FAA applies with RLA unions. It simply does not. That "third" party you speak of is intra ALPA, the NMB, the FAA nor does the court system adjudicate it. Removing the CBA or using your majority to NOT vote for a contract negates it. I know you do not wish to believe me so we will just have to let the "process" play out.

I was not intending to "flame" you, I simply wanted you to "guide" me as to how this process works in your view. That forum you sent me to does not apply to us. I document the court cases that support my position. All I ask is that you provide yours to support your position.

If a new CBagent gets in, well speak about it again. Thanks for the response.