AAA thread 11/2-11/8

[end_of_alpa]

I'm sorry that I didn't include that information. It's the national arbitration forum and you can google that title. This is from their FAQ section.

Q: What happens after a binding arbitration decision is issued?
A: Once a binding arbitration decision is issued, the FORUM's role in the dispute resolution process is complete. The arbitration decision constitutes the binding resolution of the dispute between the parties, except in the rare event that either 1.) there is a clerical or administrative mistake in the decision, in which case the FORUM will correct it at the request of any party, or 2.) if certain exceptional circumstances exist, parties may request that the arbitrator reconsider the decision.

The FORUM has no influence or control over the course of action taken by the parties following the decision. Parties may seek to convert the decision into an enforceable legal judgment by “confirmingâ€￾ it in court. Parties may also seek to “vacateâ€￾ the decision in court under the limited legal grounds provided in the Federal Arbitration Act or applicable state law.

Back To FAQ's

By the way, I did google your term and went to the same website you went to. Here is your reference. That process does not apply to us. ALPA merger policy, as long as we are ALPA, does. However, you still have to get a contract to use it. Kirby already said last week that the East pilots won't vote for a contract with Nicolau in it. I can speak for me...I won't vote for ANY contract with Nicolau in it. The company WILL NOT throw money at us to get us to vote otherwise. Watch the tape. I have it on mp3, FYI. You can too.

We in the East can simply capture our attrition under LOA 93, bring the new hires in to capture our vacated F/O positions. As the company allows the West to shrink and we grow on the East internationally, which by the way, Kirby said no international growth in PHX, possession is 9/10ths of the law as far as we're concerned. As this process plays out, who do you think the company is going to want to save money with...LOA 93 or your Section 6 negotiations. Under RLA law we are compelled to fly the contract.

If you can't conclude an agreement under Section 6 over there, will you strike?

If so, who do you think will fly your aircraft?

You can't force us to vote "yes" in a secret ballot system in a court of law, can you?

Wouldn't you call the award a useless victory if the majority won't vote for it and you can't enforce it?

Just curious?

 

[Bear96]

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?

I did not agree that the agreement to arbitrate is necessarily outside the scope of the FAA. The FAA does not apply to contracts between an employer and employee(s) in the transportation industry, yes. However, as I noted, the agreement to submit the seniority issue to arbitration is between two groups of employees; it is not a dispute or agreement between employer / employee. Therefore it may not be a transportation industry "employment contract" for FAA purposes. Whether this distinction means the arbitration agreement is or isn't outside the scope of the FAA, that I do not know, nor do I have time to research. If you have some authority which states the FAA is not applicable to agreements between two employees, or between two groups of employees, because that falls under the "transportation industry" exception to the FAA, I would be interested in seeing it. But it seems like what you are saying is that if two airline workers enter into a contract for the sale of, say, a car, and agree to arbitrate any dispute that may arise from the sale, just by virtue of them being transportation industry employees their agreement to arbitrate disputes over the sale of the car is not enforceable because transportation workers are not subject to the FAA in any way, shape or form.

Anyway, let's cut to the bottom line: Is it your position that seniority arbitrations between two groups of employees in the transportation industry are simply not binding or enforceable under any circumstances, no matter what the parties agreed to? (A simply "yes" or "no" would suffice -- your posts are really way too long to deal with in any detail.)

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€).

It now appears you are discussing the transition agreement between employer / union, not the agreement to arbitrate between East employee / West employee. And according to the bolded part, it looks like enforcement of the transition agreement -- including the arbitration award -- IS subject to NMB jurisdiction and procedure, no?

 

[AWA320]

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.

Well I heard from a little bird that you are several hundred cards short so why do we just end the drama for both sides and file the cards so that way we both know

 

[end_of_alpa]

I did not agree that the agreement to arbitrate is necessarily outside the scope of the FAA. The FAA does not apply to contracts between an employer and employee(s) in the transportation industry, yes. However, as I noted, the agreement to submit the seniority issue to arbitration is between two groups of employees; it is not a dispute or agreement between employer / employee. Therefore it may not be a transportation industry "employment contract" for FAA purposes. Whether this distinction means the arbitration agreement is or isn't outside the scope of the FAA, that I do not know, nor do I have time to research. If you have some authority which states the FAA is not applicable to agreements between two employees, or between two groups of employees, because that falls under the "transportation industry" exception to the FAA, I would be interested in seeing it. But it seems like what you are saying is that if two airline workers enter into a contract for the sale of, say, a car, and agree to arbitrate any dispute that may arise from the sale, just by virtue of them being transportation industry employees their agreement to arbitrate disputes over the sale of the car is not enforceable because transportation workers are not subject to the FAA in any way, shape or form.

Anyway, let's cut to the bottom line: Is it your position that seniority arbitrations between two groups of employees in the transportation industry are simply not binding or enforceable under any circumstances, no matter what the parties agreed to? (A simply "yes" or "no" would suffice -- your posts are really way too long to deal with in any detail.)
It now appears you are discussing the transition agreement between employer / union, not the agreement to arbitrate between East employee / West employee. And according to the bolded part, it looks like enforcement of the transition agreement -- including the arbitration award -- IS subject to NMB jurisdiction and procedure, no?

I apoligize if I am too wordy. When it comes to case law, I feel it is best to get it from the source. In short, I do not want you to take my word for it. I simply provide the information.

So you ask:

"Is it your position that seniority arbitrations between two groups of employees in the transportation industry are simply not binding or enforceable under any circumstances, no matter what the parties agreed to?"

NO.

I would be glad to answer your yes or no questions if you phrase them properly. I'm sorry you don't have time to research. I make the time.

Your "car" analogy doen't apply here, by the way. That is not a contract under employment law but a sales contract. However, in my sales contracts I stipulate that the contract I sign is legally binding and enforceable under the state law of where I or my corporations reside. That is not to say I could not have an arbitration clause in the contract instead and name the arbitrative body. If you and I sign that contract for the sale of the car, then we are bound to it. ALPA merger policy stops at the arbitrators descision and goes no farther.

Since ALPA is a constitutional body under federal law, on a scale of 0 to 10, the lattitude they have to negotiate contracts would range from the low of say .5 for fundamental rights or unconsionable reason to the high of say 9.5, which would probably entail fraud or maybe some kind of criminal activity. Labor unions are like little countries in themselves. Leave the country and the law no longer applys. The contract you have is a contractual property right and as such, goes with the employees when you change unions. Labor law means the company still must comply with it. It doesn't mean you do. labor unions have a very wide lattitude of negotiating when it comes to what is "fair and equitable", FYI. (I won't bother you with case law!!)

That is because we both have to agree to support ALPA national to support our position, because they sign our contract as the CBA. If one party has the majority muscle over the other to either not vote, fly their current contract, vote for a new union, or the company simply decides not to continue with the transition agreement, which they can, by the way, the arbitrators decision is worthless. I've proven to you with numerous case law that the award is unenforcable in many ways.

So let me ask you a respectable question requiring a one word answer? (please feel free to sleep on this....please feel free to reread my posts....

Is Nicolau enforceable? (simple yes or no)

 

[AWA320]

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

One thing has nothing to do with the other! You claim (by your actions) that a change in unions will solve all problems. The direct opposite is true. You lose all of the west pilot support. Now this may be your desire however I sincerely doubt it. Law suits and years of total unrest will prevail while lawyers and company makes millions while we as a whole suffer! Now at some point the award will be in place so it's just all a matter when. Now we can figh this out but tell me, who really loses in this??

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)

What you quoted was not on point my friend and when you deal with the legal system you will find that when you quote cases you had better be on point or very close to it!!

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 could have sworn that I said the "fed arb forum" and not asociation. However the sentiment is the same and there is a process for disputing an arbitrated award. The path that your MEC took is incorrect that's all I said before you chose to hurl your attacks!!

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.

I will get back to you soon on this as the research for case via westlaw take a considerable amount of time.

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

I am really interested in your views of how changing collective bargining agents will somehow allow for a change in both contract and arbitrated award.

 

[Bear96]

Is Nicolau enforceable? (simple yes or no)

Yes.



My turn.

1: Is Nicolau enforceable? (simple yes or no)

2: If your answer to # 1 is Yes, then what was the point of all your posts in the past 24 hours? (No need to answer; this is kind of a rhetorical question.)

If your answer to # 2 is No:

So you ask:

"Is it your position that seniority arbitrations between two groups of employees in the transportation industry are simply not binding or enforceable under any circumstances, no matter what the parties agreed to?"

NO.

How so, if these types of agreements are outside the scope of the FAA (which according to you seems to mean one can't go to the courts to enforce them) and outside the scope of the NMB proceedings (if I understood your previous posts correctly)?

In other words, what should ALPA have done that it didn't do to ensure the Nic award would be binding?

(This is not a yes/no question, but please try to be succinct and remain on point.)

 

[Mike]

Bottom line, this is not going to work as is. Scott Kirby said it over and over at the PHX Pilot meeting. (See for yourself on The Hub) So here we are months into this Nic Award and nothing is happening except people fighting on these boards. I thought this place would get boring without USA320 but AWA320 has taken up all the slack. No other individual has helped the USAPA cause more. Everytime I see one of his posts adorning crew room walls or weboards its been akin to pouring gasoline on a roaring fire. We can continue fighting or try to move ahead as one. The solution is up to each pilot group. <_<

 

[AWA320]

Bottom line, this is not going to work as is. Scott Kirby said it over and over at the PHX Pilot meeting. (See for yourself on The Hub) So here we are months into this Nic Award and nothing is happening except people fighting on these boards. I thought this place would get boring without USA320 but AWA320 has taken up all the slack. No other individual has helped the USAPA cause more. Everytime I see one of his posts adorning crew room walls or weboards its been akin to pouring gasoline on a roaring fire. We can continue fighting or try to move ahead as one. The solution is up to each pilot group. <_<

Lets apply the same logic that you would be in ch7 liquidation according to Kirby as well!! These boards provide cheap entertainment as nothing side on here really makes much of a difference. The fact that my post are on your crewroom walls tells me that I am reaching a larger number of your pilots so then I will continue to attempt to reach/educate however you wish to phrase it.

USAPA is nothing more that an attempt to circumvent your obligations under merger policy. How can anyone one of us ever trust you when at every turn you are attempting to harm us????

 

[EastUS]

USAPA is nothing more that an attempt to circumvent your obligations under merger policy.

That would be "Alpa merger policy"?..whatever that supposedly is. On what possible basis should we be concerned with that, if a new bargaining agent's birthing is is likely imminent?

"How can anyone one of us ever trust you when at every turn you are attempting to harm us????" That thought would have no trouble being validated out east as well. In any case...that's merely emotional, and means little to the scenario's evolution.

 

[AWA320]

That would be "Alpa merger policy"?..whatever that supposedly is. On what possible basis should we be concerned with that, if a new bargaining agent's birthing is is likely imminent?

I have yet to see and or read how you can legally get out out of the award.

"How can anyone one of us ever trust you when at every turn you are attempting to harm us????" That thought would have no trouble being validated out east as well. In any case...that's merely emotional, and means little to the scenario's evolution.

How did we ever advocate harming you on the east?? Was it because we did in fact participate in the process. Should we or did you expect us to roll over and not challenge the situation?? I have removed all emotion from my thoughts on this subject as emotion can not fix or move us fwd...

 

[end_of_alpa]

Lets apply the same logic that you would be in ch7 liquidation according to Kirby as well!! These boards provide cheap entertainment as nothing side on here really makes much of a difference. The fact that my post are on your crewroom walls tells me that I am reaching a larger number of your pilots so then I will continue to attempt to reach/educate however you wish to phrase it.

USAPA is nothing more that an attempt to circumvent your obligations under merger policy. How can anyone one of us ever trust you when at every turn you are attempting to harm us????

You are correct sir, that your posting is reaching the overwhelming amount of pilots on the East side...however, I can assure you the effect on the "larger number of your pilots" (I notice you didn't say our) is just the opposite of what you would want "your side" to believe. If you represent the majority thought of the former AWA pilots then this only assures the resolve of overwhelming majority of the East pilots. The latest letter by none other than your MEC chairman drives home this point.

I am attempting to participate here by trying to palce a bridge between West and East but if this is not done then the majority will decide. That is the way it works in labor unions.

Your definition harm would be what then?

 

[Mike]

Lets apply the same logic that you would be in ch7 liquidation according to Kirby as well!! These boards provide cheap entertainment as nothing side on here really makes much of a difference. The fact that my post are on your crewroom walls tells me that I am reaching a larger number of your pilots so then I will continue to attempt to reach/educate however you wish to phrase it.

USAPA is nothing more that an attempt to circumvent your obligations under merger policy. How can anyone one of us ever trust you when at every turn you are attempting to harm us????

Just like USA320.....AWA320...HOPELESS

 

[BoeingBoy]

If changing unions negates a seniority arbitration award, does that mean that if USAPA is successful the Shuttle arbitration award is null and void? The US/PI award?

Jim

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Well I heard from a little bird that you are several hundred cards short so why do we just end the drama for both sides and file the cards so that way we both know

Bird? or voices? Sorry, we're not short. It's now down to the politics and timing of when to file. Actually, it is real interesting to watch ALPA flail around, especially since losing the Skywest election.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Yes.
My turn.

1: Is Nicolau enforceable? (simple yes or no)

2: If your answer to # 1 is Yes, then what was the point of all your posts in the past 24 hours? (No need to answer; this is kind of a rhetorical question.)

If your answer to # 2 is No:

How so, if these types of agreements are outside the scope of the FAA (which according to you seems to mean one can't go to the courts to enforce them) and outside the scope of the NMB proceedings (if I understood your previous posts correctly)?

In other words, what should ALPA have done that it didn't do to ensure the Nic award would be binding?

(This is not a yes/no question, but please try to be succinct and remain on point.)

Bear, I'm sorry you didn't read my previous posts or sleep on it overnight, so I will tell you.

1. Is Nicolau enforcable? NO.

The award cannot be consumated unless the MAJORITY of the pilots vote for it.

Can you force the majority to vote for it and what jursdiction will force us to vote for it?

2. Scott Kirby said in last weeks pilot meeting in PHX that they don't have the kind of money your pilots want them to pay to make us happy about the award and sign a contract.

In short, if the choice is upgrade through attrition under LOA 93 or fly the right seat for the rest of our careers under and ALPA contract, what do you think we'll do?

What do you think the company prefers, LOA 93 or your Section 6?

If the company accelerates pilot hiring on the East, pads the A319, B737 and B-757 Captain positions on the East in the spring and withdraws from Section 6 negotiations with the West, will you engage in self help and strike or the more likely scenario...will the company impose a lockout and make the East crews TDY to the West and fly that equipment?

Do you think Doug and Scott love you more than the lower costs of LOA 93. His duty is to the shareholders, not to you.

Will ALPA national sue the company or the East pilots to sign a contract?

3. If USAPA is voted in, USAPA is not bound in any way to support anything but what the MAJORITY will vote for. That is why USAPA would get elected...by the MAJORITY.

Can you sue to invalidate an election held and voted in by the MAJORITY to prevent the loss of the award?

4. ALPA can not "ensure" that the Nic award will be binding outside ALPA in any case. THEY LOSE STANDING WHEN A NEW CB AGENT IS VOTED IN. PERIOD. THAT IS THE FACT OF THE MATTER.

Will ALPA represent you in court against USAPA?

You asked: "what should ALPA have done that it didn't do to ensure the Nic award would be binding?"

5. I'm sorry about ALPA merger policy...but you are about to find the bad about merger policy. The Arbitrator has NO limits and the policy is ineffective outside ALPA OR without the MAJORITY voting for it. PERIOD. What they COULD have done is to provide the rule of law and established a MEASURABLE value system that ALL pilots could understand that would have avoided this. This was not done.

Policy without limits is a crap shoot at best. This is why Courts of law have long had issues with Arbitration law. Without Stare Decisis or what you laymen call "case law", policy has no meaning. Remember, Nicolau said each case stands on its own. That means you make the rules fresh for each case. Unlike the courts.

You might as well go to Las Vegas and gamble arbitration cases and law with the roulette wheel. Why doesn't THAT happen?

Changing CB Agents because of seniority awards has happened before. Please do not tell me you want me to add more court case law.

You did say succinct.

Tthanks for the questions....I hope I wasn't too windy.