ALPA Thread 12/14-12/20 ALL ALPA here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your lack of knowledge on the true issues really shows.

And that is precisely what USAPA and their hired counsel rely upon to keep their holy war alive. As I just said, knowledge is power but to the USAPA types, it's an inconvenient truth.
 
You clearly don't understand the RLA and dispute resolutions processes.

You cant renegotiate with the company over seniority, ALPA East and West agreed to Binding Arbitration, any change in representation does not change the award.

If USAPA unilaterally changes the decision you would be slapped with a DFR and lose so fast your head would spin.

You are being told what you want to hear, not the truth.

Arbitrations are precedent setting and all parties, East, West and the Company are bound by its parameters.

Your lack of knowledge on the true issues really shows.


Actually you may or not may be aware that UAL ALPA had UAL reorder a seniority list inverting a group of scabs and non scabs. A DFR lawsuit was filed and an appellate court upheld UAL ALPA's right to do so as it determined that seniority was a creature of contract just like pay.

This situation isn't burdened by a seniority list codified by any contract. Nicalou exists only as a list with names. An arbitration that took place entirely as an internal union matter that by a union will no longer be the collective bagaining agent of the pilot group. If US Airways were to accept a DOH/LOS of list in negotiations with USAPA, a DFR lawsuit may be filed. It will be short lived and funded out of the pockets of the West pilots. DOH/LOS is non arbitrary or capricious and the merits have been established by numerous court decisions. But, hey this will all play out, it just won't be ALPA at the helm when it does.
 
Update from the AAA MEC's Three-Man Panel

December 17, 2007

The members of your MEC's three-member Panel, Rocco Spartano, Don Iorio and
Garland Jones, have decided to stand down all Panel activities in light of Captain Prater's
decision to release the Nicolau Award to management. Recall that the Panel was
established in order to oversee the development of a comprehensive proposal, including
finding consensual solutions with the West to the problems created by the Nicolau
Award.

Prior to Capt. Prater's announcement, this Panel had formed a larger working group
composed of our AAA Merger and Joint Negotiating Committee members, with direction
from the MEC to use any and all resources that we deemed necessary. Our larger working
group is now made up of the three Panel members, the MEC Chairman and Vice
Chairman, three Merger Committee members, three JNC members, and one contracted IT
specialist. Some or all of that group has been working for the past two weeks in
preparation for possible discussions with the West. That preparation will now stop, and
will not resume unless directed by this Panel to do so.

We feel that the commitment of both the West MEC and ALPA National to this process
is now in serious doubt, and that those commitments will have to be firmly established
before our Panel resumes its willingness to engage in the process.

In Solidarity,

Don Iorio, Rocco Spartano, and Garland Jones

The AAA side of "the Panel" is crying boohoo just because they now know that ALPA national set up a panel that had no basis in any merger policy or bylaws to begin with and was only a long shot at getting something done outside of the rules?

What is the authority of the Panel? Are they a "Panel" that is supra-constitutional? I find it interesting to say the least that “the Panelâ€￾ is deciding when and if to engage. When has any negotiating committee ever negotiated outside the authority of the MEC? Has ALPA set up another body to absolve itself from any responsibility? “The Panelâ€￾ appears to have no authority under ALAP by laws and only seems to have any legitimacy if people acquiesce to it. It is after all YOUR panel, so says ALPA.

Why was the West ever even involved? ALPA wakes up everyday and pledges allegiance to the ALPA flag. “Nic now! Nic tomorrow! And Nic forever!â€￾ (With their fingers crossed behind their back for good measure?).

ALPA = Nicophile
 
Let me explain this one more time, a change in representation does not void an abritration award nor a CBA.

The new union is bound by the RLA to uphold and enforce any arbitration and CBA.

Call the NMB if you dont believe me.
 
Let me explain this one more time, a change in representation does not void an abritration award nor a CBA.

The new union is bound by the RLA to uphold and enforce any arbitration and CBA.

Call the NMB if you dont believe me.


Nicalou doesn't exist in any contract at this point. There is nothing to defend and USAPA has no obligation to defend ALPA merger policy or anything else in ALPA C & BL's only what will be contained in theirs. Not East or West. USAPA will be bound by the contracts but when they are amendable will have full rights to negotiate all parts including the part that defines seniority.

ALPA C & BL's say it will legally defend and enforce any merger under its policy. Airways won't be an ALPA carrier. The current CBA at East defines seniority by length of service. It has successor language that keeps it in force for the East in the event of a merger until a new one is negotiated, either by mutual consent with the company or when it is amendable. Those provisions are the ones that have to be legally defended by the new union.
 
An arbitration that took place entirely as an internal union matter that will no longer be the collective bagaining agent of the pilot group.

You need to check that with Seaham and please publish his response. You forget (conveniently again) that you and every other east and west pilot are parties to the agreement to arbitrate through their respective representatives. Regardless of who the other party is, USAPA, ALPA, or whomever, two of the parties are still present: the east and the west pilots. You agreed to the arbitration then and are bound to it now. That is the law. Check with Seaham, I'd love to hear him try to wiggle out this little but important fact.
 
Let me explain this one more time, a change in representation does not void an abritration award nor a CBA.

The new union is bound by the RLA to uphold and enforce any arbitration and CBA.

Call the NMB if you dont believe me.


You seem really passionate. Very Kind of you to speak of the new union in the present tense but you are a little ahead of yourself. The new union is yet to be elected. The NMB has already been called (perhaps even visited I hear) and will likely be conducting a representational election. ALPA has nothing to worry about and shouldn't spend any dues money defending itself. In view of this it seems awfully strange that ALPA just announced another assessment to support additional ALPA work. Do you have any information about the ALPA assessment? I called the NMB and they referred me to you.
 
ALPA C & BL's say it will legally defend and enforce any merger under its policy. Airways won't be an ALPA carrier.

The new union will be a successor in interest to ALPA, thereby assuming all obligations and interests of ALPA. The metaphor commonly used is that USAPA will "step into the shoes of ALPA." Check it with Seaham and again, please publish his response. I'd love to hear how he'd argue that USAPA is something other than a successor in interest.
 
The new union will be a successor in interest to ALPA, thereby assuming all obligations and interests of ALPA. The metaphor commonly used is that USAPA will "step into the shoes of ALPA." Check it with Seaham and again, please publish his response. I'd love to hear how he'd argue that USAPA is something other than a successor in interest.


The agreement to arbitrate under ALPA merger policy, is in effect only a tentative one between the pilot group and ALPA. If ALPA is no longer the union and has no standing on the property, it will be unenforceable as one of the parties no longer exists. USAPA will have no obligation to defend it, as it will be bound by its own C & BL's which will exist as a contract between it and the pilot group. The one item that would have gone some way to it being enforceable is it being ratified into a contract, which will not occur as there is snowball's chance in well you know of that happening. ALPA likely won't be coming through with that big contract offer that would buy people off. :rolleyes: Different lawyers, different opinions. If you are so right, relax and enjoy the holidays as there is nothing to worry about. Everyone will get to see who's lawyers are better. Word of advice, get your own counsel. ALPA's brilliance has been on such flattering display over the last 30 years.


Will a DFR lawsuit be filed? Probably, and good luck with that. Don't spend to much of your hard earned money in defending an attempt at theft though.
 
Are you that ignorant?

A change in representation does not void or relieve a union of an arbitration award or a CBA.
 
Are you that ignorant?

A change in representation does not void or relieve a union of an arbitration award or a CBA.

Who said "relieve"?

But since you want to talk about "relieve", can ALPA be relieved of their status as the CBA if they loose a representational election? The NMB keeps referring me back to you.
 
MICHAEL S. HABER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
225 Broadway, Suite 3010
New York, New York 10007
___________
TO : Captain xxxxx xxxxxx
FROM : Michael S. Haber
RE : Status of “MidAtlantic Airwaysâ€￾
DATE : December 17, 2007

The pilot committee has requested a memo be prepared and delivered to you that will help to outline that "MidAtlantic Airways" and US Airways were one and the same. This should not be a complicated task, inasmuch as both ALPA and US Airways have already acknowledged that this is so. It is the intent of this memo to provide sufficient detail to meet your request without compromising sensitive data. To that end, this memo is not confidential.

BACKGROUND

Before addressing the substance, we briefly deal with the arbitration award, which is replete with mistakes, poor assumptions, and absurd standards and priorities. First, arbitrator George Nicolau found that the 1,691 furloughees on US Airways’ seniority list included the MDA pilots. Building one mistake upon another, he next determined that “merging active pilots with furlougheesâ€￾ would be unfair. Thus, the arbitration award does not credit “MDAâ€￾ pilots with the time during which they flew MidAtlantic equipment for US Airways.

Nicolau characterized MDA “a regional carrier,â€￾ but, oddly, then acknowledged that it did not have a separate operating certificate. This is important, because if there is no operating certificate, then there is no “carrierâ€￾ (regional or otherwise). The Award notes at page 5 that US Airways’ 5,098 pilots were hired between April 20, 1966 and June 19, 2000, and that 1691 pilots were on furlough at the time of the merger. The list of furloughees included, according to the Award, 105 Combined Eligibility List [“CELâ€￾] pilots along with “212 other Mid-Atlantic Divisionâ€￾ pilots.

“Though listed as active in a US Airways summary sheet,â€￾ the Award states, “they are carried as furloughed on the US Airways Certified 5/1/05 List.â€￾ The Award treats the flying performed by “MDAâ€￾ pilots as though they were working for a separate carrier during that time.

The America West representatives had urged that the CEL pilots (who accounted for 105 of the “MidAtlanticâ€￾ slots) be left off of the list. Although Nicolau disagreed with that assertion, the standard he invoked to determine placement of these pilots was whether it would “adversely affect America West pilots.â€￾ Such a standard is incompatible with ALPA’s Merger Policy, which is designed to assure a “fair and equitable resolution.â€￾

I have previously cited your own circumstances as illustrative of the effect that the Nicolau Award has on “MDAâ€￾ pilots. You were initially hired by US Airways in 1998 (less than five years after America West’s most senior pilot), were furloughed in 2003, and, less than six months later, were hired to fly the EMB 170 aircraft at US Airways’ MidAtlantic division. During the almost four years since your furlough, your seniority improved from number xxx to number xxxx. The Nicolau Award would place an America West pilot who was hired and in training during the arbitration to be more senior than you. In other words, more than 18 years of active service is washed away with a single strike of the pen.

In February 2005, ALPA listed the total number of furloughees as 1879, but reduced that number to 1574 as of July 2005, the difference between those two numbers being almost the exact number of “MidAtlanticâ€￾ pilots (both APL and CEL combined). There were 203 APL pilots flying at “the MidAtlantic division,â€￾ emanating from all seniority levels among the APL. Presumably recognizing that APL pilots who did not accept a “MidAtlanticâ€￾ position would likely have decided otherwise if they had been aware that MidAtlantic was in fact a US Airways position, ALPA did not know how to treat those pilots.

Nicolau also determined that America West pilots had “career expectations [that] were far superior to those of the US Airways pilots.â€￾ In creating the Integrated List, Nicolau first “temporarily extract[ed]â€￾ from the January 1, 2007 lists non-flying pilots and those on leaves of absence. From there, the arbitrator concluded that while “history is cloudy at best,â€￾ that there is “insufficient evidenceâ€￾ to justify removing MDA pilots from the list altogether. Nonetheless, he stated that placing the MDA pilots at “the bottom of the integrated list, a position they know [sic] occupy on the US Airways list, will not adversely affect America West pilots.â€￾

In other words, the criterion he set for the seniority integration was that it not harm America West pilots. Such a standard makes it sound as though the only pilots to whom Nicolau owed a duty was to the America West pilots. That is not the standard. Contrary to ALPA merger policy, the America West pilots were given a windfall at the expense of “MDAâ€￾ pilots’ career expectations.

The May 21, 2007 Meeting

A May 21, 2007 meeting, attended by hundreds of pilots, shed new light on the arbitration. My understanding is that counsel for the US Airways pilots during the arbitration stated that there were both official and unofficial versions of the seniority list used as exhibits during the arbitration and that the key difference between the two lists was the inclusion of the MDA pilots -- the official list included MDA pilots; the unofficial list had them listed as furloughed.

The unofficial list, I am told, was initially objected to by counsel for the US Airways pilots but ultimately was accepted by counsel with the recognition that the document was erroneous.
A crucial issue is whether ALPA knowingly acquiesced to a circumstance in which the MDA pilots would, for purposes of the seniority integration arbitration, be mistakenly understood to have been furloughed at the time of the merger.

It is hard to believe that an arbitration that involved 18 days of hearings, testimony of 20 witnesses, numerous exhibits, and a transcript of more than 3,000 pages would utilize a seniority list that was just plain wrong. It is also hard to understand how a flawed seniority list could result in an unflawed seniority integration.

ALPA did little, if anything, to correct the misimpressions and misapprehensions of the arbitrator. Because of those misimpressions, the 35-page arbitration award creates a seniority list that places “MDAâ€￾ pilots under America West’s new-hires: A probationary America West pilot has greater seniority, rights, and protections than an “MDAâ€￾ pilot with some 17 years of seniority with US Airways.

POSITIONS ALPA HAS TAKEN DURING THE NAUGLER LITIGATION
July 2006

On July 21, 2006, during a court conference in Naugler v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, the Judge heard argument concerning ALPA's motion to dismiss the complaint. I told the Court that ALPA sought to camouflage that the union misled its members and stripped them of their recall rights. The key fact, I maintained, was that there really was no MidAtlantic and that ALPA pulled the wool over the eyes of its members, violating its duty of fair representation.

I emphasized repeatedly that MidAtlantic never existed and that if the pilots knew that it did not in fact exist, they would have been entitled to greater pay and benefits.

ALPA’s attorney maintained, in opposition to my remarks, that the pilots all knew MidAtlantic did not exist. I countered by pointing out that if this was known to the pilots, there would have been no reason for the MEC to continue the charade into June of 2005. ALPA’s counsel admitted, for the first time, in response to a question from the Judge, that MidAtlantic never existed (emphasis added).

In permitting ALPA to make a motion to dismiss, the Judge said,
“I can’t stop someone from filing a motion,â€￾ but added, “It strikes me that it is not going to be a powerful motion to dismiss.â€￾

Less than three months ago, ALPA filed a Memorandum of Law with the court opposing plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to assert new claims dealing with the seniority integration arbitration [the "Nicolau Award"]. That memo, dated September 26, 2007, stated, in part, "Plaintiffs are ALPA-represented pilots who were furloughed from US Airways and subsequently accepted employment at the MDA division of US Airways." ALPA maintained, in that same memo, that "the corporate structure of MDA was, in any event, completely irrelevant."

ALPA has argued that the US Airways Restructuring Agreement provided that "[a]ll MDA positions will be filled first by US Airways pilots," and that LOA 84 provided that MDA "could be operated 'as a separate division within mainline -- US Airways, Inc.' and that point was later confirmed in Letter of Agreement 91."

THE POSITION OF US AIRWAYS

The company issued a myriad of press releases concerning “MDAâ€￾ during the period from 2002 through 2004. Initially, on May 30, 2002, a press release said “MidAtlantic Airways . . . will operate as a wholly-owned subsidiary of US Airways Group, Inc., and as part of the US Airways Express network,â€￾ a position that was reiterated on June 27, 2002, when US Airways wrote, “In addition to Piedmont Airlines, US Airways' other wholly-owned US Airways Express carriers are Allegheny Airlines, PSA Airlines and MidAtlantic Airways.â€￾

By December 11, 2002, the situation became somewhat murky, with a press release stating that “the company will make MidAtlantic Airways, its new regional jet subsidiary, a division of US Airways . . . . US Airways mainline employees on furlough will be assigned to work the regional jets that will be flown by MidAtlantic at competitive regional airline rates and benefits, but allowing them to keep their seniority number and providing for coordination of staffing.â€￾

By February 3, 2003, the company referred vaguely to the “new MidAtlantic Airways operation,â€￾ but subsequently referred to MDA as its “new regional airline divisionâ€￾ (March 31, 2003), a characterization more or less replicated on April 7, 2003 and again on May 12, 2003. Strangely, on July 9, 2003, a US Airways press release referred to a “new wholly owned MidAtlantic Airways division,â€￾ but then reverted on July 28, 2003 to calling MDA “US Airways’ MidAtlantic Airways division.â€￾ By April 2, 2004, a US Airways press release referred to MDA as “US Airways’ new regional jet division.â€￾

CONCLUSION

These various characterizations by the company and the union render it easily understandable why pilots were confused as to whether “MidAtlantic Airwaysâ€￾ was a separate carrier or a division of US Airways, and, moreover, demonstrate conclusively that, in fact, MidAtlantic Airways was nothing other than a part of US Airways. The existing collective bargaining agreement contains rights for furloughed pilots. Those rights were violated when these pilots were brought back to fly for the identical airline that had them listed as furloughed but without the benefit of recall. An internal division does not create a separate carrier. US Airways provided documentation to the court that states they “did what they did because the bankruptcy laws allowed it and because ALPA allowed itâ€￾ (Emphasis added). This admission highlights that extraordinary measures were taken outside of the collective bargaining agreement.
 
Are you that ignorant?

A change in representation does not void or relieve a union of an arbitration award or a CBA.
I have a letter from the USAPA lawyers that says you are absolutely WRONG. Seniority is subject to negotiation, just like EVERYTHING else in the CBA. Too bad you can't understand that. Once ALPA leaves the property, they cannot defend the award. Since the award was supposedly done to ALPA guidelines, and they no longer represent the pilots, the new CBA can reorder the list any way they like, subject to ratification of the CBA. That's how it works, no matter what you say.

http://usairlinepilots.org/Seham_seniority...tion_issues.htm
 
The agreement to arbitrate under ALPA merger policy, is in effect only a tentative one between the pilot group and ALPA. If ALPA is no longer the union and has no standing on the property, it will be unenforceable as one of the parties no longer exists. USAPA will have no obligation to defend it, as it will be bound by its own C & BL's which will exist as a contract between it and the pilot group. The one item that would have gone some way to it being enforceable is it being ratified into a contract, which will not occur as there is snowball's chance in well you know of that happening. ALPA likely won't be coming through with that big contract offer that would buy people off. :rolleyes: Different lawyers, different opinions. If you are so right, relax and enjoy the holidays as there is nothing to worry about. Everyone will get to see who's lawyers are better. Word of advice, get your own counsel. ALPA's brilliance has been on such flattering display over the last 30 years.


Will a DFR lawsuit be filed? Probably, and good luck with that. Don't spend to much of your hard earned money in defending an attempt at theft though.

TRANSLATION: LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA......P.S. DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS...LA LA LA LA LA LA......
 
I have a letter from the USAPA lawyers that says you are absolutely WRONG. Seniority is subject to negotiation, just like EVERYTHING else in the CBA. Too bad you can't understand that. Once ALPA leaves the property, they cannot defend the award. Since the award was supposedly done to ALPA guidelines, and they no longer represent the pilots, the new CBA can reorder the list any way they like, subject to ratification of the CBA. That's how it works, no matter what you say.

http://usairlinepilots.org/Seham_seniority...tion_issues.htm

I see why divorce attorneys make so much money- emotions anesthetize logic and reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top