APA, USAPA and the Ghost of TWA
- Thread starter RJcasualty
- Start date
ChockJockey
Veteran
- Dec 18, 2008
- 1,393
- 1,350
traderjake said:
Claxon said:
luvthe9 said:
By virtue of the never-ending orgy of mutual hatred and the ceaseless sniping that gives your posts all the same tone there's really no telling the lot of you apart.
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
FWAAA said:
I have heard that argument before....I looked for some information on that and found a credible source in the form of expert testimony in the case of Brady v. ALPA. I believe it was testimony in the penalty phase of the TWA v. ALPA damages trial. The testimony is from Richard. A Kasher, Esquire - A well known labor arbitrator.
...Any given transaction presents its own unique and specific factors that bear on an arbitrator’s subjective view of what would be fair and equitable. Therefore, every seniority list integration is different and arbitrators must approach each case anew. The end result of an unrelated arbitration is largely irrelevant because the unique facts and circumstances of each arbitration merit a thoughtful, case-specific inquiry and analysis by the arbitrator in order to reach what he deems an appropriate outcome.
This principle is well-accepted by interest arbitrators. As Arbitrator George Nicolau noted in one of the arbitration opinions on which Dr. Farber relies, Federal Express-Flying Tiger, at 27-28 (1990) (Nicolau, Arb.),each case is different and thus turns on its own facts. See also Delta-Northwest, at 14 n.7 (2008) (Bloch,Eischen and Horowitz, Arbs.) (citing Arbitrator Nicolau in Federal Express-Flying Tiger). Similarly, in Air Wisconsin-Mississippi Valley, at 4-5 (1985) (Valtin, Arb.), Arbitrator Rolf Valtin recognized:
[T]hough there are before us a series of list-integration determinations by other boards and though we have read this literature with interest and respect, it is clearly to be kept in mind that list-integration determinations cannot help but be geared to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. For, by proper application of the “fair and equitable” standard, overriding effect must be given to what is presented in the situation at hand and due regard must be had for the inevitability of the uniqueness of each situation. To do otherwise would amount to abdication of responsibility.
The AWA / US Aribitration was based on a PID (Policy Initiation Date) of May19, 2005. It is based on an entirely different set of facts from those that are now present. It is likely that if APA / and USAPA in arbitration the former PID will be a decade old. It is highly unlikely that an arbitrator will simply use the snapshot that formed the basis for the AWA / US merger. This merger represents an entirely new set of facts.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
None of the examples you listed involved an arbitration where there'd been an earlier arbitration award involving one of the parties of the current case.
You can't take Flying Tigers-Fedex or Mississippi Valley-Air Wisconsin and apply it to DL/NW.
But you most certainly can take the result of the HP/US case and apply it towards US/AA, since the facts for HP/US still form a basis for what career expectations at US should have been pre-merger.
You can't take Flying Tigers-Fedex or Mississippi Valley-Air Wisconsin and apply it to DL/NW.
But you most certainly can take the result of the HP/US case and apply it towards US/AA, since the facts for HP/US still form a basis for what career expectations at US should have been pre-merger.
PullUp
Veteran
- May 22, 2010
- 820
- 736
Which should be a wakeup call for the AA guys. Not only do the westies want the east attrition, they want the AA attrition, too.eolesen said:
The AA pilots should be calling their union reps telling them to come to a negotiated settlement.
These hardball tactics will send this thing to arbitration where anything is possible.
Judge Silver has ruled that the west, once integrated into the new AA list (whether it is negotiated or arbitrated), cannot sue because it will be impossible to ascertain damages.
Got unlimited minutes? Use one or two - phone your rep.
Cheers.
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
eolesen said:
You may make that argument....but the experts don't seem to agree.
….As Arbitrator George Nicolau noted in one of the arbitration opinions on which Dr. Farber relies, Federal Express-Flying Tiger, at 27-28 (1990) (Nicolau, Arb.),each case is different and thus turns on its own facts. See also Delta-Northwest, at 14 n.7 (2008) (Bloch ,Eischen and Horowitz, Arbs.) (citing Arbitrator Nicolau in Federal Express-Flying Tiger). Similarly, in AirWisconsin-Mississippi Valley, at 4-5 (1985) (Valtin, Arb.), Arbitrator Rolf Valtin recognized:
[T]hough there are before us a series of list-integration determinations by other boards and though we have read this literature with interest and respect, it is clearly to be kept in mind that list-integration determinations cannot help but be geared to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. For, by proper application of the “fair and equitable” standard, overriding effect must be given to what is presented in the situation at hand and due regard must be had for the inevitability of the uniqueness of e[Administrative agencies], as well as the courts that have frequently reviewed the propriety of seniority integration arrangements, whether those integrations were achieved through collective bargaining negotiations or third party intervention (mediation or arbitration), have generally concluded that there is no “one” fair and equitable arrangement for resolving seniority standing among a particular craft or class on a particular carrier.
While a particular method of integrating seniority may only appear to be fair and equitable in the eyes of certain beholders, it is well-established that there may be several permutations and combinations of integrating seniority lists on the same property involving the same employees that will meet an objective test and be considered “fair and equitable.“ Id. at 14-15 (emphases added).
In light of the fact-intensive nature of seniority integrations, in my professional judgment it is impossible to use prior arbitrations to create a quantitative model or precedential framework that would accurately predict an arbitrated result, let alone the results of a negotiation. To do otherwise would amount to abdication of responsibility.
The honorable Judge Silver noted this in her commentary on Addington III. She only considered the position of the parties Prospectively. That is going forward. In her decision she noted that this was not the same prior merger or condition but a new merger with a new specific set of facts.
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,270
- 306
I hesitate to post on the topic, but will offer this: Rather than Tigers/Fedex or MVA/Air Wisc perhaps a better parallel is the Pan Am / National merger; while over thirty years ago, it was similar to the US/HP merger. Pan Am had a great many pilots on furlough, the Sun King airline had been expanding and had a relatively junior pilot corps. NA had captains who were hired after Clipper Skippers on furlough. DOH was considered unfair to the NA pilots; I must confess that I don't know the details , but IIRC ALPA came up with some sort of slotting scheme that few were completely happy with, but did go into effect without too much nastiness. Of course, there was no internet back then, just graffiti in the loos of the crew rooms. Not nearly as effective!eolesen said:
There is a bit discussion of the issue in Robert Gandt's Skygods ( an excellent read and finally back in print).
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
Merger Committee Update
We understand that some of our pilots may be concerned about separate and independent representation for US Airways pilots in the event APA at some point in the future is certified as the representative for the combined pilot group both American and US Airways. Heres the legal situation:
The McCaskill-Bond Amendment guarantees separate and independent representation of the pre-merger pilot groups involved in a merger which is not otherwise subject to a collective bargaining agreement or internal union policy (such as the Air Line Pilots Association Merger Policy) that establishes a seniority integration process equivalent to Section 3 and 13 of the Allegheny Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions. USAPA believes, and the District Court in Phoenix ruled, that where there are certified bargaining representatives, such as USAPA and APA in the US Airways/American merger, those certified representatives are the representatives in the McCaskill-Bond process.
The McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not prevent the seniority list integration (SLI) process under Section 3 and 13 from being completed before the National Mediation Board (NMB) makes a single carrier finding and then certifies a single bargaining representative for the combined group of US Airways and American pilots. In other words, the SLI process may be finished before there is any determination by the NMB. If that happens, the issue never arises.
USAPA believes that the McCaskill-Bond Amendment must be interpreted to require continued separate and independent representation of the pre-merger pilot groups (US Airways and American) even if the NMB certifies a single representative before the SLI is completed. This means that APA cannot interfere with the USAPA Merger Committee even if they become the certified representative, and USAPA is prepared to take appropriate legal action to preserve the right of the USAPA Merger Committee to remain free from any interference by the APA.
We will continue to distribute updates as circumstances warrant or as issues arise that merit our attention. Communications may be addressed to the Merger Committee at [email protected].
USAPA Merger Committee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Legal action against the APA?
Good luck
We understand that some of our pilots may be concerned about separate and independent representation for US Airways pilots in the event APA at some point in the future is certified as the representative for the combined pilot group both American and US Airways. Heres the legal situation:
The McCaskill-Bond Amendment guarantees separate and independent representation of the pre-merger pilot groups involved in a merger which is not otherwise subject to a collective bargaining agreement or internal union policy (such as the Air Line Pilots Association Merger Policy) that establishes a seniority integration process equivalent to Section 3 and 13 of the Allegheny Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions. USAPA believes, and the District Court in Phoenix ruled, that where there are certified bargaining representatives, such as USAPA and APA in the US Airways/American merger, those certified representatives are the representatives in the McCaskill-Bond process.
The McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not prevent the seniority list integration (SLI) process under Section 3 and 13 from being completed before the National Mediation Board (NMB) makes a single carrier finding and then certifies a single bargaining representative for the combined group of US Airways and American pilots. In other words, the SLI process may be finished before there is any determination by the NMB. If that happens, the issue never arises.
USAPA believes that the McCaskill-Bond Amendment must be interpreted to require continued separate and independent representation of the pre-merger pilot groups (US Airways and American) even if the NMB certifies a single representative before the SLI is completed. This means that APA cannot interfere with the USAPA Merger Committee even if they become the certified representative, and USAPA is prepared to take appropriate legal action to preserve the right of the USAPA Merger Committee to remain free from any interference by the APA.
We will continue to distribute updates as circumstances warrant or as issues arise that merit our attention. Communications may be addressed to the Merger Committee at [email protected].
USAPA Merger Committee
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Legal action against the APA?
Good luck
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
luvthe9 said:
Your fear of losing another arbitration is noted.
APA is not going to expose itself to liability to USAPA's DFR.
