Res Judicata
Veteran
No, we didn't cave to your terroristic list of Demands. GFY Scab.
April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, terroristic......
DOH with conditions and restrictions that were extremely reasonable to both sides. ALPA national attempted to help us both get it done at WR. To no avail. National knew how bad it was. That is why they tried then changed the merger policy after we pulled out.
Final and binding? Yeah, just like the wedding vows all you divorced guys took.
Terroristic is what niclaou put together. That is why we are where we are.
DOH with conditions and restrictions that were extremely reasonable to both sides. ALPA national attempted to help us both get it done at WR. To no avail. National knew how bad it was. That is why they tried then changed the merger policy after we pulled out.
Final and binding? Yeah, just like the wedding vows all you divorced guys took.
Terroristic is what niclaou put together. That is why we are where we are.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
What Marty says:
"Barely more than half of the West Pilots with positions on the Nicolau Award list participated in the MOU ratification vote. Only about 2/3 of the members of the putative West Pilot Class participated. Even if the MOU were an overt vote on whether to abandon the Nicolau Award (which it was not),
this subgroup of West Pilots cannot consent to abandonment of the Nicolau Award for the entire West Pilot Class."
There's that silly "majority" of the West pilots that don't speak for the minority argument again.
"Barely more than half of the West Pilots with positions on the Nicolau Award list participated in the MOU ratification vote. Only about 2/3 of the members of the putative West Pilot Class participated. Even if the MOU were an overt vote on whether to abandon the Nicolau Award (which it was not),
this subgroup of West Pilots cannot consent to abandonment of the Nicolau Award for the entire West Pilot Class."
There's that silly "majority" of the West pilots that don't speak for the minority argument again.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
Res Jihadi, that's your real name.
Let the terrorist stand....Marty Harpers minority of West class pilots.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
I have never cared for either of those pompous ass ALPA pilot groups. It's their elitist mentalities that got all of us into this bailey-wick situation in the first place. Their scared because our pilot group voted in an MOU that has the potential to change the face if their collective bargaining positions for United, Delta and Southwest.
Wait until we're all working under the green book APA negotiated. Parker will never negotiate a CBA that will be industry leading and the majority of pilots here can't do anything about it. "You're gonna love how ya look!"
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
What Judge Silver JUDGED:
"IT IS ORDERED Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose. This judgment is binding on the following class: “All pilots employed by US Airways in September 2008 who were on the America West seniority list on September 20, 2005.”
DATED this 4th day of December, 2012."
What Marty says:
"Contrary to USAPA’s characterization, this Court never ruled that USAPA is free to abandon the Nicolau Award."
WHO IS A LIER? Silver or Harper?
"IT IS ORDERED Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose. This judgment is binding on the following class: “All pilots employed by US Airways in September 2008 who were on the America West seniority list on September 20, 2005.”
DATED this 4th day of December, 2012."
What Marty says:
"Contrary to USAPA’s characterization, this Court never ruled that USAPA is free to abandon the Nicolau Award."
WHO IS A LIER? Silver or Harper?
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
If Marty wants to cite cases maybe he shouldn't cite cases that virtually mirror our own:
"Plaintiffs worked for BIF, a subsidiary of General Signal Corporation (the "company") and were members of Local 5299 of the United Steelworkers of American (the "union"). They claim that the company breached its contract with the union by not granting them severance pay when it closed down its plant in West Warwick, Rhode Island and that the union breached its duty of fair representation in negotiating and approving an agreement governing severance pay and the plant closure and in choosing to negotiate rather than arbitrate over severance pay. The parties have substantially completed discovery; defendants now move for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issues of material fact exist and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This Court agrees and grants their motion." http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19901024732FSupp292_1956.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
"Plaintiffs worked for BIF, a subsidiary of General Signal Corporation (the "company") and were members of Local 5299 of the United Steelworkers of American (the "union"). They claim that the company breached its contract with the union by not granting them severance pay when it closed down its plant in West Warwick, Rhode Island and that the union breached its duty of fair representation in negotiating and approving an agreement governing severance pay and the plant closure and in choosing to negotiate rather than arbitrate over severance pay. The parties have substantially completed discovery; defendants now move for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issues of material fact exist and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This Court agrees and grants their motion." http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19901024732FSupp292_1956.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
Marty wishes to REWRITE Blacks Law Dictionary. Note to Marty: It maybe time to get a refresher in law school 101.
"The West Pilots agree that much of their DFR claim is controlled by issue preclusion (what USAPA calls res judicata) that arises from this Court’s rulings in Addington II. USAPA, however, mischaracterizes the substance of many of the rulings that are preclusive."
"'Res judicata' has been used in this section as a general term referring to all of the ways in which one judgment will have a binding effect on another. That usage is and doubtless will continue to be common, but it lumps under a single name two quite different effects of judgments. The first is the effect of foreclosing any litigation of matters that never have been litigated, because of the determination that they should have been advanced in an earlier suit. The second is the effect of foreclosing relitigation of matters that have once been litigated and decided. The first of these, preclusion of matters that were never litigated, has gone under the name, 'true res judicata,' or the names, 'merger' and 'bar.' The second doctrine, preclusion of matters that have once been decided, has usually been called 'collateral estoppel.' Professor Allan Vestal has long argued for the use of the names 'claim preclusion' and 'issue preclusion' for these two doctrines [Vestal, Rationale of Preclusion, 9 St. Louis U. L.J. 29 (1964)], and this usage is increasingly employed by the courts as it is by Restatement Second of Judgments." Charles Alan Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 100A, at 722-23 (5th ed. 1994)." Black Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition.
"The West Pilots agree that much of their DFR claim is controlled by issue preclusion (what USAPA calls res judicata) that arises from this Court’s rulings in Addington II. USAPA, however, mischaracterizes the substance of many of the rulings that are preclusive."
"'Res judicata' has been used in this section as a general term referring to all of the ways in which one judgment will have a binding effect on another. That usage is and doubtless will continue to be common, but it lumps under a single name two quite different effects of judgments. The first is the effect of foreclosing any litigation of matters that never have been litigated, because of the determination that they should have been advanced in an earlier suit. The second is the effect of foreclosing relitigation of matters that have once been litigated and decided. The first of these, preclusion of matters that were never litigated, has gone under the name, 'true res judicata,' or the names, 'merger' and 'bar.' The second doctrine, preclusion of matters that have once been decided, has usually been called 'collateral estoppel.' Professor Allan Vestal has long argued for the use of the names 'claim preclusion' and 'issue preclusion' for these two doctrines [Vestal, Rationale of Preclusion, 9 St. Louis U. L.J. 29 (1964)], and this usage is increasingly employed by the courts as it is by Restatement Second of Judgments." Charles Alan Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 100A, at 722-23 (5th ed. 1994)." Black Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
Marty needs better case law:
"Held: Though national labor policy accords the highest priority to nondiscriminatory employment practices, the NLRA does not protect concerted activity by minority employees to bargain with their employer over issues of employment discrimination, thus bypassing their exclusive bargaining representative." Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition - 420 U.S. 50 (1975).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/50/
Marty must have been the class clown instead of the class valedictorian.
"Held: Though national labor policy accords the highest priority to nondiscriminatory employment practices, the NLRA does not protect concerted activity by minority employees to bargain with their employer over issues of employment discrimination, thus bypassing their exclusive bargaining representative." Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition - 420 U.S. 50 (1975).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/50/
Marty must have been the class clown instead of the class valedictorian.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
You do know what the legal meaning of "proposed" is? Then again, maybe not.This, on the other hand, means something:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington; et al, vs.
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
US Airline Pilots Ass’n; and US Airways,
Inc.,
Defendants.
THE COURT, having considered Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 13, responses thereto and oral argument, and good cause appearing,
ORDERS as follows: US Airline Pilots Association and US Airways, Inc., (and their successors) must participate in the pilot seniority integration process as specifically provided for in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement and, in so doing, must use an unmodified Nicolau Award to define the seniority order of the US Airways pilots.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
What's the LUP? That's where this is all going. YOU DON"T HAVE ONE.
What about the Friday threat Polly? Come and gone. Now it is the 14 th the day Planet USAPA spins out of control. You and the Mayans need to get your dates squared away.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
What is the standard of measure for DFR? If you have any legal perspective at all you will realize LUP is NOT a standard. "Legitimate" is an adjective of conclusion, a judgement if you will.
First you must have a date of ripeness to even have a trial and then and only then a proposed or alledged purpose might be judged according a standard or range of reasonableness.... But more than likely it is not "purpose" that is judged but rather it is "product"...
10 points if you can cite the standard of legitimate union product, and another 10 points if you can cite the authority that most recently repeated that standard... of a wide range of reasonableness.
1,000 points if you can show a "standard for purpose" .. Ha!
Great question. Give us the concise legal definition of "LUP" please, so that we might better look around for it....? That shouldn't be any problem for you, since you're hanging your whole, supposed case on it.
Umm...Wait one second first though...OK. I've got my rabidly-drooling-"dire-wolf"-to-English-dictionary now ready, so go ahead....?
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
Ripeness in the singular reason the Jury in Addington I didn't end this mess in 2008. That's cost you 5 more years on LOA 93. All USAPA has is a claim of "not yet" when everybody else agrees that this cant get any more ripe than it is now.What is the standard of measure for DFR? If you have any legal perspective at all you will realize LUP is NOT a standard. "Legitimate" is an adjective of conclusion, a judgement if you will.
First you must have a date of ripeness to even have a trial and then and only then a proposed or alledged purpose might be judged according a standard or range of reasonableness.... But more than likely it is not "purpose" that is judged but rather it is "product"...
10 points if you can cite the standard of legitimate union product, and another 10 points if you can cite the authority that most recently repeated that standard... of a wide range of reasonableness.
1,000 points if you can show a "standard for purpose" .. Ha!
If USAPA is such the integrity filled beacon of hope, a bastion of proper, honest, and fair representation for ALL it's membership, then you all should be holding hands skipping into the courtroom ready to finally clear the air and prove what a good and righteous organization you champion. After all, your organization has cost well over a Billion dollars, has by far, the highest dues rate in the World, and has exactly nothing to show as a work product but a warehouse filled with legal documents all crying "not yet".
This BS is coming to an end very shortly. Silver never let the company off the liability hook. The company has ZERO liability to USAPA for imposing the nic award. However or wherever USAPAS ultimate loss comes, it's coming and USAPA, without question, WILL be decertified long before any appeals process can conclude. I guess you'll then be free to form an LLC, fund it to the tune of millions of dollars, and head back to court...in say 7 years.
- Status
