- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
You guys can't make a DFR claim if you DON'T PLEAD A PROPER DFR CLAIM: "I. Claim One: Breach of the Duty of Fair RepresentationMay 5, 2013
Leonidas Update
On May 3, 2013, Attorneys for the West Pilots filed responses in the latest Addington case (Addington III – DFR 2). These filings are responses to USAPA's Motion to Dismiss and a Reply in Support of our Motion for Preliminary Injunction. We highly recommend that you read these filings (Doc 52 & Doc 53).
The primary matter at issue in the pleadings is whether this matter is now ripe for decision. In our recent filings, we argue that the MOU is the single agreement called for in the Transition Agreement, finally making the DFR claim ripe. US Airways supported this argument in their Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PI) filed last week (Doc 49). Specifically, the company stated in their pleadings that "the facts are entirely different and none of the contingencies at issue in Addington I (DFR I) are present here. To the extent a 'final CBA,' or a 'new, single CBA', is a prerequisite to ripeness of the DFR claim asserted by plaintiffs in this case, the requirement is satisfied." The company also stated that: "[c]ontrary to USAPA's argument, the material terms and conditions of employment for both East and West pilots following the merger are now known and fixed by the MOU."
In addition to the ripeness issue, the reply and response documents counter a number of arguments made by USAPA, including that the ratification of the MOU was a waiver of the obligations under the Transition Agreement and/or the right to require implementation of the Nicolau award.
On Friday, May 3, 2013, the company also filed its reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss. Although the Company has weighed in on the ripeness issue in our favor, the Company has maintained the position throughout its pleadings that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the Company because this is a "minor dispute" that should be submitted to the System Board. We have argued that the "minor dispute" doctrine does not apply and that the Company is a necessary party to this action and to any preliminary injunction. The complete briefing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss is available online. (Doc 54).
There have been some other developments with respect to the adversary pleading filed by USAPA in New York and the appeal pending in Addington II (Airways Declaratory Relief). After the bankruptcy judge, AMR and its creditors committee expressed doubts as to the propriety of USAPA's adversary complaint, on April 25, 2013, USAPA voluntarily dismissed the adversary pleading pending in the AMR bankruptcy in New York.
Also on Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the company's request to stay their appeal and ordered an opening brief on June 5 followed by defendants' answering briefs (West Class and USAPA) on July 5 and the optional reply 14 days later after service of the answers. It will be interesting to see how the Airways appeal proceeds while arguing a ripe case in Judge Silver's court on a fact set that appears to moot the company's claims in Addington II.
We continue to have a busy docket. One final brief is due on May 9, 2013, and that is Defendant USAPA's Reply to Plaintiff West Pilots' Response to USAPA's Motion to Dismiss. The following day, May 10, 2013, all parties will file a joint status report containing a proposed schedule for the May 14, 2013, 10 a.m. preliminary injunction hearing at the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona, Courtroom 601.
When the hearing is complete, there is no timetable for a ruling from the Court.
Finally, we would like to remind everyone of the Meet and Greet with the West attorneys scheduled for Friday, May 17, 2013 at 9a.m. The location is the Oasis Room of the Coast Phoenix Sky Harbor Hotel, 4300 East Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85034 602-273-7778.
In the meantime, we thank you for your unwavering support. Six years ago, nobody believed the West pilot group would stick together. We did, and we do believe that all of your patience, faith, trust and support will be rewarded.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
96. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
97. Pursuant to the duty of fair representation, USAPA must have a
legitimate union purpose to use anything other than the Nicolau Award list to integrate East Pilots and West Pilots. What the Supreme Court says the PROPER ELEMENTS OF A DFR CLAIM: "The statutory duty of fair representation was developed over 20 years ago in a series of cases involving alleged racial discrimination by unions certified as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Railway Labor Act, see Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U. S. 210, and was soon extended to unions certified under the N.L.R.A., see Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra. Under this doctrine, the exclusive agent's statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. at 375 U. S. 342. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S.Ct. 903 (1967).