Communications Committee
USAPA Update on Addington II
Day two of the Addington II trial resumed at 08:45 MST, October 23, 2013 in Phoenix. Among the approximate 80 pilots in the courtroom observing the trial were USAPA Executive VP Steve Smyser, Secretary-Treasurer Rob Streble, BPR members John Scherff, Roger Velez, Courtney Borman, Paul DiOrio, Paul Music, and John Taylor; along with P4P Chairman Glenn Kunkel and Communications Chairman James Ray.
Throughout the day, there were mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks as well as a lunch break of approximately one hour and 20 minutes. The remainder of the day was spent with USAPA witnesses. The day began continuing the testimony of Negotiating Advisory Committee Chairman Dean Colello who was followed by NAC member John Owens. The Plaintiffs then played portions of Vice President Bradford’s video deposition, which had been taken previously. That was followed by testimony from USAPA witnesses Jess Pauley, Merger Committee Chairman, and Bob Davison, a member of the Merger Committee.
At 16:11, USAPA rested.
NO DECISIONS WERE RENDERED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DAY.
Judge Silver then directed both parties to submit summaries of the evidence in this case of no more than 15 pages by October 31 and responses to these summaries of no more than 10 pages by November 6. Judge Silver also said that she would issue an order requiring expedited briefing of the outstanding motions for summary judgment filed by USAPA and US Airways. These motions primarily address Claim IV of the Complaint which alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled (but not required) to participate separately in the seniority integration proceeding.
The Court adjourned at 16:20 MST.
The final court transcript for day one of the hearing (October 22, 2013), is now available and posted in the Legal Library: Transcript of Proceedings - Day One.
USAPA Communications
Why the vague update?
Cactuspilot.com has the transcripts of the depositions and will be posting them.
Here's an excerpt from Bradford's deposition who had some explaining to do about USAPA and the company being in concert.
25· · · ·Q.· ·I'm going to show you, Mr. Bradford, and
·1· this may be our last document, what I've identified
·2· as Exhibit 1062, e-mail from you to Mr. Pauley and
·3· others, April 25, 2013.
·4· · · · · · Did you write this e-mail?
·5· · · ·A.· ·Apparently so, yes.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·You write in the first paragraph, Jess,
·7· Jess raised the question of the dismissal of the
·8· pled, P-L-E-D, preliminary injunction in Addington I.
·9· Here is that decision.· In Addington II, Roman
10· numeral two, the court dismissed the company because
11· they were not in cohorts with USAPA.
12· · · · · · Then you continue to write, here the union
13· and the company are in concert.· We have agreed to a
14· new seniority process that does not include the
15· Nicolau award.
16· · · · · · What did you mean by that?
17· · · ·A.· ·We've just -- just what it says.· We
18· have -- the company and the union and APA and the
19· parties to the MOU have agreed on a new process for
20· seniority that is not tied to the old transition
21· agreement.
22· · · ·Q.· ·It does not include the Nicolau?
23· · · ·A.· ·It -- it -- that could be a misstatement.
24· It includes a new process.· If the board wants the
25· Nic, they could have the Nic.
·1· · · ·Q.· ·But that didn't -- that's not what you
·2· wrote.· You -- you wrote you're in cohorts -- cohorts
·3· with the --
·4· · · · · · MS. AXEL:· Cahoots.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·-- cahoots with the company, Airways,
·6· because you agreed to a new seniority process that
·7· does not include the Nicolau.
·8· · · ·A.· ·We factored --
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Those were your -- those are your words --
10· · · ·A.· ·No, the words are --
11· · · ·Q.· ·No, let me -- let me, let me.· Those are
12· your words and your e-mail on April 25, 2013,
13· correct?
14· · · ·A.· ·Incorrect.
15· · · ·Q.· ·Why?
16· · · ·A.· ·We're not in cahoots with the company,
17· we've acted in concert with the company.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Concert.
19· · · · · · What's the difference?
20· · · ·A.· ·We sat at the table, negotiated, arrived
21· at an MOU with all the parties which provides for a
22· new seniority process.
23· · · ·Q.· ·And you still believe that?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· And that process --
25· · · ·Q.· ·That does not include the Nicolau?
·1· · · ·A.· ·Well, it's neutral on its terms.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·You say it eliminated the -- the
·3· requirement to use the -- the Nicolau.· So how can
·4· that be neutral?
·5· · · ·A.· ·Because the Nicolau award or date of hire
·6· or any other seniority solution and outcome does
·7· not appear in the document.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Just because it doesn't appear, it's
·9· neutral?
10· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · · ·Q.· ·But the effect of it is -- from your point
12· of view is to take away the requirement to use the
13· Nicolau?
14· · · ·A.· ·Yes, the transition agreement has been
15· amended, that is correct.
16· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· And to set up a process where
17· the majority is going to rule what's presented to the
18· McCaskill-Bond committee?
19· · · ·A.· ·Without any negotiation, yes.