Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[end_of_alpa]

Everyone seems to leave out the parts they don't like. The above can happen post seniority if USAPA and APA reach an agreement in the first 90 days after the effective date.

That seems to be the case. Many pick out the bits and pieces that they believe favor their "argument".

 

[end_of_alpa]

Everyone seems to leave out the parts they don't like. The above can happen post seniority if USAPA and APA reach an agreement in the first 90 days after the effective date.

After you said this I think I understand the meaning of the word "participants" in paragraph 10.g.

The preamble designates the parties: "USAPA”, and with US Airways, American, and APA, the “Parties”

Paragraph 26.:
"APA shall file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, when APA determines that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition but in no event later than four months after the Effective Date. If and when the NMB makes a single-carrier finding, the single carrier acknowledged by the NMB and the certified representative shall be governed by this Memorandum."

If US Airways merges with American, US Airways (whomever that may be after the merger) is gone as a party, and USAPA is gone as a party, but those involved with the SLI becomes "participants". There are NO other legal "participants".

Read section 10 completely and paragraph 4. I am not particularly against the MOU just that everyone needs to know that this MOU outlines the complete SLI.

 

[end_of_alpa]

no you won't. There are no minutes for closed meetings.

The only thing you are going to find out is who can spin better. The only thing you are going to get is opinion and spin from the reps.

You will have to ask yourself how bad do the CLT reps want to keep third jobs and what are they willing to do? Lie? Spin? Make up stories?

The truth will emerge.

Good luck.

 

[end_of_alpa]

How US Airways Pilot Leaders Found Their Way to Unanimously Back Merger Delay

This story has been revised to reflect additional information provided by US Airways pilots familiar with their union’s internal negotiations.

http://blogs.forbes.com/tedreed/

Looks like the truth is beginning to emerge.

Thanks CLT reps.

 

[nevergiveup]

After you said this I think I understand the meaning of the word "participants" in paragraph 10.g.

The preamble designates the parties: "USAPA", and with US Airways, American, and APA, the "Parties"

Paragraph 26.:
"APA shall file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, when APA determines that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition but in no event later than four months after the Effective Date. If and when the NMB makes a single-carrier finding, the single carrier acknowledged by the NMB and the certified representative shall be governed by this Memorandum."

If US Airways merges with American, US Airways (whomever that may be after the merger) is gone as a party, and USAPA is gone as a party, but those involved with the SLI becomes "participants". There are NO other legal "participants".

Read section 10 completely and paragraph 4. I am not particularly against the MOU just that everyone needs to know that this MOU outlines the complete SLI.

With US Airways gone as a party, wouldn't that end the possibility of satisfying the transition agreement and also end the possibility of making the NIC operational? I believe APA could be substituted for USAPA, but can AA be substituted for US Airways? This whole thing seems to be about timing!

 

[end_of_alpa]

e-o-a

I do not believe they can legally. In a SLI arbitration with AMR it would NOT be a negotiation as was the case when negotiating with the company for a JCBA. The company is the keeper of the seniority list, not the union, and the company would be a party to a SLI arbitration under M/B. See below for the argument that the system seniority list for LCC is Nicolau until changed.

If the argument for a two list SLI with AMR is proposed, since no new integrated list was implemented via a ratified CBA, the arbitrated list (Nicolau), in my opinion would hold more weight than the union's because of process and the fear of liability of a DFR lawsuit from the west.

I do not think that a "3 way" will occur. It is my belief that a SLI arbitration would produce a list via slotting and ratios as DAL/NWA and perhaps UAL/CAL. The problem then with a "3 way" is that the effects of the merger have not been equally proportioned to east / west seniority positions when compared to the pre / post merger. Because of this discrepancy, the existence of the Nicolau, as well as the company's claim in court that it has always been the Nicolau since they formally accepted it, I believe there is very little chance of a "3 way" AMR/east/west arbitration.

Yes, before the gang jumps in, the Nicolau was never implemented via a JCBA per the TA. But that does not in any way mean that it simply goes away. It is the current system SLI unless the union negotiates something different with the company.

===================================================


You must clarify the arguments in this fight. They seem to get blurred in all of the back and forth. They are separate and have been clearly defined even though USAPA has been hard at work obfuscating.

The first is whether or not the TA, and by default the product of the process defined in the TA for determining an integrated seniority list- the Nicolau award- as accepted by the company, is binding on USAPA.

Both judge Wake and Silver have unquestionably stated that the TA and Nicolau award are, as a matter of law, binding on USAPA as the successor to ALPA. The USAPA arguments about the Nic only binding the merger committees or that the Nic is not valid because of lack of implementation are nothing but misdirection.

The second question, now that we have determined that the Nicolau is intact as the accepted integrated system seniority list for LCC, is whether USAPA can negotiate for something other than the Nicolau. Yes they can. They can negotiate all aspects of the collective bargaining agreement. This is where a legitimate union purpose must be demonstrated as defined by Rakestraw. But it does not negate that the Nicolau award is binding on the union. If it were not binding then there would be no requirement to demonstrate a Legitimate Union Objective in bargaining for a SLI other than the Nicolau. And the Nicolau award would not be used as a measuring tool to evaluate an alternative proposal.

From judge Wake, "As explained by the Ninth Circuit, 'seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.' ... And a union 'may renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the
resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.'"

From judge Wake, "The legal question is whether USAPA-or any union-violates its duty of fair representation by adopting and promoting a certain integrated seniority list for no reason other than to favor one group of employees at the expense of another. An established genre of fair representation decisions says yes."

From judge Silver, "Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground."

The MOU supersedes ALL this stuff if it gets voted in. There is NO sustainable DFR if it gets voted in.

NONE. That is why the West pilots need to read it, it WILL affect their seniority going forward.

 

[end_of_alpa]

With US Airways gone as a party, wouldn't that end the possibility of satisfying the transition agreement and also end the possibility of making the NIC operational? I believe APA could be substituted for USAPA, but can AA be substituted for US Airways? This whole thing seems to be about timing!

Read my prior post, read the MOU and read the NAC presentation. Read paragraph 4.

 

[Metroyet]

With US Airways gone as a party, wouldn't that end the possibility of satisfying the transition agreement and also end the possibility of making the NIC operational? I believe APA could be substituted for USAPA, but can AA be substituted for US Airways? This whole thing seems to be about timing!

When will you learn that simply changing names does NOTHING to the Satus Quo and the litany of legal requirements that go with it? RLA applys to all parties here.

 

[nevergiveup]

Read my prior post, read the MOU and read the NAC presentation. Read paragraph 4.

Help a 60 yr old fart. So we are saying that once the MTA has been fully implemented, the old TA is history? Then the JCBA will still be yet to come.(1b)

 

[PullUp]

When will you learn that simply changing names does NOTHING to the Satus Quo and the litany of legal requirements that go with it? RLA applys to all parties here.

Dude, the MOU states that all the old agreements are null and void. It also states that it cannot be utilized to change the "existing" seniority by its implementation.
If the majority votes this in, ALL of our old contractual agreements are gone - we would work under the AA contract as modified by the MOU and be governed under those rules.
Reading comprehension = C-.
Cheers.

 

[nevergiveup]

When will you learn that simply changing names does NOTHING to the Satus Quo and the litany of legal requirements that go with it? RLA applys to all parties here.

I realize the union name can change, but was unsure according to the RLA if the company could. Didn't mean to cause you so much excitement....sorry.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Help a 60 yr old fart. So we are saying that once the MTA has been fully implemented, the old TA is history? Then the JCBA will still be yet to come.(1b)

Yes. The MTA is when POR approved by judge.

Us airways no longer exists.

MTA is the APA contract from last fall as amended by this MOU up to two years after effective date.

Again, the "hang term" here, if you will are "participants".

MOU 10.

The real question is "who can be or become a participant"?

In the first 30 days (ED + 30) data is exchanged.

Names, payno, hire date, dob, which party...USAPA or APA, medical, retired, etc.

After the 30 days APA and USAPA argues with each other.

If after that no list, 15 days to pick arbitrator.

After that argue with arbitrators up to two years.

If this document is voted in, everything before this is null and void.

You are working under APA greenbook.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Dude, the MOU states that all the old agreements are null and void. It also states that it cannot be utilized to change the "existing" seniority by its implementation.
If the majority votes this in, ALL of our old contractual agreements are gone - we would work under the AA contract as modified by the MOU and be governed under those rules.
Reading comprehension = C-.
Cheers.

He/she is irrelevant. You are wasting your time even responding to it. It doesn't have copy of MOU.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I realize the union name can change, but was unsure according to the RLA if the company could. Didn't mean to cause you so much excitement....sorry.

The original document (LOA 96) that was ratified by our pilots set the process (read "process") for combining the seniority lists and defined working conditions during the period prior to operational integration and a CBA. There were originally 3 parties to that agreement, US Airways, ALPA East, and ALPA West. When USAPA came along two of the parties became one. To this day, either party (USAPA or US Airways) could agree to CHANGE the T/A process. USAPA, of course, would have to have a membership vote to do that. That particular process was never taken to completion, and after 7 years a NEW agreement was reached with US Airways and USAPA, one that included a new third party APA.So we are now voting to change how our lists are merged. On Feb 8 the likely outcome is the MOU will REPLACE LOA 96. Any list created by the MOU process will face the looming threat of a DFR from any party concerned; but any such DFR will reference the MOU, not LOA 96.Greeter

 

[Metroyet]

Dude, the MOU states that all the old agreements are null and void. It also states that it cannot be utilized to change the "existing" seniority by its implementation.
If the majority votes this in, ALL of our old contractual agreements are gone - we would work under the AA contract as modified by the MOU and be governed under those rules.
Reading comprehension = C-.
Cheers.

We'll see if the Judge agrees with you.