cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #1,951
I know how you east pilots fail to read legal documents or pay attention to anything other than what usapa tells you. But man you have got to feel the sting of this one. Our man the Dr. must have hit a nerve with the ninth. He filed this today and the Court of Appeals ruled just a couple hours later. Now that is service from a court noted for taking it’s time.
Just a few of the better quotes from the filing to oppose usapa’s expedited motion. I know getting dismissed was anticipated by usapa. Whatever!
"The East Pilots immediately repudiated their agreement to treat the Nicolau Award as final and binding."
"USAPA succeeded ALPA as the bargaining representative. Under East Pilot control, USAPA also repudiated the agreement to honor the Nicolau Award."
"After a 10-day trial, a jury found that USAPA breached the duty of fair representation because its sole objective for repudiating the Nicolau Award was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining union as a whole. Id. The court ruled that “[t]he West Pilots remain entitled to a union that will not abrogate the Nicolau Award without a legitimate purpose.” Id. at *28. And it explained that “[a]ny waiver of that right must be ‘consensual.’” Id."
"Nonetheless, the District Court provided additional guidance by ruling that USAPA’s date-of-hire “seniority proposal” (a method of seniority integration that Mr. Nicolau found was neither fair nor equitable because it put more than a thousand East Pilots who were on furlough ahead of hundreds of active West Pilots) would “breach its duty of fair representation” unless it was “supported by a legitimate union purpose.” Id., Amended Judgment, 1 (Dec. 4, 2012) (Doc. 206). The Court stopped just short of ruling that USAPA did not and could never have such legitimate purpose."
"USAPA is a rogue, lame-duck union that was effectively voted out of existence by its members on February 8, 2013, when they voted to ratify the MOU."
"Because American is a much larger union, once the new airline obtains single carrier status its pilots will have the political power to choose their union, APA, as the bargaining representative. That will leave USAPA with no bargaining unit to represent. It will then cease to exist as a labor union. See Bass v. International Broth. of Boilermakers, 630 F.2d 1058, 1066 (5[sup]th[/sup] Cir. 1980) (holding that an entity was not a union because “t has no members. It represents no one in collective bargaining. It does not deal with employers concerning conditions of employment on behalf of any employees.&rdquo
."
"It is hard to fathom why now USAPA wants an expedited decision on its breach of the duty of fair representation—its duty to honor the Nicolau Award. For more than four years, USAPA vigorously fought against having any such judicial determination. Now, USAPA wants this Court to make that determination on an expedited basis. And it wants that determination to be based upon changed circumstances as if this were the proper forum to consider a Rule 60(B)(6) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B). It is not."
"It surely has no basis to seek such relief based on evidence that was never addressed by the District Court. And, in all likelihood, it will soon lack standing altogether to appear here (as it does) on behalf of East Pilot interests. In short, USAPA has no legitimate basis to seek relief, let alone expedited review. This Court, therefore, must deny USAPA’s motion for expedited review."
Just a few of the better quotes from the filing to oppose usapa’s expedited motion. I know getting dismissed was anticipated by usapa. Whatever!
"The East Pilots immediately repudiated their agreement to treat the Nicolau Award as final and binding."
"USAPA succeeded ALPA as the bargaining representative. Under East Pilot control, USAPA also repudiated the agreement to honor the Nicolau Award."
"After a 10-day trial, a jury found that USAPA breached the duty of fair representation because its sole objective for repudiating the Nicolau Award was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining union as a whole. Id. The court ruled that “[t]he West Pilots remain entitled to a union that will not abrogate the Nicolau Award without a legitimate purpose.” Id. at *28. And it explained that “[a]ny waiver of that right must be ‘consensual.’” Id."
"Nonetheless, the District Court provided additional guidance by ruling that USAPA’s date-of-hire “seniority proposal” (a method of seniority integration that Mr. Nicolau found was neither fair nor equitable because it put more than a thousand East Pilots who were on furlough ahead of hundreds of active West Pilots) would “breach its duty of fair representation” unless it was “supported by a legitimate union purpose.” Id., Amended Judgment, 1 (Dec. 4, 2012) (Doc. 206). The Court stopped just short of ruling that USAPA did not and could never have such legitimate purpose."
"USAPA is a rogue, lame-duck union that was effectively voted out of existence by its members on February 8, 2013, when they voted to ratify the MOU."
"Because American is a much larger union, once the new airline obtains single carrier status its pilots will have the political power to choose their union, APA, as the bargaining representative. That will leave USAPA with no bargaining unit to represent. It will then cease to exist as a labor union. See Bass v. International Broth. of Boilermakers, 630 F.2d 1058, 1066 (5[sup]th[/sup] Cir. 1980) (holding that an entity was not a union because “t has no members. It represents no one in collective bargaining. It does not deal with employers concerning conditions of employment on behalf of any employees.&rdquo
.""It is hard to fathom why now USAPA wants an expedited decision on its breach of the duty of fair representation—its duty to honor the Nicolau Award. For more than four years, USAPA vigorously fought against having any such judicial determination. Now, USAPA wants this Court to make that determination on an expedited basis. And it wants that determination to be based upon changed circumstances as if this were the proper forum to consider a Rule 60(B)(6) motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B). It is not."
"It surely has no basis to seek such relief based on evidence that was never addressed by the District Court. And, in all likelihood, it will soon lack standing altogether to appear here (as it does) on behalf of East Pilot interests. In short, USAPA has no legitimate basis to seek relief, let alone expedited review. This Court, therefore, must deny USAPA’s motion for expedited review."
