I doubt you read the 9th's decision or comprehend the decision if you did. I'll go with the latter..
Dissent by Judge Bybee
I agree with the majority that this case would be ripe if
USAPA and U.S. Air had entered into a CBA. That is not the question that this case presents. We are asked whether our Article III jurisdiction extends to a DFR claim based on a union “constitutionally committed,” Maj. Op. at 8001, to voiding a binding arbitration award and adopting a “date of hire” seniority principle that plainly favors one side of a merger. When the question is posed in this way, I believe the ripeness of the West Pilots’ claims becomes clear.
We employ a two-part test to determine whether a claim is ripe for review, evaluating “(1) whether the issues are fit for judicial decision, and (2) whether the parties will suffer hardship if we decline to consider the issues.” San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.2006). The issues raised by the West Pilots’ DFR claim are straightforward, and the uncontested facts of this case make clear that the issues involved are fit for decision on this record.
The West Pilots’ DFR theory does not depend on any contingen future events such as the memorialization of a finalized CBA or seniority integration agreement. The district court explained why the issues were fit for decision and the parties will suffer hardship if we decline to consider the issues: The issues fit for decision are these: Whether USAPA adopted and presented its seniority proposal without any legitimate union objective, solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, and if so whether the West Pilots are entitled to damages and an injunction therefor . . . . USAPA concedes it will never bargain for implementation of the Nicolau Award. It is constitutionally hostile to doing so. The Airline has accepted the Nicolau Award, expressing no opposition to it, and the union has failed to show any legitimate reason (or plausible future reason) for abandoning it. Liability flows from the process and aims of USAPA’s seniority position. The outcome of negotiations is irrelevant. Without an injunction, USAPA’s seniority position inevitably impairs the collective bargaining process.
For this same reason, denying judicial review would
work a substantial hardship upon the parties, including the Airline . . . . In addition to depriving the West Pilots of legitimate representation, USAPA’s bargaining position leaves the Airline to decide between a lack of a single CBA and an unlawful single CBA.
(Emphasis added).
Recognition by the court:
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse, in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
Is USAPA bargaining in good faith? No.
Does USAPA bargain with my interests in mind? No
Keep heading the direction you are going, continue following the road signs which read DFR.