Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Claxon]

Our union has been in the mocking business for a long time.

All old news to everyone involved, including a participating West Rep right here on these forums. Everyone understood we had a legitimate union purpose in breaking an 8 year seniority dispute log jam and getting everyone a big pay raise. All voted accordingly.

As for myself, I am a little shaken. I just responded to a post with a Star Wars reference, and actually had a reply. Not sure if that speaks good or bad as to my priorities.

Greeter

Dave and the rest of the Leonidas group have the illuminative power of a 10 watt.

 

[cleardirect]

Who said Parker would let this be delayed? If you were Doug, what option would you take to avoid litigation over a case that had proven merit?

Think about it.

This will never see a court room. Ever.

The company understands what is going on. usapa asked for a delay to even transfer the case to Silver or Wake. More delay from usapa. But what did the company say?

Defendant US Airways remains neutral as to the merits of the seniority dispute
between Plaintiffs and USAPA that lies at the heart of the instant lawsuit. It does,
however, have an interest in the prompt resolution of the merits of this dispute.
Accordingly, if the Court determines that transferring this case to either Judge Silver or
Judge Wake would facilitate a more expeditious resolution, US Airways supports such a
transfer.

The company wants an end to this now on the merits. usapa wants to delay. Ripe, not ripe the question needs to be answered let the court decide. But usapa continues to avoid the question.

Plus we got more whining from usapa.

7. Patrick Szymanski, counsel for USAPA, contacted plaintiffs’ counsel and
counsel for US Airways to inquire as to their respective positions on this motion.
Counsel for plaintiffs has indicated that plaintiffs will oppose this motion. Counsel for
US Airways was unavailable, and a message was left on March 21, 2013. There has been
no response from US Airways as of the time of the filing of this motion.

The company did not even bother taking a call from usapa or to return that call. Their response was let's get this done.

 

[Claxon]

Marty is mocking mere taxpayers who work for a living and are unwillingly subjected to his abuse of the legal system.

Marty is merely an ambulance chaser. Ferguson and Koontz dispatch him to the scene of their self inflicted fender benders and major mishaps.

 

[EastUS1]

Wow. Just read all the docs from AOL. You know that scene in Star Wars when the heroes have taken refuge in what turns out to be a huge trash compactor? The looks on their faces when they realize the walls are closing in and about to crush them is indelible.

Agreed...although not all of you AOL "heroes" have yet figured out that you're indeed inside a self-manufactured trash compactor, and have been for years now. Have fun with your lawyers. Excuse the rest of us if we remain entirely unimpressed.

My earnest take on "all the docs from AOL" that so "Wow" you is that nothing contained amounts to anything more than an act of pure desperation. I've been wrong before in life, so...just show me the nic implementation already!....?

 

[EastUS1]

Dave and the rest of the Leonidas group have the illuminative power of a 10 watt.

On a good day, perhaps that much.

 

[cleardirect]

So much for the incorrect theory the judge Wake and Silver just made up the term legitimate union purpose.

Judges Wake and Silver relied on sound legal authority, beginning with the general
rule that union conduct “unrelated to legitimate union interests” is wrongful. Robesky v.
Oantas Empire Airways Ltd., 573 F.2d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 1978). This applies with
particular force where unions “alter seniority rights.” Johnson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Co., 203 F. Supp. 636, 638 (D.C. Mich. 1962). That is because altering seniority “favor
some members at the expense of others.” Laborers & Hod Carriers Loc. No. 341 v.
NLRB, 564 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 1977).

In Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 800 (7th Cir. 1976), the Seventh
Circuit held that a union must “show some objective justification” when it reorders
seniority. Sixteen years later, it affirmed Barton Brands, holding that “a union may not
juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one group of employees
over another.” Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1537 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Ninth Circuit also holds that a union must have a “legitimate purpose” to reorder
seniority. Laborers & Hod Carriers, 564 F.2d at 840.

The law is well-settled. A union must have an objectively legitimate purpose—
something other than a desire to satisfy a majority faction—to reorder seniority. It
logically follows that a union must also have an objectively legitimate purpose to
repudiate a duty to implement a final and binding resolution of a seniority dispute.

 

[Phoenix]

Seriously? Did you REALLY think there was ever going to be a set of circumstances whereby USAPA was simply going to be allowed to ignore the Nic award forever? There is absolutely no cover for your fake union. No matter how hard you try, no matter what ridiculous excuse you come up with, no matter how absurdly contorted you attempt to twist and pervert both logic and the law, you're never going to escape the day where a final ruling to going to be made. You can't out wit it, you can't out run it either. You're fake scab union is going in front of a Judge to again explain the behavior. These AOL documents are brilliantly clear and easy to read. Everybody understands exactly what USAPA is and what it's illegal actions and future intentions are.

You ain't gettin' out of this. You MFers wanted a fight. Here it is. No running home with the ball sobbing this time...after we're done with you in court I doubt you'll be able to walk anywhere anyway.

Hey, princess, how about we agree to resolve the dispute right after the POR, like we all agreed to? Would that make you happy?

P.S. Go back and listen to Crandall's video about a merger and what he said regarding seniority integration. If you listen carefully to what he said what would have to happen before he would support a merger... it already happened.

 

[cleardirect]

In any number of contexts, “waiver must be clear and unequivocal.” Chapman v.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1045, n.2 (9th Cir. 2011). There is no
basis here to find such waiver by the West Pilots. If anything, it was clearly understood
that voting for the MOU did not waive the right to Nicolau implementation. Indeed,
throughout the ratification process, USAPA stated that ratification of the MOU did not
waive the right to enforce the Nicolau Award. (SOF ¶¶ 88, 90.) Ratifying the MOU,
therefore, does not give USAPA the right to repudiate the Nicolau Award.

Yet, after the MOU was ratified, USAPA asserted that the MOU negates the
Transition Agreement (the agreement that establishes the finality of the Nicolau Award).
(Id. ¶ 100(a).) If that were true (which it is not) then USAPA breached its DFR by
misleading the West Pilots to persuade them to ratify the MOU. See Bautista v. Pan Am.
World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Intentionally misleading
statements by union officials designed to persuade members to join in collective action,
such as a strike or ratification of a newly negotiated agreement, can supply the bad faith
necessary to a DFR violation.&rdquo.

If your theory of usapa lying to the west in order to vote away our rights is correct. We have another DFR based on bad faith.

So did usapa lie and the Nicolau really went away causing a DFR? Or are you guys wrong and the MOU does not kill the Nicolau but really implements it?

 

[Phoenix]

If your theory of usapa lying to the west in order to vote away our rights is correct. We have another DFR based on bad faith.

So did usapa lie and the Nicolau really went away causing a DFR? Or are you guys wrong and the MOU does not kill the Nicolau but really implements it?

The MOU gives everyone what it says it gives.

 

[cleardirect]

Hey, princess, how about we agree to resolve the dispute right after the POR, like we all agreed to? Would that make you happy?

P.S. Go back and listen to Crandall's video about a merger and what he said regarding seniority integration. If you listen carefully to what he said what would have to happen before he would support a merger... it already happened.

Really???? An agreement with you or any east pilots? Fo-get-abaa-it. You have no integrity to follow through on any of your deals.

How about you agree to live with the original deal we made? Let the arbitrator decide.

BTW. that Crandell video was for the american pilots and trying to convince them to stick with Horton. Besides when do you even agree with management? I though they were all evil and not to be trusted.

Did you hear the gushing praise for Hummel and the BPR about the MOU? Any thoughts on that? did Hummel give away your DOH dream? Kirby did say he made a very difficult decision. Now sealing DOH in the MOU would not be a difficult decision would it? Giving away DOH and locking the Nicolau would be.

 

[EastUS1]

If your theory of usapa lying to the west in order to vote away our rights is correct. We have another DFR based on bad faith.

Based on what supposed cause? "usapa lying to the west.."? OK; so one must now presume that your group's aggregate IQ would be less than adequate for participation in a MENSA meeting of sea sponges, coupled with a necessary claim of universal illiteracy, and wholesale inability to understand the MOU that you virtually all voted in favor of? This oughta' be fun to see unfold.

 

[Phoenix]

Really???? An agreement with you or any east pilots? Fo-get-abaa-it. You have no integrity to follow through on any of your deals.

How about you agree to live with the original deal we made? Let the arbitrator decide.

BTW. that Crandell video was for the american pilots and trying to convince them to stick with Horton. Besides when do you even agree with management? I though they were all evil and not to be trusted.

Did you hear the gushing praise for Hummel and the BPR about the MOU? Any thoughts on that? did Hummel give away your DOH dream? Kirby did say he made a very difficult decision. Now sealing DOH in the MOU would not be a difficult decision would it? Giving away DOH and locking the Nicolau would be.

Focus on one issue at a time Clear. You are all over the map. Listen to what Crandall said in reference to pilot seniority.

Listen for yourself. Start at 2:10..



He supports a merger on one condition.. that there is a signed, sealed, and delivered seniority integration agreement among all pilots... He later restates "seniority integration agreement" and "seniority integration plan". He never said "seniority list".

In case anyone missed it, there is now a contingent seniority integration agreement, signed, sealed, and delivered, effective at the POR.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

One of the reasons the courts are so loath to mess with union issues relates to member VOTES. Unless a member class is discriminating on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. it is up to the members to decide, then, only then for the courts to intervene on matters of DFR.

USAPA was VOTED in by a majority of affected pilots.

Their CBL was twice again VOTED in by a majority of member pilots.

The Ninth Circuit even VOTED on ripeness, backed up by SCOTUS; and then Silver said USAPA did not have to use the NIC, under the dire (but always there anyway) threat of a DFR. ( "Duh" And I acknowledge the copyright on that phrase, and humbly ask for a waiver of royalty fees.)

The West Class made up HALF of the NAC and participated in ALL negotiations with AMR, US Airways, the UCC, and APA. They stood in front of the BPR and supported the agreement, in a sense VOTED for it. The West Class had three reps that VOTED in the affirmative on 2 separate MOU's.

The West Class VOTED and ratified the second MOU by a 98% margin.

And now, only now, after already driving the new car off the lot into a big mud puddle, want to return it and sue for "being misinformed."

I see all the usual suspects are back today, having celebrated at the local Ramada in glee at their filing. Surprised us all. Not.

Follow the VOTES, that is where the truth is.

Greeter

 

[Claxon]

So much for the incorrect theory the judge Wake and Silver just made up the term legitimate union purpose.

So much for the incorrect theory the judge Wake and Silver just made up the term legitimate union purpose.

Read the MOU sometime instead of regurgitating superfluous drivel. None of your spew counts. The MOU stands. It clearly states the Nicolau is NOT the list. You choose to ignore it. Marty loves to take your cash. He knows you have no idea what you are doing.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Focus on one issue at a time Clear. You are all over the map. Listen to what Crandall said in reference to pilot seniority.

Listen for yourself. Start at 2:10..



He supports a merger on one condition.. that there is a signed, sealed, and delivered seniority integration agreement among all pilots... He later restates "seniority integration agreement" and "seniority integration plan". He never said "seniority list".

In case anyone missed it, there is now a contingent seniority integration agreement, signed, sealed, and delivered, effective at the POR.

Well played Phoenix, well played. We have all moved on, though a few slackers missed the briefing, but VOTED "yes" anyway.

Greeter