Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Phoenix]

... Besides usapa has to have a legitimate union purpose BEFORE the SLI is complete not after.
,,

Provide a reference please... maybe a link. Links to Chil, Metro, and Nic4 don't count.

Take the time to read the companies filings, the Paul Jones letter and the appeal.

Who is going to rule on the LUP before it is ripe? A link to a name and an authority... NOW! Or put a lid on it.

 

[EastUS1]

96. On February 18, 2013, the West Pilots put US Airways and APA on notice
that USAPA breached the duty of fair representation because the MOU provides a
substantial improvement in wages without requiring implementation of the Nicolau
Award list. 102

Said MOU having been overwhelmingly approved by the west at an astounding 98% of their votes in favor. So then: You almost unanimously voted in favor of an instrument that, in your flawed estimation; "breached the duty of fair representation"...? Sigh! I see. Seriously...this latest amounts to a previously unmanifested level of a truly "special kind of stupid"...which, from what's already been seen over the years, denotes a remarkable achievement on AOL's part.

"B. Analysis
There is strong support here for a preliminary injunction." Umm...Please tell us you're just joking with this insane BS....?

 

[snapthis]

B. Analysis
There is strong support here for a preliminary injunction.
1. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
a. A union must have an objectively legitimate purpose to
repudiate its duty to honor a final and binding resolution of a
seniority dispute.
Judges Wake and Silver ruled that USAPA must have a legitimate reason to use a
date-of-hire seniority list rather than the Nicolau Award list. (SOF ¶¶ 74, 83.) Nothing
has since occurred that leads to a different result. That alone is a strong showing of a high
likelihood of success.
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 reord
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]

Can you find the part of M/B that says it can be used for a merger that happened before the law was passed and after an arbitration was already done?

Can you find the part about using M/B when pilots are represented by the same union?

Don't look for it in the MB. Look for it in the New American Seniority Integration Plan dated 18 Feb 13. You voted for it, unless you are one of the 24.

 

[nic4us]

Yes, ripe now. Please refer to the paragraph in the 9ths opinion that validates your claim to ripeness. A link without comment will suffice.

the MOU provides for a joint contract, no further ratification necessary.


" we leave usapa to bargain in good faith pursuant to it's DFR, with the interest OF ALL MEMBERS -BOTH EAST AND WEST- in mind, under PAIN of an UNQUESTIONABLY RIPE DFR, once a contract is RATIFIED".

 

[snapthis]

Said MOU having been overwhelmingly approved by the west at an astounding 98% votes in favor. Seriously...this latest amounts to a previously unmanifested level of a truly "special kind of stupid"...which, from what's already been seen over the years, denotes a remarkable achievement on AOL's part.

You are distracting me while I'm trying to go through the docs. Don't you have work to do?

 

[nevergiveup]

the MOU provides for a joint contract, no further ratification necessary.


" we leave usapa to bargain in good faith pursuant to it's DFR, with the interest OF ALL MEMBERS -BOTH EAST AND WEST- in mind, under PAIN of an UNQUESTIONABLY RIPE DFR, once a contract is RATIFIED".

Nice try.

 

[nic4us]

I guess I could try and look it up for you. Don't know the answer. You might try google! I think it is on the same page that says you can force an arbitration that has not met its contractual requirements!

You keep making this claim.

Rather than look up Mb, you should read the TA.

The Nic is done, combined seniority at LCC is done and accepted by the company, per all contractual requirements.

 

[Phoenix]

the MOU provides for a joint contract, no further ratification necessary.


" we leave usapa to bargain in good faith pursuant to it's DFR, with the interest OF ALL MEMBERS -BOTH EAST AND WEST- in mind, under PAIN of an UNQUESTIONABLY RIPE DFR, once a contract [a final product CBA] is RATIFIED".

Nice try, but fail. Ever heard of an ellipsis? Besides that the Contingent MOU is still contingent on the POR approval... still contingent and unknown if it will have any affect on anything at all, until the POR, at which time it will eliminate all previous agreements, as we all voted for it to do.

"Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ “ (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))."​

"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA's seniority proposal-whatever USAPA's final proposal ultimately is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative, the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."​

 

[EastUS1]

So in your mind you would let the robber into your house. Help him load up your stuff into the truck. Then call the cops to get your stuff back instead of installing the burglar alarm before the robbery.

As that's your estimation of current circumstances; would you kindly explain how it seemed the best course of action to knowingly vote 98% in favor of presenting the supposed "robber" not only the keys to your home and an open front door, but a specially embroidered welcome mat as well? This latest insanity couldn't be believably written into kids' comic books...and thanks for the hearty laughs here.

 

[nevergiveup]

You keep making this claim.

Rather than look up Mb, you should read the TA.

The Nic is done, combined seniority at LCC is done and accepted by the company, per all contractual requirements.

So if the merger does not happen, then we still have this new JCBA you keep talking about. What will be the new pay rates? When does it expire?

 

[EastUS1]

You are distracting me while I'm trying to go through the docs. Don't you have work to do?

If you can actually manage that without laughing yourself outta' your chair Snap...I'll be most impressed. I certainly couldn't maintain a straight face with even just a portion of it all.

 

[snapthis]

If you can actually manage that without laughing yourself outta' your chair Snap...I'll be most impressed.

I'm keeping it all in until we hear Pat's response, amigo.

 

[Res Judicata]

As that's your estimation of current circumstances; would you kindly explain how it seemed the best course of action to knowingly vote 98% in favor of presenting the supposed "robber" not only the keys to your home and an open front door, but a specially embroidered welcome mat as well? This latest insanity couldn't be believably written into kids' comic books...and thanks for the hearty laughs here.

You realize that the MOU is intended to cover ONLY Us air pilots and American pilots right? Where in the MOU does it state anything about merging East and West from a merger completed 8 years ago? It doesn't. The East West thing is completely independent of the MOU...aside from a common CBA removing all ripeness technicalities....thank you management. You guys are always off the mark. Always.

 

[EastUS1]

I'm keeping it all in until we hear Pat's response, amigo.

Understood sir. I say we both withold going completely Sylvester on this without further developments.
Have a good one today.