Ok then...umm....How? Specifically how does the MOU serve as an instrument "that cements the NIC"...?
Feb / Mar 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
Ok then...umm....How? Specifically how does the MOU serve as an instrument "that cements the NIC"...?
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
It's too bad when parties agree to a process, they should have an understanding of what they are getting into. Probably got bad legal advice from an overpriced attorney. I'll point fingers for them.
Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law
Ultimately, the decision to use arbitration cannot be made lightly. Most arbitration is considered binding: parties who agree to arbitration are bound to that agreement and also bound to satisfy any award determined by the arbitrator. Courts in most jurisdictions enforce awards. Moreover, they allow little or no option for appeal, expecting parties who arbitrate to assume the risks of the process. In addition, arbitration is subject to the legal doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel, which together strictly curtail the option of bringing suits based on issues that were or could have been raised initially.
Res judicata means that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or Cause of Action. Collateral estoppel means that when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties in future litigation. Thus, often the end is truly in sight at the conclusion of an arbitration hearing and the granting of an award.
The FAA gives only four grounds on which a court may vacate, or overturn, an award: (1) where the award is the result of corruption, Fraud, or undue means; (2) where the arbitrators were evidently partial or corrupt; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing or hear pertinent evidence, or where their misbehavior prejudiced the rights of any party; and (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or imperfectly executed them so that a mutual, final, and definite award was not made. In the 1953 case Wilkov. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S. Ct. 182, 98 L. Ed. 168, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested, in passing, that an award may be set aside if it is in "mani-fest disregard of the law," and federal courts have sometimes followed this principle. Public policy can also be grounds for vacating, but this recourse is severely limited to well-defined policy based on legal precedent, a rule emphasized by the Supreme Court in the 1987 case United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, 484U.S. 29, 108 S. Ct. 364, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286.
The growth of arbitration is taken as a healthy sign by many legal commentators. It eases the load on a constantly overworked judicial system, while providing disputants with a relatively informal, inexpensive means to solve their problems. One major boost to arbitration came from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in 1991 that Age Discrimination claims in employment are arbitrable (Gilmer v. Inter-state/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S. Ct. 1647, 114 L. Ed. 2d 26). Writing for the majority, Justice byron r. white concluded that arbitration is as effective as a trial for resolving employment disputes. Gilmer led several major employers to treat all employment claims through binding arbitration, sometimes as a condition of employment.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #963
That is not exactly what the ninth said. The ninth was talking about the CBA process assuming that seniority would be a part of it. We now have a CBA before seniority. A ratified MOU changing pay rates, work rules and benefits for ALL pilots makes the case ripe. A TRO would not stop the merger or JCBA. A TRO would halt the seniority integration. There is no doubt that the harm the west fears would happen. usapa has been very clear for 5 years that they will not use anything except DOH.
Example from the latest president update.
Should the court take usapa at it's word that they will reject the Nicolau in it's entirety or is this just campaign speak for the masses? He really means that usapa is willing to use the Nicolau.
Why would a judge not stop an arbitration before it gets started if everyone is going to waste there time getting to a solution that is illegal? the arbitrators certainly are not going to go through an entire arbitration hearing with the possibility that their decision will be tossed and have to do it again because they used the wrong list.
Hmm...Not ALL arbitration then?
Ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Amazingly enough; they weren't much at all convinced that any negotiated results other than the nic would prove at all "illegal", and even went so far as to graciously excuse themselves from playing the role of tribal shaman that could predict the future. But hey!...What do they know? They're merely Judges at the circuit level, and not AWA line pilots, after all...and many of you've previously noted how severely they "got it wrong", so I suppose we must all naturally heed your sage counsel instead....?
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
Here is a question for anybody, East or West. From which list(s) are furloughs done? Are they done using the Nic? Or are they done from seperate East and West lists? If they are done from seperate East and West lists, how exactly is the Nic in effect at USAirways, if, in fact, furloughs are being done from seperate lists?
Bids and furloughs have NEVER been done based on ANY aspect of the proposed nic list. All are handled by the respective and entirely seperate east and west lists.
NOTHING operational of ANY kind has in any way been predicated on the nic list at all. How anyone anywhere can claim (with a straight face) that list to be "in effect" serves only to amaze and amuse.
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
I guess you are pretty good at finding holes. You might want to turn the lights on first. You might not like what you see.
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
Thank you. I did forget to mention bidding also, my appologies for that.
Thanks. You're very adept at missing them entirely.
snapthis: "You might want to turn the lights on first. You might not like what you see."...? Now that does sound scary-spooky! I'll even start looking for boogeymen under the bed now!
Umm...Is there any chance of getting a waay-cool westie T-shirt or even better; a "medal" from your little "army" of "spartans" for doing that?......Or do I need to first wait for full AWA "Knighthood" and have "fought with valor in many battles", exclusively in Fantasyland of course, or even honored initiation into the dreaded "Dire Wolves" squadron first? I'd sure hate to ever even try to be as "tough" and "heroic" in "war" as your mighty bunch....but I will, here below "turn the lights on" as to the awesome threat level we on the east face! I'm sure all will be much impressed and properly terrified. You're most welcome.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Do you think the APA wants to sacrifice their own, as well as east, attrition to much younger pilots from the west to become permanent roadblocks to their own progress?
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Yawn.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
They think they will be bouncing around like dancing horses...
Cemented.... Gangnam Style or Jimmy Hoffa Style?
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Because you, or they, don't know the result. That's what the Ninth said. They said the list that USAPA negotiates may not disadvantage the west pilots. No one can know that until it's done. Theoretically, the USAPA may just staple the east pilots below the west and call it a day. Would that disadvantage the west pilots?
Until it's DONE, it's NOT RIPE.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
