No. Not even close.
Please show us what your referring to that helped you cone to that conclusion. I've read pretty much everything and no where does it state what you're claiming.
You need to read more, and stop spinning stories, like the mail issue in the court with the postage meter.
Wake ordered USAPA to implement the Nicolau List. From Bill Wilder. RLA BLOG
Judge issues injunction against US Airways pilots union
Posted on July 27, 2009 by Bill_Wilder
A United States District Judge in Phoenix, AZ last week issued an injunction against the union for the pilots of US Airways, the United State Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA”), in the duty of fair representation lawsuit by a group of former America West pilots arising from a USAPA bargaining proposal on seniority integration of the America West and US Airways pilots in its contract negotiations with US Airways. The judge found that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation to West pilots in presenting its proposal, which abandoned the seniority integration arbitration award issued by Arbitrator George Nicolau under the internal merger procedures of the Air Line Pilots Association, the former union of US Airways’ pilots, in favor of a “date of hire” integrated list that favored East pilots much more than did the Nicolau Award.
The court held that USAPA was a successor to ALPA’s “transition agreement” with US Airways, an agreement that established certain procedures for resolving the contract and seniority integration issues arising from US Airways merger with America West. It further held that USAPA was bound to the Nicolau Award because US Airways “East” pilots had selected ALPA and the US Airways Master Executive Council of ALPA as their representative. Since the East MEC agreed to submit the dispute to ALPA Merger Policy (a purely internal union policy), USAPA was therefore bound to the result of ALPA Merger Policy as successor to ALPA.
The judge rejected USAPA’s claim that it was entitled to use a different seniority integration method than the Nicolau Award for integrating the two pilot groups. He held that USAPA had to come up with another legitimate union objective to depart from the Nicolau Award. The judge then rejected all of the other reasons put forward by USAPA.
The judge held that USAPA’s date of hire method so disfavored the West pilots, including greatly increasing their chance of furlough than would occur under the Nicolau Award, that it was a breach of its duty to represent them. It held that USAPA was motivated by bad faith against West pilots, relying on heated campaign rhetoric against the Nicolau Award by certain USAPA supporters during the election against ALPA.
The judge ordered that USAPA must negotiate to implement the Nicolau Award unchanged into a combined collective bargaining agreement. It also ordered that USAPA could not negotiate separate agreements for the pilot groups. A later hearing on monetary damages, if any, will be held.
This decision is wrong, contradicts established law and is dangerous to the state of the law under the Railway Labor Act.
While the judge correctly concluded that USAPA is the successor to ALPA’s collective bargaining agreement, that in no way restricts USAPA from negotiating any and all terms of that agreement, including the Nicolau Award. T
he judge nowhere considers precedent, such as Association of Flight Attendants v. United Airlines and Association of Flight Attendants v. US Airways, which hold that a predecessor union’s collective bargaining agreement provides only the beginning point for a successor union’s negotiations and the successor is free to negotiate changes to the agreement. To do otherwise would perpetuate the rejected union as representative.
