FlightAttendant4Justice
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
About The Case
In 1998, American Airlines began negotiations with its flight attendants that culminated in an industry-leading agreement several years later. Everyone agrees that what the parties achieved was a valid Collective Bargaining Agreement and, as such, a valid contract. It was negotiated over a period of years, was in complete conformity with the Railway Labor Act, and was properly ratified by the “craft or class†of flight attendants that were intended to be covered by it. (We shall refer to this Agreement, for the sake of convenience, as “Contract # 1.) In 2001, Contract # 1 was replaced by “contract # 2.†The “Restructuring Participation Agreement†or “RPA,†as the Company referred to the replacement was - in plaintiffs’ view - none of the above. It was not negotiated in conformity with the Railway Labor Act. It was not properly ratified. It was not really even negotiated. From plaintiffs’ perspective, if it was a contract at all, it was a contract in name only. Regardless, American Airlines implemented contract # 2 in lieu and place of Contract # 1, effective May 1, 2003.
This action is the result of the consolidation of three lawsuits begun on the heels of that implementation and is the tale of those two “contracts.â€
Plaintiffs-appellants are a group of American Airlines flight attendants (past, present, retired, severed and furloughed) who have sued on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of a similarly-situated “class†of flight attendants: (1) to expressly challenge the validity of “contract # 2″ or the RPA (2) to enforce “Contract # 1;†and (3) to recover back wages and/or money damages from the Company for having violated §§ 152 (First), 152 (Seventh) and 152 (Fourth) of the Railway Labor Act. (Plaintiffs’ have three separate sets of claims. This is their first set. It consists of five statutory claims.)
In addition to suing the Company, plaintiffs sued their Union, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (â€APFAâ€), for two types of breaches — breaches of the Union’s Constitution (plaintiffs’ second set of claims) and breaches of its duty of fair representation (plaintiffs’ third set of claims). Each of these three sets of claims - i.e., plaintiffs’ statutory claims, plaintiffs’ state-law claims and plaintiffs’ duty-of-fair-representation claims - is independent of the other. In other words, one set does not depend upon another set for its outcome, although obviously all of the claims are related. Plaintiffs asserted their second and third sets of claims against the Company on the grounds that the Company induced, caused, participated in and/or contributed to the Union’s breaches.
This case is unique on several counts. For one thing, it was the only instance in the history of the American Arbitration Association in which, after a union election was closed and the results officially announced, the AAA was directed to re-open and reactivate the voting process to receive additional votes and permit already-cast votes to be changed. This direction was given despite the fact that the Union’s Constitution declared such additional votes to be “void.â€
For a second thing, after the balloting was ‘re-opened’ and closed a second time, the Union set the vote aside, and once again promised its members a ratification vote in accordance with the Union’s Constitution. Like the previous promise, this promise was not honored. On April 25, 2003, the Union withdrew its direction to its National Balloting Committee to conduct a new ratification vote and, instead, substituted a vote by its less-than-20-member-Board-of-Directors for a vote by its more-than-20,000-members-overall.
On July 22, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court decided four important motions. The nature of each motion and the papers that plaintiffs filed with respect to each are set forth elsewhere on this Website. Motion # 1 was plaintiffs’ motion to certify the lawsuit as a Class action brought on behalf of 20,000 or so past, present, furloughed and retired flight attendants. Motion # 2 was plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on a limited number of claims against the Union. Motion # 3 was American Airlines’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on all claims asserted against it. Motion # 4 was APFA’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to all claims against it.
The District Court granted the Company’s and APFA’s motions in full, and denied plaintiffs summary judgment. It also denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as moot on the ground that all claims had been dismissed.
On August 20, 2008, a group of plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the District Court’s decision. Assuming that we are in a position to be able to see the Appeal through, it will be heard, considered and decided by a panel of three Judges of a higher Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A group of persons who support the lawsuit have organized to try to raise the necessary funds to cover the costs associated with the Appeal. They have created their own website regarding the lawsuit and their efforts to raise funds. You can visit it at www.wewantourmoneyback.net.
If the Second Circuit reverses the lower Court, the case would be sent back to the District Court for further proceedings. In that event, our first order of business would be to reactivate our motion to certify a Class.
If you want to be notified of future developments by email, please fill in the Information Sheet on the Main Page of this website.
www.rpalawsuit.net
In 1998, American Airlines began negotiations with its flight attendants that culminated in an industry-leading agreement several years later. Everyone agrees that what the parties achieved was a valid Collective Bargaining Agreement and, as such, a valid contract. It was negotiated over a period of years, was in complete conformity with the Railway Labor Act, and was properly ratified by the “craft or class†of flight attendants that were intended to be covered by it. (We shall refer to this Agreement, for the sake of convenience, as “Contract # 1.) In 2001, Contract # 1 was replaced by “contract # 2.†The “Restructuring Participation Agreement†or “RPA,†as the Company referred to the replacement was - in plaintiffs’ view - none of the above. It was not negotiated in conformity with the Railway Labor Act. It was not properly ratified. It was not really even negotiated. From plaintiffs’ perspective, if it was a contract at all, it was a contract in name only. Regardless, American Airlines implemented contract # 2 in lieu and place of Contract # 1, effective May 1, 2003.
This action is the result of the consolidation of three lawsuits begun on the heels of that implementation and is the tale of those two “contracts.â€
Plaintiffs-appellants are a group of American Airlines flight attendants (past, present, retired, severed and furloughed) who have sued on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of a similarly-situated “class†of flight attendants: (1) to expressly challenge the validity of “contract # 2″ or the RPA (2) to enforce “Contract # 1;†and (3) to recover back wages and/or money damages from the Company for having violated §§ 152 (First), 152 (Seventh) and 152 (Fourth) of the Railway Labor Act. (Plaintiffs’ have three separate sets of claims. This is their first set. It consists of five statutory claims.)
In addition to suing the Company, plaintiffs sued their Union, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (â€APFAâ€), for two types of breaches — breaches of the Union’s Constitution (plaintiffs’ second set of claims) and breaches of its duty of fair representation (plaintiffs’ third set of claims). Each of these three sets of claims - i.e., plaintiffs’ statutory claims, plaintiffs’ state-law claims and plaintiffs’ duty-of-fair-representation claims - is independent of the other. In other words, one set does not depend upon another set for its outcome, although obviously all of the claims are related. Plaintiffs asserted their second and third sets of claims against the Company on the grounds that the Company induced, caused, participated in and/or contributed to the Union’s breaches.
This case is unique on several counts. For one thing, it was the only instance in the history of the American Arbitration Association in which, after a union election was closed and the results officially announced, the AAA was directed to re-open and reactivate the voting process to receive additional votes and permit already-cast votes to be changed. This direction was given despite the fact that the Union’s Constitution declared such additional votes to be “void.â€
For a second thing, after the balloting was ‘re-opened’ and closed a second time, the Union set the vote aside, and once again promised its members a ratification vote in accordance with the Union’s Constitution. Like the previous promise, this promise was not honored. On April 25, 2003, the Union withdrew its direction to its National Balloting Committee to conduct a new ratification vote and, instead, substituted a vote by its less-than-20-member-Board-of-Directors for a vote by its more-than-20,000-members-overall.
On July 22, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court decided four important motions. The nature of each motion and the papers that plaintiffs filed with respect to each are set forth elsewhere on this Website. Motion # 1 was plaintiffs’ motion to certify the lawsuit as a Class action brought on behalf of 20,000 or so past, present, furloughed and retired flight attendants. Motion # 2 was plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on a limited number of claims against the Union. Motion # 3 was American Airlines’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on all claims asserted against it. Motion # 4 was APFA’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to all claims against it.
The District Court granted the Company’s and APFA’s motions in full, and denied plaintiffs summary judgment. It also denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as moot on the ground that all claims had been dismissed.
On August 20, 2008, a group of plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the District Court’s decision. Assuming that we are in a position to be able to see the Appeal through, it will be heard, considered and decided by a panel of three Judges of a higher Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A group of persons who support the lawsuit have organized to try to raise the necessary funds to cover the costs associated with the Appeal. They have created their own website regarding the lawsuit and their efforts to raise funds. You can visit it at www.wewantourmoneyback.net.
If the Second Circuit reverses the lower Court, the case would be sent back to the District Court for further proceedings. In that event, our first order of business would be to reactivate our motion to certify a Class.
If you want to be notified of future developments by email, please fill in the Information Sheet on the Main Page of this website.
www.rpalawsuit.net
