US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 2/24-3/3

[Metroyet]

"The jury does not get to hear what they are interested in hearing," That seems an essential hope/prayer for the west. What people can "hear" or read between the lines can often surprise you. Don't count on all of them being youthfull and inexperienced people. I'd also caution that none can actually forsee what degree of lattitude the court will allow at this time.

The west is relying upon the law. We're quite comfortable with our case. In contrast,you seem to be praying for jury nullification,theatrics,non-relevant issues, and a closing emotional argument from the luckiest pilot since Lindy...Sully.

In short, you're letting Seham pull you along by the nose. Oh well, if the fantasy world makes you happy...be happy.

 

[EastUS]

The real crux of the case will be the judge's instructions to the jury prior to deliberations.

I may be mistaken and mean no offence by the observation if so..but..this observation indicates to me that you've never sat on any jury. Having seen 3 personally..all I'll say is that "the real crux of the case" is whatever that particular collection of people thinks about all they've seen/heard and can agree on. That will be flavored by their individual and collective life experiences of course. It's not just some nice, tidy little mechanical procedure...which, I'm quite sure, is why your legal team didn't end up wanting to have ANYTHING to do with any jury trial. The average person just might find the "flavor" of the west's position to be somewhat less palatable than you might imagine. Time will tell.

 

[ableoneable]

I may be mistaken and mean no offence by the observation if so..but..this observation indicates to me that you've never sat on any jury. Having seen 3 personally..all I'll say is that "the real crux of the case" is whatever that particular collection of people thinks about all they've seen/heard and can agree on. That will be flavored by their individual and collective life experiences of course. It's not just some nice, tidy little mechanical procedure...which, I'm quite sure, is why your legal team didn't end up wanting to have ANYTHING to do with any jury trial. The average person just might find the "flavor" of the west's position to be somewhat less palatable than you might imagine. Time will tell.

In the final analysis, I agree.

We were handicapping the specifics of how the case might go.

Taking the macro view; anything can happen.

Going to court is like going to Vegas. No matter how unlikely a particular outcome is, any outcome is possible. Where the odds lie is all we are really talking about here.

 

[EastUS]

The west is relying upon the law. We're quite comfortable with our case. In contrast,you seem to be praying for jury nullification,theatrics,non-relevant issues, and a closing emotional argument from the luckiest pilot since Lindy...Sully.

In short, you're letting Seham pull you along by the nose. Oh well, if the fantasy world makes you happy...be happy.

I meant no abrasive intrusion into any "Righteous" perfection of "the rule of law"/Fantasyland..I was merely referencing my own experiences as a juror to offer you some feel for how things actually work....I need no instruction from Mr. Seeham for that, and certainly none from any amongst the "innocents" in your neck of the desert. Any jury has a distinct and collective mind of their own, and only time will tell the tale here.

 

[EastUS]

Going to court is like going to Vegas. No matter how unlikely a particular outcome is, any outcome is possible. Where the odds lie is all we are really talking about here.

Pretty much my thinking as well. It'll be an interesting show for all concerned, at the very least.

 

[nic4us]

I may be mistaken and mean no offence by the observation if so..but..this observation indicates to me that you've never sat on any jury. Having seen 3 personally..all I'll say is

I have only been enpaneled on one jury, but have been called many times just selected only once. I hear the best way to get out of it is tell the judge the difference between a lawyer and a judge is one has slept with the Govenor.

But you are correct, those willing to stay and serve will have a variety of experiences to bring to their decision. I do not think this favors either sides position, as all kidding aside, the one thing that will get you tossed from a jury is if it is determined you cannot render an impartial decision.

 

[EastUS]

I have only been enpaneled on one jury, but have been called many times just selected only once. I hear the best way to get out of it is tell the judge the difference between a lawyer and a judge is one has slept with the Govenor.

But you are correct, those willing to stay and serve will have a variety of experiences to bring to their decision. I do not think this favors either sides position, as all kidding aside, the one thing that will get you tossed from a jury is if it is determined you cannot render an impartial decision.

It's an "interesting" business to experience firsthand..is it not?

"the one thing that will get you tossed from a jury is if it is determined you cannot render an impartial decision." Yeah. Even having had the blessed "good fortune" of being a "3 time loser" in selection...I did notice a LOT of "easy" challenges made along the way(s) by both prosecution/plaintiffs and defense.

PS: If 3 seems an absurd amount of trials..add to that my brother being empaneled for a murder retrial once. Such "luck" must run in the family

It's going to be interesting to watch this one unfold, whichever side one feels to be just.

 

[sharktooth]

So, sharktooth, are you telling me that in ALL situations (including this fight), that whatever the majority decides is moral and correct?

Nope, never implied that, much less said it.

"Majority-rule" does happen to be a major part of the American system, like it or not. Had you read the post to which I was responding you would have discerned that the OP implied "majority-rule" was somehow un-American, so I pointed out that he was wrong.

Would you imply that every arbitrated situation is moral and correct?

 

[hp_fa]

At the end of the day I suspect these little gems will be included in the final findings of fact.

1. East and West belonged to ALPA when the merger occurred.
2. ALPA had, and continues to have, a published merger policy.
3. East and West were unable to successfully negotiate their differences, accepted binding arbitration and participated in arbitration.
4. The ALPA merger policy was followed and an arbitration award was entered.
5. East generally did not like that arbitration award and began proceedings to replace ALPA with USAPA as the representative for the pilot work group.
6. During the campaign prior to the vote USAPA made it clear that it would not accept the arbitration award in any way shape or form.
7. USAPA won the election and now represent the pilots at the merged airline.
8. USAPA has not accepted the prior arbitration award.
9. USAPA, due to its CBL, made it nearly impossible for West pilots to join USAPA due to representations it required on it's membership form.

There are obviously more findings of fact that will be made and this list is not totally inclusive. However one issue will not be a finding of fact, but rather an issue of law, and that is that USAPA, when it replaced ALPA, became responsible for all agreements and contractual issues that existed at the time that USAPA became bargaining agent and had a duty to enforce any such agreements.

Does anyone have any reasonable problem with the facts that I contend will be the entered into the record as the end result of the fact stage of any proceedings? If so, what issues do I have wrong?

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Hypothetical question:

If the accused are found guilty in the Addington matter, will they accept the findings?

 

[hp_fa]

FYI, this is not a criminal case therefore there will be no finding of "guilty" or "innocent", but rather the terms are the civil law terms of "responsible" or "not responsible".

 

[cleardirect]

Does anyone know if the class certification issue has been fully briefed to the Court and when a decision is expected?

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Counsel for Plaintiffs and USAPA shall personally meet and confer regarding the
class certification motion forthwith. Counsel shall discuss whether any live testimony or
other evidence beyond what is submitted with the briefs is necessary for proper resolution
of this issue, and if so, what evidence that might be. The parties jointly shall prepare a
Proposed Final Pretrial Order respecting certification and shall lodge it with the Court no
later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 4.

 

[cleardirect]

At the end of the day I suspect these little gems will be included in the final findings of fact.

1. East and West belonged to ALPA when the merger occurred.
2. ALPA had, and continues to have, a published merger policy.
3. East and West were unable to successfully negotiate their differences, accepted binding arbitration and participated in arbitration.
4. The ALPA merger policy was followed and an arbitration award was entered.
5. East generally did not like that arbitration award and began proceedings to replace ALPA with USAPA as the representative for the pilot work group.
6. During the campaign prior to the vote USAPA made it clear that it would not accept the arbitration award in any way shape or form.
7. USAPA won the election and now represent the pilots at the merged airline.
8. USAPA has not accepted the prior arbitration award.
9. USAPA, due to its CBL, made it nearly impossible for West pilots to join USAPA due to representations it required on it's membership form.

There are obviously more findings of fact that will be made and this list is not totally inclusive. However one issue will not be a finding of fact, but rather an issue of law, and that is that USAPA, when it replaced ALPA, became responsible for all agreements and contractual issues that existed at the time that USAPA became bargaining agent and had a duty to enforce any such agreements.

Does anyone have any reasonable problem with the facts that I contend will be the entered into the record as the end result of the fact stage of any proceedings? If so, what issues do I have wrong?

hp-fa,

Nice list. Did you read the judges order? That covers most of what he said.

This is something else from the factual background section of the order for a jury trial.

The East Pilots were unhappy with the results of the arbitration. In response, they
used their majority status to form a new union, USAPA. On April 18, 2008, the National
Mediation Board certified USAPA as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
all pilots employed by US Airways. USAPA has shown itself to be hostile to the arbitrated
seniority list. During the campaign to start USAPA, its proponents expressly promised that
the new union would not follow the Nicolau Award. USAPA has refused its duty under the
2004 CBA and the Transition Agreement to bargain for implementation of the Nicolau
seniority list. In the meantime, US Airways has fallen on hard times and has furloughed
some West Pilots ahead of East Pilots who would have been junior to them if the Nicolau
Award had been implemented.

If you notice there are no words like alleged, or according to the plaintiff

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

FYI, this is not a criminal case therefore there will be no finding of "guilty" or "innocent", but rather the terms are the civil law terms of "responsible" or "not responsible".

Thanks for sharing the legal terms that will be used. As a mere flatlander, the customary terms used around here most frequently are "innocent" and "get a rope."

So, going with the term "guilty" would be considered mild compared to what most of us truly think.

Now back to the hypothetical:

If usapa is found "responsible" i.e. guilty, will they accept the findings of the jury and the court?

 

[cleardirect]

The court cannot impose a solution that violates the CBL's of a properly sanctioned union without cause. The "problem" CBL's are the same ones your flight attendants use. The same one the mechanics' use...etc etc etc. This is a big problem for your case which you prefer to ignore.

Keep rubbing the donkey...he likes it.

CBL’s Constitution and bylaws. Did the mechanics all of a sudden become USAPA? Did USAPA all of sudden become the AFA? How are the pilots using the same CBL as the mechanics and flight attendants? Different associations different set of rules.

Do you believe that an elected union can put anything they want into their C&BL’s and it becomes legal? So if USAPA were to place in the C&BL that all women were to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. You say a court could not fix that?