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

[hp_fa]

hp-fa,

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

Which order? I have seen one or two, but I am not sure which you are referring to. I haven't seen any recent orders.

The list I made came from what I believe, in part, to be the relevant fact issues and how they will be resolved.

There is one other thing that I really believe East has thoroughly miscalculated on and that is a jury trial. They should have left well enough alone and done a bench trial. Why? It can be argued, perhaps persuasively, that labor unions are not popular in Arizona, especially compared to eastern states. However, one thing Arizona folks (who will make up the jury) hate is injustice. I really suspect that when the jury hears the admissible testimony that East will have wished that they had allowed the case to be heard by the judge.

Phoenix, and it's population, is not White Plains.

 

[EastUS]

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?

Surely; SOME of you must be men?? I know, I know = "Don't call me Shirley"?

 

[ClueByFour]

The answer to your question is yes, absolutely. "Dual ratification" was required because of two ALPA units having to agree to a singular agreement. Now, all LCC pilots have just one bargaining agent, one negotiating committee...nothing "dual" about it anymore. I suggest you study up on these facts along with NLC. I think maybe this "knowlege gap" may be driving some of the west internal misinformation. Maybe read something outside of AWAPPA or AOL for once.

Since I've batted 1.000 on USAPA's legal blunders, I will suggest to you that a judge will very quickly find that:

1. USAPA inherits the contracts (including the T/A as written) and

2. A judge will find that the "intent of the agreement" is for dual ratification.

Bank on it.

If you guys really believe this crap that Bradford is selling, I've got a bridge and a dry gulch in Arizona you may be interested in purchasing...

 

[Tiger 1050]

correct. And if the judge tries to cram the Nic down the throat of a union in direct violation of their CBL's...he faces a littany of legal issues as well.
checkmate

Might wanna check that statement there friend. RLA Law existed long before your C&BL's. When said union writes a C&BL's that violate RLA law a Federal Judge can do what ever he likes...

Now if your confused about which law was and is being violated it has to do with treatment of a minority group. Whether or not a minority group chooses to participate has no bearing whatsoever on the unions duty to fairly represent. Along with that NMB victory came a heap of responsibilities. Sure DOH is what the "majority" wants but it fails to meet the needs of the minority group. A union has a duty to consider and conduct itself in a manner that fairly represents ALL groups within its membership. And yes we are all "members" according to the law. Some (okay most) are in bad standing but that does not relieve the union of its responsibilities...

Now the burden to prove this in Judge Wakes court is ours. We'll just have to see how it goes.

 

[cleardirect]

Yes, indeed...you are far better than Metroyet. What you fail to recognize is that the DOH mandate has legs in history...over many unions in many mergers. That the west perceives inequality in this case is notable, but not history-making. That the west will argue that USAPA must uphold previously held ALPA positions will fall on its face. The change of venue empowers USAPA...ALL previous agreements are up for grabs.

I give you a 7 of 10.

next?

Other unions, other work groups. This is what the judge had to say about that. Transcripts from the Oct. hearing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
October 29, 2008 - Preliminary Injunction Hearing
Page 58-59
MR. SEHAM
Their brief provides that plaintiffs allege hostile discrimination without challenging either the merits of USAPA seniority policies or whether USAPA can properly revisit seniority. Plaintiffs allege that, instead, USAPA improperly visited the seniority issue. And they go on to say it's because we didn't take the, quote, unquote, minority interest into account.

THE COURT: The union was created and selected by express campaign promises to disregard the interests of the West Pilots.

MR. SEHAM: That is not correct. That is not correct. And in fact, I would submit, Your Honor, in terms of
dispositive evidence, which you have to look at is our constitution. Because other than that, other than the constitution and our negotiating position, there is no document that competently addresses what our position is. And our constitution creates for ourselves a contractual obligation to proceed with a date of hire seniority list objection but to protect through conditions and restrictions the un-merged career expectations of the West Pilots. The proposal that you evaluated, Your Honor, if the Court stops at --

THE COURT: I just read your summary in Paragraph A that says it's a date-of-hire list. And I have not had time to study the detail.

MR. SEHAM: And we could present an hour and a half of testimony, because that's how long it took us to present to the company. Everything else in that proposal, everything else constitutes 10 years of conditions and restrictions which effectively bars the operation of the seniority list rights, bars the East Pilots from bidding into the west system so that all the pilots based in Las Vegas, all the pilots based in Phoenix, have 10 years of protection in terms of protecting what their expectations were with respect to continually filling the positions in their airline, in the America West operation.

THE COURT: Having bidding rights isn't much comfort if you are laid off.

MR. SEHAM: That's true. If there is a situation, and that's why, perhaps, it's consistent with our position under TA9, that if there is a substantial reduction in the pilot body, that that's going to go by date of hire. However, in terms of bidding date today, it's the conditions and restrictions, pages of it, are all created for the protection of the West Pilots. If you look at every other major employee group on this property, the dispatchers, the flight attendants, the mechanics, the stock employees, they are all going through a pure date of hire.

THE COURT: That's irrelevant. I mean, things are different from pilots than other groups.

MR. SEHAM: I don't think it's that different from the flight attendants in terms of bidding and vacation and routes and wide body versus --

THE COURT: Seniority, though. Isn't there more turnover in those positions than there is --

 

[ClueByFour]

You know...I hadn't thought of it till just know. I admire the tenacity of those who willingly jump into the abyss...knowing they have given their lives. I never thought educated adults would do such things,

Admirable.

You presumably voted USAPA in the representation election, right?

My understanding is that when the abyss is drained, it really hurts to hit the bottom and then you wake up in the hospital wondering why you jumped.

 

[Tiger 1050]

'Disenfranchised" in what way, sir? That the legally voted in union that you don't challenge had DOH in it's CBL's WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON?

hmmm

next?

(are ya gettin' a feel for what your boys are gonna get on the stand yet?_)

And therein lies one of your problems in the current case. You cannot make DOH a referendum. Which is most certainly what USAPA did. One only has to look at their campaigning to see...

 

[cleardirect]

Surely; SOME of you must be men?? I know, I know = "Don't call me Shirley"?

That good's. I am glad to see a sense of humor. Are you OK?
Reasonable posts and a joke. Whats next? Agreement on some minor issues.

Cats and dogs living together, total chaos.

 

[cleardirect]

Which order? I have seen one or two, but I am not sure which you are referring to. I haven't seen any recent orders.

The list I made came from what I believe, in part, to be the relevant fact issues and how they will be resolved.

There is one other thing that I really believe East has thoroughly miscalculated on and that is a jury trial. They should have left well enough alone and done a bench trial. Why? It can be argued, perhaps persuasively, that labor unions are not popular in Arizona, specially compared to eastern states. However, one thing Arizona folks (who will make up the jury) hate is injustice. I really suspect that when the jury hears the admissible testimony that East will have wished that they had allowed the case to be heard by the judge.

Phoenix, and it's population, is not White Plains.

Document 202. The order granting a jury trial.. Listed under factual background. The judge covered most of those items. Pretty accurate on your part.

Very astute observation on the composition of Arizona juries.

 

[hp_fa]

That was interesting. I had not seen that nor any other Orders or rulings for the last 45 days or so.

 

[cleardirect]

I found this one interesting. I believe that the judge is getting annoyed with Seham. The defendants have filed 4 discovery disputes so far. Two have been denied so far.

 

[Hey.. Chill Out]

"Should"..I've always chuckled at that word, whenever it's referenced to any past events. It was. It did. Next?

PS: "...This whole USAPA, DOH, experience matters, screw what neutral arbitrators say...me, me ,me thing that you guys on the east are pulling, is just plain wrong." Clearly, while the desire to sit anyone with, say, 11 total years ahead of another with over 21's obviously a display of selfless "Righteousness"?,,or placing a new hire with 2 months over another with 17 years? Thanks..I see it clearly now...and as for "experience matters,"? I can only agree=that's doubtless an entirely foolish notion for anything as well. Who could possibly ever think such utter nonsense to be at all true? Words simply fail me here.

No, that's not what voting for the new union was all about, though, was it? It was from all of the other neglectful things your union did before agreeing to go into a binding arbitration, huh?


Don't worry, though, the judge... Sorry, JURY, won't see it that way though.

 

[nycbusdriver]

2. A judge will find that the "intent of the agreement" is for dual ratification.

Bank on it.

If that's where this ends up, you can bank on retiring under your current contract. The east will never ratify a contract that imposes the Nicolau shame.

Or, will you now back off of your pontification number 2 to suit a new argument?

 

[EastUS]

No, that's not what voting for the new union was all about, though, was it? It was from all of the other neglectful things your union did before agreeing to go into a binding arbitration, huh?


Don't worry, though, the judge... Sorry, JURY, won't see it that way though.

You've clearly the not the slightest clue, nor ANY understanding whatsoever of what all went into Alpo's demise on the east. That's been extensively covered on these boards long ago. and you may wish to read up on it. Suffice it to say that Nic was but the last straw for a great many.

On your last? = There's just no kind way to describe the "thought" processes of anyone so hopelessly naieve and self-obsessed as to imagine/fantasize/proclaim exaclly how ANY jury ANYWHERE is EVER going to think or rule. Try sitting on a few for starters, then get right back to me on that. As utterly inconceivable as some out west may find the concept; it's even remotely possible that not every one of the 6 billion plus human beings now living share the sense of obvious "Righteousness" attendant to placing anyone with less than half the experience of another ahead of them in "seniority", nor feel that the greatest evil to ever be done on earth would be to to deny any small buncha' poorly behaved, spoiled brats some free candy that they did NOTHING to personally earn. Additonally; some such "misguided" individuals may possiblly find their way onto that jury. Just an observation.

It'll play out in court in whatever way it will.

 

[sharktooth]

It'll play out in court in whatever way it will.

What is really nice about time and a jury is now there is lots of "new" information with which to inform a jury, like, who actually bought who (what subsidiary of US subsumed HP), who provided the money, the shutdown plan Parker had in the wings should the "buy-out" not occur, perhaps an MDA ruling showing that the east list was incomplete at best, and all information Mr. Nicolau should have had, but did not, for whatever reason (thanks, ALPO).

Say what you will about the "nic", it was flawed courtesy ALPO, the same agent that made the "ruling" about whether it "complied with ALPA policy". Am I the only one who sees a giant problem with the "nic" and the way it way handled? Just the idea that ALPA deliberately hid information about the MDA ruling, tossing all those pilots under the bus in order to facilitate a "win" on the MDA issue should give any slug a heads up that ALPA was gaming the arbitration.

For the west pilots, I see a real problem attacking USAPA. Their enemy is ALPA for duty of fair representation. Had ALPA presented all the relevant information to Mr. Nicolau, the west dudes would have gotten a slightly less advantageous, but much more bullet-proof list.

I've been empaneled on several trials and can see easily that a jury is much more influenced by implied motivations of seemingly non-players than a judge. I wonder what an average PHX person, who just lost 60% or more value in his savings, who sees big organizations as responsible, who is anti-union, might think about a big union organization like ALPA deliberately submitting a flawed list. How will that play?