US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 5/19-5/26 READ THE FIRST POST

[nycbusdriver]

It's so sickening I want to vomit up my hamburger on Memorial Day. I swear every last one of you deserve what you get. I am so sick of this ####, I think it should be banned from this site. Honestly there is nothing new it's just like vomiting in a bowl, eating it only to only vomit it up again. SHUT UP! Let the court system work or come at a settlement. But by all means SHUT UP. I wish Judge Judy would take the case. God would you both be humbled.

Too bad you have your computer set to log onto this thread automatically and your eyes are pinned opened so that you have to read it.

Or, did you ever consider the possibility of NOT reading this thread? But then you wouldn't be able to....

 

[jetjok1]

On that note!!!!! Since you really got my pants in a twist. Why don't you all pause and think about the men and women serving to protect us. Instead of worrying of who will be Captain Dork on the 330! This is what his weekend is all about right? You all sound so stupid and petty at this point. Sick.....truly sick. Stop your endless nonsense and thank a service member for what they do. It goes a long way and it's more meaningful than this battle. I hope my brother comes back from the Air Force alive. Don't let me get in the way of your sand fight.

Well BB, Actually I have face-to-face all weekend with, hmmm! 8 or 9 of those fine folks! Ah..............and how about you?
What have you done? Don't spill your vomit trying to answer the question!

 

[usabusdriver]

No Jurisdiction – The Breeger Case

On October 28, 2009, certain former Empire and Trump Shuttle pilots initiated a DFR lawsuit against USAPA in a North Carolina federal district court on the grounds that USAPA’s seniority integration proposal should have provided for retroactive application of DOH principles to previously-implemented integrated seniority lists. This litigation is commonly referred to as the Breeger litigation.

On April 23, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer issued an order recommending dismissal of the action in its entirety due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The order was based on existing case law holding that a federal court has no jurisdiction to consider whether a labor union’s proposal violates DFR standards until such time as that proposal has been implemented. Magistrate Cayer went so far as to state: “The parties have not cited, and the undersigned is unaware of, any published federal authority addressing whether a union’s conduct may give rise to a ripe DFR claim prior to the conclusion of negotiations with the employer.

The Breeger decision directly referenced the Addington litigation and acknowledged that, while the Arizona federal court had previously declined to dismiss that case due to plaintiffs’ allegations that USAPA had deliberately delayed the negotiation process, the plaintiffs had since that time “disavowed†their allegations of delay. As the Breeger court further observed, USAPA was awaiting leave from the Addington court to file a summary judgment motion. Unfortunately, such leave was never granted.

Same facts, different court, different result.

First of all Breeger is, at best, secondary authority. It is both out-of-jurisdiction and a document written by a federal magistrate, not a judge. Therefore the Court had wide discretion in whether or not it considered it compelling in its handling of Addington. Second, and I could be wrong on this point, it is my understanding that in Breeger the USAPA position(s) taken by USAPA in court was contrary to the positions it took in Addington on numerous issues. Since I am not fully convesent on what information was presented and argued to the court in Breeger I cannot further analyze them here.

I actually appreciate seeing this Update as a whole so that we have a base for any discussions of it. Thanks for posting it.

hp_fa,

The facts are not the same.

The ripeness argument is different between the two cases because of the Transition Agreement and the fact that the company accepted the Nicolau award. The Addington case is a DFR for failure to comply with the result of the completed process as outlined in the Transition Agreement for an integrated seniority list claiming abuse by the majority over the minority.

Therefore, usapa’s intent to circumvent the Nicolau award through the joint contract negotiating process through a DOH proposal, as the plaintiffs contend was the intention of the founders all along, is a breach of DFR, because of the inherited obligation by usapa through the Transition Agreement to uphold and defend the award, and thus made the case ripe. It was the DOH proposal or the intent itself to negotiate away from the Nicolau award, not whether or not a cba had been implemented with a change to the Nicolau which makes the case ripe and different from Breeger.

The fact patterns are different because of the Transition Agreement.

This is why usapa was unsucessful in their quest for a Motion to Dismiss on the issue of ripeness and denied leave for filing for a Motion of Summary Judgement on the same issue.

 

[beachboy]

God just pathedic. Honestly no matter the side.....pathedic. On with your bickering BS. Not like there are other things ongoing.

 

[Captain Underpants]

My bias is, and has been, based on the words and promises of people to, in the end, accept "full and binding" to mean to accept a result and to move on despite perhaps feeling that the wrong decision was reached because, in the final analysis, they empowered a third-party to resolve an issue that they failed to resolve myself.

hp_fa,

As I have watched this dispute progress it seems what most are missing is the practical limit of a "final and binding" arbitration award. There is no "100 year rule" or provision that says the West pilots get to maintain all inequities from the Nicolau award as a base and that all subsequent contracts and agreements must maintain the Nic windfall intact forever. Having the court declare the Nicolau award as "final and binding" on USAirways pilots has no practical benefit for the West pilots and will most certainly lead to unintended negative consequences for all USAirways pilots and a significantly worse outcome for the West pilots than the USAPA proposal. USAPA failed to convince the court this would be true so the West pilots will unfortunately suffer the consequences.

A jury of 3000+ East pilots has firmly declared the Nicolau award to be inequitable which directs the behavior and actions of East pilots. The East pilots have not and will not ever accept the inequity of the Nic award which has lead to the West attempts to force implementation.

USAPA is currently under the political control of the East pilots and has a duty of fair representation to all USAirways pilots. USAPA also has an obligation to balance the competing interests of various groups of pilots and resolve the multiple fairness issues between groups. It must meet the legal standard for DFR which directs its actions may not be arbitrary, discriminatory, in bad faith or outside a wide range of reasonableness. The Arizona court has found (subject to appeal) a violation of DFR due to bad faith disregard of an apparent contractual obligation requiring USAPA to follow ALPA merger policy and bargain for implementation of the Nic award.

This court finding has created multiple problems that may be impossible to resolve.

The court faces extreme constraints in establishing a remedy. The Norris-Laguardia act of 1932 also known as the Anti-Injunction act was passed because of judicial abuse of power against labor unions to severely limit the power of federal judges to issue injunctions restricting labor union actions. The court can not violate union rights to negotiate a labor contract free of court control. The court can not infringe on the democratic voting rights of the union members. Unions exist to insure the collective bargaining rights of employees to negotiate to improve and protect working conditions and benefits including seniority rights. The TA specifically contractually prevents the Nic award from being implemented prior to a joint CBA ratified by a majority vote of union members in good standing. The court can order USAPA to try to utilize the Nic award but cannot force the pilots to vote for a contract containing it. The court can not negotiate the contract nor direct the union as to what is fair as it sorts through the various fairness issues in the multiple contract sections. The court also has a moral obligation to prevent the injustice of a forced Nic award and may allow a path for a workaround just as ALPA and USAPA concluded was the only viable alternative. Cash damages would be requiring USAPA to pay for the denied windfall.....the windfall that was not allowed under ALPA merger policy. East pilots will never make windfall payments to West pilots. USAPA would have direct liability for court ordered damages but East pilots will assure USAPA never has assets to collect from and that expenses are allocated indirectly to the responsible parties.

The simplest, fairest and most efficient method of correcting the Nic inequity is to eliminate the problem directly by re-ordering the list as USAPA proposed. Denying the ability to re-order the list would only force other less desirable solutions causing negative consequences for all pilots. Other solutions to correct the inequity can be effective but are only treating the symptoms of the problem and guarantee a perpetual dispute and continued dysfunctional relationship. Ordering the Nic award to be included in the CBA would simply distort the contract with massive changes to industry standard provisions and/or result in permanent separate operations.

underpants

 

[Megasnoop]

Hi Snoop.

I understand being angry

I dont understand why these west guys are so angry. One jab after another. Just look at Luvns latest.
Im not following the rest of your post at all. Its full of Qs that only our BPR can answer. I doubt if theyre looking for help from an anonymous poster who could be a company employee for all we know. Our union is just asking for a vote on an assessment. I cant connect your dots between assessment and fragmentation, nor your interest.

Please feel free to instruct me where I may be in error. Once that is done I may have thoughts about where this may be headed.

Respectfully....

Again, Im not following you at all. Not even sure what your game is. But flashing back to your May 4 posting:

BTW, every day that I have been in court a company attorney has also been there watching the proceedings and taking notes. I know that the company has more than a small amount of interest in this trial. However the fact remains that an attorney, probably relatively well paid, is spending full work days sitting in court watching the proceedings. I suspect that besides keeping track of the trial so that the company knows where it stands when the trial is over, that it is also assessing and monitoring the amount of divisiveness that clearly exists within the respective pilot ranks.

That company attorney was Paul Jones, doing his labor relations thing. I figure you already knew that. Just curious why you didnt mention his name since you sat next to him with your yellow legal pad? Again, whats your game in this?

If the assessment passes, we"ll have an investigation, one the company probably doesnt want if theres some carryover from the old U. So it does go beyond a need for closure. If you want to identify yourself and your expertise to our BPR, go for it. Meanwhile dont worry yourself over east business, unless its your business, which Im beginning to think it is. Snooper

 

[Tiger 1050]

This court finding has created multiple problems that may be impossible to resolve.

The court faces extreme constraints in establishing a remedy. The Norris-Laguardia act of 1932 also known as the Anti-Injunction act was passed because of judicial abuse of power against labor unions to severely limit the power of federal judges to issue injunctions restricting labor union actions. The court can not violate union rights to negotiate a labor contract free of court control. The court can not infringe on the democratic voting rights of the union members. Unions exist to insure the collective bargaining rights of employees to negotiate to improve and protect working conditions and benefits including seniority rights. The TA specifically contractually prevents the Nic award from being implemented prior to a joint CBA ratified by a majority vote of union members in good standing. The court can order USAPA to try to utilize the Nic award but cannot force the pilots to vote for a contract containing it. The court can not negotiate the contract nor direct the union as to what is fair as it sorts through the various fairness issues in the multiple contract sections. The court also has a moral obligation to prevent the injustice of a forced Nic award and may allow a path for a workaround just as ALPA and USAPA concluded was the only viable alternative. Cash damages would be requiring USAPA to pay for the denied windfall.....the windfall that was not allowed under ALPA merger policy. East pilots will never make windfall payments to West pilots. USAPA would have direct liability for court ordered damages but East pilots will assure USAPA never has assets to collect from and that expenses are allocated indirectly to the responsible parties.



underpants

Actually I think your Norris-La Guardia Act card is misplayed here. This particular act was put in place to limit a Courts ability to stop lawful strikes etc. thereby limiting the unions ability to bargain. And of course once again you are failing to realize that you cannot disenfranchise a minority group in your membership solely for the purpose of satisfying a majority! What is it about that you guys don't understand?


The Norris-LaGuardia Act:

-Declared any "yellow dog" contract (under which an employee promised not to become a member of any labor organization) to be unenforceable in any court of the United States.
-Deprived federal courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions against peaceful striking, assembling, patrolling, or publicizing facts in connection with a labor dispute.
-Defined "labor dispute" as broadly as possible to encompass any controversy concerning the terms and conditions of employment or representation.
-Provided that in any dispute where an injunction might be issued (when harm to person or property is threatened), the federal courts must comply with stringent procedural safeguards, including a prior hearing under oath in open court with cross examination.

 

[hp_fa]

hp_fa,

The facts are not the same.

The ripeness argument is different between the two cases because of the Transition Agreement and the fact that the company accepted the Nicolau award. The Addington case is a DFR for failure to comply with the result of the completed process as outlined in the Transition Agreement for an integrated seniority list claiming abuse by the majority over the minority.

Therefore, usapa’s intent to circumvent the Nicolau award through the joint contract negotiating process through a DOH proposal, as the plaintiffs contend was the intention of the founders all along, is a breach of DFR, because of the inherited obligation by usapa through the Transition Agreement to uphold and defend the award, and thus made the case ripe. It was the DOH proposal or the intent itself to negotiate away from the Nicolau award, not whether or not a cba had been implemented with a change to the Nicolau which makes the case ripe and different from Breeger.

The fact patterns are different because of the Transition Agreement.

This is why usapa was unsucessful in their quest for a Motion to Dismiss on the issue of ripeness and denied leave for filing for a Motion of Summary Judgement on the same issue.

USA, thanks for that information. I will look it over in the next day or two and consider what you took the time to write.

Thanks.

 

[hp_fa]

That company attorney was Paul Jones, doing his labor relations thing. I figure you already knew that. Just curious why you didnt mention his name since you sat next to him with your yellow legal pad? Again, whats your game in this?

Snoop,

I have no game. It is an intellectual exercise for me considering that it ties my previous legal and airline employment together. Don't try and read more into it unless you have more of a revelation for me because, as far as I know, my reason above is the complete truth.

As for Mr. Jones, I did not know his name nor did I speak with him. He stayed in the next to last row on the far right side. Except for Day Two, I was always in row two on the right side behind the USAPA pilots. I didn't speak with them either except for perhaps a hello. I didn't, and still don't, know their names either. Also, before someone asks, the reason I sat in that area was to be able to watch the jury. I was watching how they were reacting at different times during the trial. Sometimes I could see the witness, sometimes not, but I could usually see the Judge and jury.

Have a good night.

 

[nic4us]

We"re all one big happy family, Nic4. There is no way constitutionally that USAPA we could allow you a separate vote. Hey, wed had enough guffaws already. We didnt need another one (tongue in cheek, Nic4). Ah, that learning curve. Sometimes I just want to (nevermind!). And to all who think we had some trading leverage that we blew? Fighting Intent, Federal Law, Supreme Court rulings, EEOC, the Company? Even $30M times zero still comes up to be ZERO. Snoopo

PS: If we ever agree 100% on anything, I hope that at least we can agree that ALPA never needs to come back on property. 4-6 years from now, youll have the majority. Being independent from a union that has built-in conflicts of interests is the way to go. ALPA screwed the pooch on both our houses, all in the name of holding on to those dues. Are you tracking with me? Snoop

Snoop,

As I said I almost agree with you on this one, but I have 1 question.

Will the West members get to vote on your assesment for pension loss inquiries?

 

[traderjake]

Here's the problem. You don't want to keep the job you brought, you want to keep the job you had at the snap shot and use that as a perpetual slingshot to maintain the advantage over your east counterparts.

Every airline has its ebb and flow and east was beginning to see a long awaited upsurge in attrition, albeit delayed a bit by the age 65 change.

Here's the problem. First I'm an East pilot.

Second, the overwhelming probability is that liquidation of USAirways would have killed any long awaited upsurge in attrition.

 

[nic4us]

it seems what most are missing is the practical limit of a "final and binding" arbitration award.

USAPA failed to convince the court this would be true so the West pilots will unfortunately suffer the consequences.

A jury of 3000+ East pilots has firmly declared the Nicolau award to be inequitable which directs the behavior and actions of East pilots. The East pilots have not and will not ever accept the inequity of the Nic award which has lead to the West attempts to force implementation.


The simplest, fairest and most efficient method of correcting the Nic inequity is to eliminate the problem directly by re-ordering the list as USAPA proposed.

underpants

That was the longest post I have ever read that veered so far from reality.

The "practical Limit" to a "final and binding" award is that the parties involved will abide by its outcome.

USAPA did not fail to convince the court, burden of proof was on plaintif, and AOL proved USAPA failed its duty. Pending appeal USAPA is guilty of illegal union tactics and will face its own set of consequences. The consequences the West will suffer will be determined by the court, not USAPA and or Captain underpants.

Your jury of 3000+ east pilots is hung and unable to return a verdict. Continue the illegal jury tampering and you can start going to jail for your actions.

The simplest, fairest and most efficient method of correcting USAPA's illegal union tactics is the removal of its currently elected president (who won a mishandled election that I hear you folks are going to have to now run a third time because of improprieties during your first two attempts) and probably most of the BPR. Concurrent with immediate implementation of the Nic.

 

[EastUS]

Pending appeal.....

Enough said. Let us all know when this has finally run it's full course....however many months or years that takes.

 

[prechilill]

The fiction which people like Underpants, Snoop and Busdriver live in is so far from reality. Their collective hopes are now resting on a one in a million Hail Mary which probably will never come to fruition, yet these three in particular stick to the same, tired arguments of a biased, senile old man causing the improprieties against them. It seems all Judge Wake has done is taken the spotlight in their fiction story away from George Nicolau- the victim mentality sure hasn't changed. And their inevitable triumph is just right around that corner- it is so close. Riiiiiight. None of these three, however, seem to understand their game is just about over. Take this statement regarding railway labor law:

"The Railway Labor Act is a United States federal law that governs labor relations in the railway and airline industries. The Act, passed in 1926 and amended in 1936 to apply to the airline industry, seeks to substitute bargaining, arbitration and mediation for strikes as a means of resolving labor disputes."

When the Federal Courts get involved it is because of major improprieties by someone, in our case a rogue union. If Underpants' feelings represents the general mentality of the east pilot group, then the union is being run in a manner which has a severe prejudice against a large minority and Judge Wake has caught on to their collective abuse of the liberal privileges unions are given. A DFR is extremely rare, USAPA has given labor unions a black eye.
Bottom line, this story is just about over, regardless of what the east may think. Railway Labor Law is centered on arbitration, final and binding. USAPA cannot hold the company hostage like they think they can. My bets are the courts are going to neuter USAPA, which is going to personally be a pleasure to watch from the sidelines.

 

[prechilill]

This is from the AOL website, sums it up pretty well in one paragraph:

"The verdict was a watershed event for all US Airways pilots as it marked the end of USAPA’s twisted idea that a binding arbitration could be ignored simply because the majority wishes for a different result. Although this legal result seems axiomatic, it took a lot of expert legal maneuvering to get our case before Judge Wake. As time passes, we think that this outstanding pretrial work by our attorneys will be eclipsed by a very basic question will captivate those who wish to dissect this case: how could so many believe such a fallacy? Tonight, we would like to begin by taking a crack at answering that question. To us the answer is pretty straight forward. The only way USAPA could sell their castle in the sky was to flat out misrepresent facts and to misrepresent the law; they had to control the discussion and they had to scrub every communication to the pilot group. USAPA did do a suitable job at corralling enough East pilots to sign off on the DOH quest, but at some point there was going to be a legal determination which could not be reconciled to all of the USAPA propaganda. When that event occurred – the verdict – we figured that finally the lying would be over. Sadly, we were mistaken as the USAPA spin machine was not dismantled, but rather it was kicked into high gear within minutes of the verdict. This lying and obfuscation has become more grand and now there is the same refrain coming out of different corners of USAPA."