aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Here you go, Oldie:
3. Scope & Nature of Injunctive Relief
USAPA will be ordered to negotiate in good faith for the implementation of the Nicolau Award, defending that award in negotiations and presenting it with the single new CBA to the pilots for ratification vote. This remedy was requested by Plaintiffs and pled in the First Amended Complaint. It promises to address the problem at hand without limiting the negotiation of independent employment terms. Implicitly, it also precludes the union from acting to undermine the Nicolau Award through collateral provisions in the agreement, and from failing to negotiate toward a single CBA that includes the Nicolau Award.
This injunction and order also illuminates USAPA’s untoward objectives,informing the Airline and union members what the union is not permitted to do. To date, the Airline has accepted the Nicolau Award and taken no bargaining position against it. The injunction to follow protects the Airline in that course. The West Pilots’ original claims against the Airline for breaching the Transition Agreement were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failing to state any facts that suggested the Airline was acting in concert with USAPA toward improper seniority objectives. The Airline’s incentive to avoid needless liability places another healthy constraint on USAPA’s bargaining.
USAPA will also be required to negotiate for the implementation of the Nicolau Award as part of any single CBA, unmodified by additional conditions and restrictions USAPA would place upon it. USAPA claims that it has the right to impose new conditions and restrictions, invoking the historical fact that ALPA exerted pressure on the West MEC to accept some form of “mitigation†of the Nicolau List. This very fact undercuts USAPA’s request. ALPA exerted pressure because it did not hold unilateral power to deprive the West MEC and the West Pilots of the arbitrated outcome. The West Pilots remain entitled to a union that will not abrogate the Nicolau Award without a legitimate purpose. Any waiver of that right must be “consensual.†[Ex. ## 1034 at 1; 1092; 1094.] A jury and this Court have found the union to be motivated by wrongful objectives, and abundant evidence supports that finding. It would indulge those objectives to allow USAPA to alter the Nicolau Award, and it would bestow upon USAPA an unlawful power that ALPA neither possessed nor asserted.18
Similarly, USAPA will be forbidden from negotiating separate CBAs for the two pilot groups, as it argues the Transition Agreement and the Railway Labor Act would have permitted it to do.19 Separate negotiations would invite highly probable wrongdoing, which would evade effective judicial remedy and burden the Plaintiffs with more ruinous litigation expense. The evidence shows not only USAPA’s wrongful motives but also willingness to conceal those motives and to bring about its seniority objectives by subterfuge. Prior to trial, USAPA negotiated only toward a single CBA for both pilot groups. It was only when the verdict was returned that USAPA announced to the Court its intent to seek separate agreements. [Doc. # 485, at 58, 78] When asked at oral argument several weeks later who held the right to ratify any separate CBA, USAPA could provide no answer. USAPA should not have the opportunity to strike disparate contract terms for the two pilot groups, making up by indirection for the failure to meet East Pilot seniority ambitions.
USAPA could state no legitimate union reason for pursuing separate agreements. It asserted only that the Court’s order would deprive the union of self-help remedies associated exclusively with those agreements. This is not so. The National Mediation Board certified both pilot groups as a single craft, that is, a single bargaining unit, in January 2008. US Airline Pilots Association, 35 N.M.B. 65, 78 (2008). The parties do not dispute that the West Pilots’ CBA is currently amendable, and the East CBA becomes so very soon. At that point, USAPA would be free to invoke Section 6 procedures for both CBAs, including the National Mediation Board’s mediation/arbitration process and possible self-help, in order to negotiate a single CBA that would alter wages and working conditions for the entire bargaining unit. Nothing in the Transition Agreement or the Railway Labor Act provides otherwise. Section V of the Transition Agreement specifies that no rights under the Railway Labor Act are waived, and it provides for additional private mediation regardless of what contracts are amendable. The injunctive remedy poses no harm to the Airline, which has at all times sought the operational integration that a single CBA would bring. If these conditions were to change, either party could seek focused relief from the permanent injunction.
The public interest favors this remedy as well. Separate labor agreements would materially deprive US Airways of the business benefits, now four years delayed, of a merger and combined operations, for no apparent reason but to enable continued unlawful discrimination within the union. To shut this door is part of the minimum necessary to end the game. The pilots must choose between the status quo and a single new CBA that incorporates the Nicolau Award with whatever improvements in wages and working conditions USAPA can negotiate for the East Pilots and the West Pilots alike.
The injunction will not address speculative examples of malfeasance. It will not restrain USAPA’s grievance machinery in order to thwart a hypothetical East Pilot plot to obstruct negotiations by filing seniority grievances. There is no evidence of any threat of a bad-faith grievance campaign. If it happens in the future, it may be the proper subject of enforcement or modification of the permanent injunction. The Court will expressly retain jurisdiction to modify, extend, or vacate relief, which should be adequate to meet any unforeseen events.
The injunction will not subject any new CBA to a majority vote of the West Pilots (as Plaintiffs pled) or to a majority vote of each separate pilot group (as USAPA requests as a fall-back). Both requests lack legal grounding. The USAPA constitution requires ratification of any new CBA by a majority vote of the entire membership. The allegations and proof contain nothing to suggest that USAPA’s representational structure amounts to a breach of its duty; USAPA indicates that the West Pilots have been and always will be free to join the union. To grant either of the suggested remedies would, without justification, countermand the election and certification of USAPA as collective bargaining representative. Plaintiffs’ proposal goes even farther because it would grant one group of pilots (the West Pilots) a unique power to veto a new proposed CBA for any reason, not just a cure for the violation of a legal right. Plaintiffs’ request that USAPA be enjoined to negotiate “with equal West Pilot representation†is too vague to be understood and will not form part of relief.
The Court also rejects USAPA’s bold request that the injunction dissolve upon a failed vote to ratify a new CBA containing the Nicolau Award. The duty of fair representation requires USAPA and any successor union to bargain for the implementation of the Nicolau Award. To limit relief as requested would enable the easiest of evasions of this duty. As already explained, the abusive wishes of the majority do not become legitimate simply because they are asserted in a ratification vote. A failed ratification vote gives the union no new power to accommodate a discriminatory majority.
IV. ORDER
The jury has found USAPA liable to Plaintiffs and the represented class. Damage proceedings remain for the six named Plaintiffs, except for the claims for general refund of union dues and fees, which have been denied as a matter of law. All claims in No. CV 08-1728 PHX-NVW have been adjudicated in favor of the Defendants. It is appropriate now to enter a permanent injunction and a final and enforceable judgment on all claims except Plaintiffs’ unadjudicated individual damage claims. The Court does so by a separate Partial Judgment and Permanent Injunction filed herewith. The Court expressly finds no just reason for delay in entry of that judgment and expressly directs that it be entered immediately.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Directed Verdict [doc.# 446] is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant USAPA’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [doc. # 567] and Motion for a New Trial [doc. # 590] are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement the Record [doc. ## 580, 582] is denied for the reasons stated in open court on the record.
DATED this 17th day of July 2009.
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge
