US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 7/14-7/21 NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[ussnark]

Barbell (i.e. the "money") mergered with and into America West Holdings, not USAirways.

Barbell was a subsidiary of USAirways. AW Holdings merged with one of many "parts" of USAirways.

It would be like AWH merged with Ohio, then told everyone they bought America. Followed shortly thereafter by gales of laughter.

 

[Edward]

Ok folks this who brought who thing is not going to be rehashed again.

 

[Pacemaker]

As usual the east apologists only quote yield and revenue numbers, not unit costs which are killing this airline as surely as they were killing it before the merger.

 

[cactusboy53]

I'm not a jet jockey friend, so not my fight, my work group was at least smart enough not to have anything that could put a person with ten years ahead of one with twenty five

US Airways Pilots' Labor Thread 7/14-7/21 NO PERSONAL REMARKS
So....you are making conmentary on this subject because.......why?

OUR merger policy was followed to the letter. Reading the arbitration award would give the reader the understanding to that fact.

 

[Megasnoop]

And in 10 years, the "entitlement east" will cry about being robbed and will want it again.

No pleasing these guys. Whatever you do, they will moan that its not fair. AWA should have waited till US went chapter 7, and then just picked from the remnants.

Hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when its lost in entitlement flame-bait. But here’s what the company said in its official “Plane Deal†article on June 10, 2005:

The proposed merger is about making our company stronger and bringing in the kinds of assets - gates, slots, and aircraft that allow us to grow our network instantly. Yes, a merger comes with tremendous challenges, including the task of integrating seniority lists. But, we believe that this merger is in the best interests of employees, shareholders and travelers. Without the merger, America West will continue as it has; however, we have to consider the long-term viability of our company and, with fuel prices high and industry capacity in excess, we (like most of our industry) could also face bankruptcy if those fundamentals don’t change.

I guess I don't understand.

Obviously you don’t, Newbie. Time to follow the Mod’s advice and quit arguing about who saved who, or who was going under. See above.

Just like "final and binding", right?

Maybe you ought to talk to ALPA about that. Why did it take ALPA 6 months to present the “final and binding†award to the company? Why did they then go on to spend over $1 Million to get the West to back off the “final and binding†award? Maybe ALPA read what the West’s Merger Attorney told a Federal Court on July 24, 2008,

Thus, the “arbitration award†Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate†is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating†and “arbitration,†the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate†an “arbitration award†that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.



QUOTE (Hate2fly @ Jul 15 2009, 09:37 AM)
Nothing contained herein shall alter, change, or constitute a waiver of the rights of any party under the Railway Labor Act.

Since "herein" refers to the transition agreement, are you claiming that a Federal Judge doesn't have the power to overrule it? Jim

Hate’s right, Jim. The judge is in uncharted waters on this. Over his head and out of his league. But maybe he’s trying to get a ruling on the Constitutionality of McCaskill/Bond, he’s heading the right direction,

Neither federal nor state courts have authority to interpret RLA labor contracts. ORC v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 565-66 (1946); Slocum v. Delaware, L.&W. R.R., 339 U.S. 239, 243-44 (1950).

No matter which side your on, BB, this mess is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Megasnoop]

USAPA is worse than Scientology.
9 Circus isn't gonna take the appeal.
Nic is it, and USAPA are in serious denial.

1- religion has no place in this debate.
2- The 9th will take the appeal. They have no alternative.
3- NIC it is, until the 9th rules.


Back to number 2. Don’t count on a retrial. 9th could dismiss “as a matter of law,†which ends it right there. But if a retrial, you’ve got to raise the money to pay for it and figure out how to pay your attorneys for the first trial. Your favorite bystander is salivating over Bradford being called. Bradford’s testimony will be ugly, perjury? He’s real quick on quoting rules and procedure, but cant seem to come up with much back-up case law. And when I post case law, he says its irelavent. AOL have competent attorneys. They know theres a lot of case law against them, just like theres against us. Bradford’s testimony won’t be any smoking gun, if it ever happens.

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL v. O'NEILL ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

U.S. Supreme Court No. 89-1493, Argued January 14, 1991, Decided March 19, 1991
…….."The O'Neill Group asserted that the duty of fair representation had been breached by ALPA and various ALPA officers because (1) ALPA failed to allow ratification of the agreement and misrepresented the facts surrounding the negotiations to avoid a ratification vote; (2) ALPA negotiated an agreement that arbitrarily discriminated against striking pilots, including the O'Neill Group; (3) ALPA and various ALPA officers misrepresented to retired and resigned pilots that they would be included in any settlement; and (4) defendants were compelled by motives of personal gain, namely self-interest and political motivations. Id., at 1442."

The USSC overturned the Appeals court and upheld ALPA. Motivation, personal gain or self-interest or political motivations did not matter if the final result was within a “wide range of reasonableness.â€

The 7th circuit in Rakestraw, "Slapping the label "bad faith" or "discrimination" on a classification that is rationally related to a legitimate objective does not alter the analysis. A discriminatory motive without a discriminatory rule does not condemn a statute. Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); cf. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961) (rule rationally related to legitimate objective not spoiled by religious motivation of some sponsors). Knowledge that some groups gain or lose as a result of a rule does not even amount to a discriminatory motive Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979).
……The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union's leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, , 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). These principles dispose of the Ozark-TWA case.
….. For the reasons developed in Part II of O’Neill, a "bad" motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole, and that treats employees who are pariahs in the union's eyes no worse than it treats similarly situated supporters of the union."

That ruling was after a contract. We don’t even have a TA in sight. The way Wake handled the trial and this appeal is being watched by labor groups all over the country.

U.S. Supreme Court in Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335 (1964), "In the event that the Employer absorbs the business of another private, contract or common carrier, or is a party to a merger of lines, the seniority of the employees absorbed or affected thereby shall be determined by mutual agreement between the Employer and the Unions involved. Any controversy with respect to such matter shall be submitted to the joint grievance procedure.
….. The grievances of the E & L employees were submitted directly to the local joint committee and endorsed "Deadlocked to Detroit for interpretation" over the signatures of the local union president and the Dealers representative on the committee. Later, however, the local union, having been more fully advised as to the nature of the transaction between the two companies, decided to recommend to the Joint Conference Committee that the seniority lists of the two companies be dovetailed, and the E & L employees be employed at Dealers with seniority rights based upon those which they had enjoyed at E & L. The three shop stewards who represented the Dealers employees before the Joint Conference Committee meeting in Detroit were so advised by the union immediately prior to the opening of the hearing. After hearing from the company, the union and the stewards representing Dealers employees, the Joint Conference Committee thereupon determined that, "in accordance with Article 4 and particularly subsections 4 and 5" of the agreement, the employees of E & L and of Dealers should "be sandwiched in on master seniority boards using the presently constituted seniority lists and the dates contained therein. . . ."

Since E & L was an older company and most of its employees had more seniority than the Dealers employees, the decision entailed the layoff of a large number of Dealers employees to provide openings for the E & L drivers.

The complaint charged that union president Priddy's actions were “deceiving these plaintiffs as to his position (and) left them without representation before the Joint Conference Committee." The decision, according to the complaint, was "contrived, planned and brought about by Paul Priddy" who "has deceived and failed completely to represent said employees," and whose "false and deceitful action" and "connivance . . . with the employees of E & L" threatened the jobs of Dealers employees. The International union is said to have "conspired with and assisted the defendant, Local No. 89, and its president, Paul Priddy, in bringing about this result. . . ." The decision of the Joint Conference Committee was charged to be arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the existing practice in the industry, and violative of the collective bargaining contract.

Guess what the Supreme Court of the United States said? Despite the change in rights under the prior agreement, this Court held that the existing labor agreement did not limit the power of the parties jointly, in the process of bargaining collectively, to make new and different contractual arrangements affecting seniority rights.

It necessarily follows that a settlement of a seniority dispute, deemed by the parties to be an interpretation of their agreement, not requiring an amendment, is plainly within their joint authority. Just as, under the Huffman decision, an amendment is not to be tested by whether it is within the existing contract, so a grievance settlement should not be tested by whether a court could agree with the parties' interpretation. If collective bargaining is to remain a flexible process, the power to amend by agreement and the power to interpret by agreement must be coequal.

In Humphrey v. Moore, motive didn’t matter, only the outcome mattered. USAPA has the authority to amend the transition agreement and make other type of agreements as long as those agreements are in the interest of the bargaining unit. DOH is in the interest of labor as a whole. The Appeals court will hear all this, not that I'm writing the appeal or anything.

These are heady times. The complexity of the DFR, USAPA, ALPA, AOL, DOH, NIC, all inter-related. This is all too wild.

 

[ClueByFour]

These are heady times. The complexity of the DFR, USAPA, ALPA, AOL, DOH, NIC, all inter-related. This is all too wild.

Not really. The transcript of the last hearing (where Wake sums it up for the lad trying to spin for USAPA's section 6) sums it up quite nicely.

You have a interest in making it seem complex and "wild." It's not. Jury saw it, wake knows it, 9th circus will affirm it.

 

[Bear96]

You have a interest in making it seem complex and "wild." It's not. Jury saw it, wake knows it, 9th circus will affirm it.

Yup.

It boils down to one simple issue: A group that agreed to binding arbitration but did not like the outcome is now trying ignore it to the detriment of the other side.

Courts do not like that.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Yup.

It boils down to one simple issue: A group that agreed to binding arbitration but did not like the outcome is now trying ignore it to the detriment of the other side.

Courts do not like that.

A legal entity, namely ALPA, agreed to binding arbitration. Even before the arbitration, and in the aftermath of two bankruptcies, ALPA had lost much of it's support in the east.

The Nic award was the catalyst, but all the ingredients were already in place.

So the issue is this. Is a legal entity bound by the agreement entered into by its predecessor. In this case a predecessor which was discredited, rejected and voted out of power by the rank and file.

I think it's a fascinating question. So do legal scholars, judges and attorneys.

And Courts just love it.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

"As a matter of law" some back east seem to be smoking a little to much of what seham is providing them. This messiah of yours is a fourth rate lawyer, who teaches sexual harassment seminars, and in his spare time is an RLA expert.

 

[Bear96]

So the issue is this. Is a legal entity bound by the agreement entered into by its predecessor.

OK, let's go with that for a moment.

It is still a simple issue. The answer is Yes.

I think it's a fascinating question. So do legal scholars, judges and attorneys.

I am not sure who besides you thinks that is a fascinating question. It is well-settled that successors are bound by the legal agreements entered into by predecessors, with a few exceptions, of course, none of which apply here.

Did the CBA governing the relationship between LCC and its pilots, which was negotiated and ratified by ALPA, go away when USAPA became the pilots' representative, even though ALPA was "discredited, rejected and voted out of power by the rank and file"? No? Why not?

But go on buying Seham's line (if that is where you are getting it from) that these are complicated legal issues which only millions of dollars in attorneys' fees can sort out. He really found a cash cow and a dream client with USAPA.

(Edited to fix typo: "But going on buying Seham's line . . . " to "But go on buying Seham's line . . .")

 

[Piedmont1984]

I am not sure who besides you thinks that is a fascinating question.


But going on buying Seham's line (if that is where you are getting it from) that these are complicated legal issues which only millions of dollars in attorneys' fees can sort out.

Well there you go. There's two of us right there :blink:

 

[Bear96]

Well there you go. There's two of us right there :blink:

?

 

[Richard]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Again we are deleting inflammatory posts and issuing suspensions--what part of no flaming, name calling or personal attacks don't you understand?

Also a final reminder, there is to be NO further discussion of any kind regarding which airline acquired the other--it seems some of you chose to ignore our last warning on the subject. It is NOT relevant to the topic at hand.

NO more warnings.

 

[Piedmont1984]

?

Bad attempt at humor.

However I do think this is a fascinating case being watched by many with considerable interest.

I concede that what we are trying to do may fail - and that we will learn as much very soon.

But I also believe that the principle of unionism - which states that seniority should be based on longevity, if not explicitly then implicitly - is worthy of being defended.

That is not being cowardly or whiny as some have accused.

Or to put it differently - what other way could we have fought this?