Although I have saved the Earth many times, and am so smart and good looking that I was able to marry a stunning 19 year old blond while in my early 40s, I still do not have the ability to look into the future. I have actually read the Seham and Company USAPA brief to the 9th Circuit and am very pleased with it. I don’t say that to elicit any catcalls or groans, that is simply my opinion. Being one of the smartest men in the world, I know that simply “saying I am right†enough times will have no bearing on the outcome.
Always planning for the worst, I thought I would comment on what the world of Labor might look like in this fine America if USAPA suffers a total and humiliating defeat in the chambers of the 9th Circuit tribunal. Assuming a complete win by the Addington litigants, and not addressing the singular issues at hand (who saved who, final and binding, etc.) here are a few ponderings as to how things might change.
If the case is found “ripe†then the conflict with the NC Breeger pilots (Empire Seniority) might be reversed. The Breeger ruling in NC might now be considered out of line with the ruling of the San Francisco Court..would it now also be appealed for possible trial on the inclusion of original Empire hire dates completely rearranging the USAPA seniority list? The case would still have to make the hurdle of changing a list already voted by the membership into Section 22. That trial could occur even without a change in the ripeness requirement. Eventually a seniority list will be voted on by the membership and incorporated into the contract, so they (Breeger) might indeed have their day in court, even if it only reaches the courthouse steps.
All unions would now be subject to DFR lawsuits during contract negotiations. Every time a union put something across the table that only reflects the majority opinion of the union members (yes, unions are run by majorities) negotiations would come to a halt while the DFR issues are resolved. Babtiste and Wilder already alluded to this on their blog, so please do not think my outhouse lawyer skills have somehow taken on mythic proportions! But, can you say “gridlock?â€
Speaking of “majorities†in general, the law of the land would now be some sort of can’t we all just get along governance. Any large group within a union would not be able to do anything that did not meet the total needs of every member. Of course that would be the goal of any union, but when the choices are made in this new world that don’t quite meet that standard-- DFR!
DOH is now gone, or perhaps on the way out. Unions and companies might freely start to use methods other than seniority to select left seaters. Maybe that last CQT did not go so well, better stay in the right seat a few more years! Or you called in sick just a few too many times (better shape up!) Extreme? Yes. A little stretch? Yes also, but hey, look who is talking here!
Want to start a new union? During that first year you have to collect cards, you current union begins to lay land mines. These would simply be changes to internal policy. New unions, after winning in an NMB election, would be bound by the internal policy procedures and decisions of the union that came before. I am not talking about RLA contracts here. Just internal policy.
Also, when you start to campaign and collect cards, you better watch your p’s and q’s! Anything you say and do will be held as a standard that the new union must accept and be responsible for. Got a wild email out there? Change your mind about your CBL’s halfway through?—DFR, here we come!
Finally, assuming you do win the NMB election, you will be taken to court in a DFR for what your intents were. No matter a majority of the pilots at your airline vote you in, if your personal intent was to do one thing or another…DFR! In fact, this will be the law of the land now, any new union can now be held accountable to all actions and intent prior to certification. You can be sued as a union for something you did before becoming said union.
I have been to the Negative Zone more than once, and it is not somewhere I want to revisit! I look forward to the brief the opposition will supply soon, and you can be sure I will not be attacking the professionalism of the lawyers involved. I also won’t be hurling mud over day to day sausage making in the internal workings of the case. I look forward to the briefs, and personally hope there are indeed oral arguments in December. I don’t have a clue if it would mean anything either way if they pass on the orals. I simply don’t know.
RR