Here are a few quotes from the order:
"However, at the time of the merger, US Airways ....was insolvent and operating in bankruptcy reorganization......America West, by contrast, was in stronger financial condition, and ALL of it's pilots were on active status". (NO more spin left on that point)
"In this case, however, the allegations state in specific terms that the union has taken impermissable measures to avoid representing West pilots fairly"
"A union breaches this duty when its conduct toward a member is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith". (I guess Theur might need a plan B afterall)
"Irrespective of whether seniority rights "vest" in a propietary sense, a union may not arbitrarily abridge those rights AFTER a merger soley for the sake of political expediency".
"....the unions position flies against the headwind of cases from other circuts". "The DC Circut has held that a union breaches its duty of fair representaion when it arbitrarily adopts and announces a bargaining policy on seniority merger motivated only be a desire to win the votes of a majority of the employees".
"even more to the point, the Seventh Circut has rejected in dictum the defense that USAPA offers for its conduct".
"ALPA's arbitration system met a demand for FINALITY and FAIRNESS in a contentious labor environment".
The judge cited a Supreme Court dictum that states in part....."We think that Congress, in enacting the Railway Labor Act and authorizing a labor union, chosen by the majority of the craft, to represent the craft, did not intend to confer plenary power upon the union to sacrifice, for the the benefit of its members, rights of the minority of the craft, without imposing on it any duty to protect the minority".
""Minority rights imply a limitation on rights of the majority....the union majority may not discriminate against certain members without a rational basis for doing so, grounded in the aggregate welfare of its employees".
In a footnote on page 13...."on this point, counsel for USAPA is admonished that unpublished dispositions and orders of the Ninth Circut issued before January 1, 2007, are not precedent and may not be cited to the courts of this circut".
This thing goes on and on...but the clif notes are this:
We have a case...a GOOD case. No injunction...YET, but he reservres the right for the future. The judge has serious questions as to the legality of how USAPA was formed. The company is NOT off the hook, although he dismissed their part of the case, he reserves the right to once again name them if, during discovery or future events he thinks collution has occurred. (I bet Bular is erasing his hard drive as I type)
He doesn't think much of seeham, or USAPA's thinly veiled discrimination.
