US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[Hate2fly]

Mr. Swan,

INTERNAL UNION matter


Can you explain why advancing the Majority at the expense of the Minority only rises to the level of an INTERNAL UNION matter? RLA seems to say its a bit more than that.

Two committee members fighting over which hotel to use in Tampa is an INTERNAL UNION matter.

Flip

Flip,

You guys out west have had all the answers. You told us that we wouldn't even get to the 9th! Well we did get to the 9th, and we will take it all the way to the Supremes if it comes to that. Time is on our side in the east.


B. Wilder thinks like we do back east and says your boy got it wrong! From the Baptiste & Wilder blog.

The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.

Good luck!

Hate

 

[cleardirect]

I wonder if maybe slappen Jack had ulterior motives?? He might have to possibly return to the line and fly. Then Chris Beebe, I guess he was happy to leave that 300k ALPA deal and have to actually fly a jet! How do you think that salary sat with us, or should have sat with you?? Stephan would have cut any deal to get himself into the ALPA feeding trough, including dumping the pension, selling out the MDA guys, or whatever else took to make sure the cash flow was ALPA positive. We all know this, had ALPA remained, we would have heard the same line we heard for years. Take it guys, sorry, but our lawyers say it is the best thing. Live to fight another day..... And you guys think dumping ALPA was all about the NIC? Dumping ALPA was the surest way to get rid of these leeches. They had laid one deal too many on us, and had they remained, the east pilots would absolutely have gotten up one day, and the NIC would be in full effect. We didn't trust them anymore, and we made them a SMOKING HOLE. And that, USAPA members, is the Rest Of the Story.......Good Day!

ALPA, ALPA, ALPA. Who cares anymore? That is almost two years ago when are you guys going to start living in the present?

Chris Bebe and his salary have nothing to do with the DFR or usapa getting all of us a contract. Jack Stephan former ALPA MEC chair spent two long days on the stand testifying FOR usapa while Steven Bradford the president failed to even show up in court. What was Bradford’s ulterior motive for avoiding the trial?

So ALPA is gone, what has usapa done for me lately/ever? Let’s try and stay focused, ALPA is gone usapa is the responsible party now. Try and remember that.

 

[cleardirect]

Flip,

You guys out west have had all the answers. You told us that we wouldn't even get to the 9th! Well we did get to the 9th, and we will take it all the way to the Supremes if it comes to that. Time is on our side in the east.


B. Wilder thinks like we do back east and says your boy got it wrong! From the Baptiste & Wilder blog.

The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.

Good luck!

Hate

There is a scary thought indeed. A lawyer that thinks like east pilots. You guys keep leaning on this one single blog. Any other east supporters out there? Where were the hoards labor unions clambering to file Amicus Curiae briefs? You know the AFL CIO, the steelworkers, coal miner all those unions that we were told that would not stand for the gold standard to be mis-used? Guess they were all absent that day.

But then again what else would you expect from a lawyer looking for a job. This was nothing more than an appeal to a bunch of angry pilots that are going to lose their case and probably fire their lawyer for leading them astray. Read that blog closely, it is a lawyer’s opinion just like Seham that was proven wrong. Also never in there does he say that B&W would be able to win that case or get you DOH.

So when the ninth comes back and agrees with judge Wake will the ninth also be wrong because some lawyer says so? Or if the ninth rules in favor of the west will B&W be just another lawyer that got it wrong?

I tell you what, take some of that big check that you guy got go find a competent attorney spend a little cash and have that attorney give you a written opinion of this case. You know like a second opinion from a doctor. Not one that has a vested interest in getting a job.

 

[cleardirect]

The common thread, obviously, is the word "arbitration". I have been saying for months now that public policy would be grievously harmed by any diminishment of the finality of any full and binding arbitration. There are many thousands of arbitrations every year and if their ability to provide a final resolution of the dispute were to be harmed than why have arbitration? Because the court system encourages private resolution of disputes and that includes arbitration. As Aqua said, the court system would break down if all the matters that are currently arbitrated had to be resolved via the court system.

Exactly correct.

Just take for example the LOA 93 snap back ARBITRATION coming up in Feb. If arbitration was just a suggested outcome and everyone had to wait for a federal trial date. Any guesses what year that grievance might be heard? I would say sometime after all of us are long retired.

The east pilots really need to start thinking more than 5 minutes into the future and start to understand the ramifications of what would happen if you had won.

 

[inverted]

This web board is really a self serving mechanism to pacify the insecurity and lack of understanding from the majority of the participants here.


The courts will rule soon. A merger or split is inevitable. Time for Parker is getting short (April will be a dark month in Financial speak). If the appeal prevails, Parker may have to split if a buying merger partner is not comfortable with the uncertainty of the amalgamation of a seniority agreement. If the west prevails, Parker will have to create a crisis to move the group forward with an agreement to include the NIC.


Although the " pay freeze issue" may have some validity, it will never see the light of day. One of the above scenarios will take place before an arbitrator will rule on the pay issue. Parker and the boys are controlling the time line. Parker is ready to activate his plan as soon as the 9th rules. Won't be long now.


My overall thought....this pilot group(east and west) has and will continue to drag down or limit other pilot contracts in the future. We are not deserving to be in the industry....we are an anchor. Our liquidation would do the industry a favor.

Inverted

 

[aquagreen73s]

Flip,

You guys out west have had all the answers. You told us that we wouldn't even get to the 9th! Well we did get to the 9th, and we will take it all the way to the Supremes if it comes to that. Time is on our side in the east.


B. Wilder thinks like we do back east and says your boy got it wrong! From the Baptiste & Wilder blog.Good luck!

Hate

Heck, I'll jump in there too and troll for business! I'm licensed in two states and I also say Wake got it wrong. You East pilots have a slam dunk of a case! If you lose, it'll be SSM&P's fault as the law is clearly on your side. Call me, at 1-999-AQUA-LAW, and I will get you what you deserve! That's One, Nine Nine Nine Aqua Law. DON'T LET THE GOLD STANDARD TURN INTO LEAD!

 

[hp_fa]

Heck, I'll jump in there too and troll for business! I'm licensed in two states and I also say Wake got it wrong. You East pilots have a slam dunk of a case! If you lose, it'll be SSM&P's fault as the law is clearly on your side. Call me, at 1-999-AQUA-LAW, and I will get you what you deserve! That's One, Nine Nine Nine Aqua Law. DON'T LET THE GOLD STANDARD TURN INTO LEAD!

You have had too much or too little caffeine.

 

[aquagreen73s]

You have had too much or too little caffeine.

One can never have too much coffee in the morning. Got the second pot of SB bold Espresso Blend brewing now!

 

[aquagreen73s]

Looking further, I ask you this, as you are reaching deep into the RLA and labor law. What does a medical malpractice judgement or arbitration have to do with a labor arbitration? Is this an INTERNAL UNION matter, or a civil matter? I have yet to see the RLA ever mentioned in a medical arbitration. I am not saying you have not, but if you have, please cite. Thanks.

The sanctity of arbitrations is uniform and it runs across the entire judicial spectrum. There is a way to challenge arbitrations and you guys tried that already in the DC Circuit Court, to no avail. Here's something from the Sanderson case to sink your teeth into:

"Second, if the plaintiffs thought the arbitration award invalid because rendered in violation of the union's constitution and merger policy statement, the way to raise the point was to challenge the award in court, which they had six months to do. United Independent Flight Officers, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 756 F.2d 1262, 1269-73 (7th Cir.1985). They have mounted a collateral attack on the award without even trying to bring themselves within the narrow limits of the rules that permit such attacks."

Mind you, that's the 7th Circuit speaking over 20 years ago and it sounds a lot like what Judge Wake is saying now, doesn't it . . .

 

[nic4us]

Actually, it was the West's attorney, Mr. Freund that said that. After which he was promptly "let go".

Freund was not "let go". However, his services were not used in the DFR case, as the West hired a law firm with a different strategy of how to move forward.

Freund is still around, and you can see his name on current legal correspondence. He represents the AWAPPA board members in the RICO suit. But, he is not the one usapa has to worry about. The AWAPPA folks might be willing to settle.

Now, any of the individuals usapa has libeled in their malicious suit, thats whose lawyer with which usapa should have concern. Many multi-millions worth of concern.

Just as an aside. Freund refered to the Nic as a "proposal" prior to ALPA's handing that "proposal" to the company for acceptance. Per the TA, once accepted by the company, it is no longer a "proposal". I have a nice letter from Parker acknowledging the companies acceptance of the Nic as the seniority list for LCC.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Freund was not "let go". However, his services were not used in the DFR case, as the West hired a law firm with a different strategy of how to move forward.

Freund is still around, and you can see his name on current legal correspondence. He represents the AWAPPA board members in the RICO suit. But, he is not the one usapa has to worry about. The AWAPPA folks might be willing to settle.

Now, any of the individuals usapa has libeled in their malicious suit, thats whose lawyer with which usapa should have concern. Many multi-millions worth of concern.

Just as an aside. Freund refered to the Nic as a "proposal" prior to ALPA's handing that "proposal" to the company for acceptance. Per the TA, once accepted by the company, it is no longer a "proposal". I have a nice letter from Parker acknowledging the companies acceptance of the Nic as the seniority list for LCC.

Wrong on all counts. It's just a proposal until it is included in a ratified contract. And oh, by the way, the company is still free to offer whatever they want. They are not at all bound by the court order. And the fact that the company accepted it as required by a court ruling which is soon to be overturned will void that whole concept.

By the way, filing a lawsuit, no matter how embarrassing it is to the defendants, does not constitute libel. If your lawyer told you that, then you really need a new one. And, better do it soon.

 

[aquagreen73s]

By the way, filing a lawsuit, no matter how embarrassing it is to the defendants, does not constitute libel. If your lawyer told you that, then you really need a new one. And, better do it soon.

Wrong. It's called malicious prosecution. Add to that all the bombast that called the RICO defendants criminals, etc., and you have libel, slander, and perhaps even slander per se if the statements can be connected to the defendants' employment. We're talking about a totem pole of tortious liability that the actors in USAPA have created for themselves - personally.

 

[nic4us]

The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.

Hate

Wilder would have a point if his circular logic did not leave out the obvious.

First and foremost, "ALPA merger policy is only an internal union procedure". Well, yeah, but once everyone signs contracts to abide by its results, its outcome becomes legally enforcable under the RLA and in the Federal courts system.

Second, but even more notable, "It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways". Look again Mr. I am a lawyer looking for work, who did not bother to read the CBA. Specifically, section 1. F. 2. uh, guess you can pull your foot out of your mouth now. There it is in contractual black and white, in the CBA, how seniority will be integrated. I am betting there is a similar paragraph in the east CBA.

Finally, "(which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations)" yeah, and I am starting to wonder if you are a real lawyer.

 

[Black Swan]

The common thread, obviously, is the word "arbitration". I have been saying for months now that public policy would be grievously harmed by any diminishment of the finality of any full and binding arbitration. There are many thousands of arbitrations every year and if their ability to provide a final resolution of the dispute were to be harmed than why have arbitration? Because the court system encourages private resolution of disputes and that includes arbitration. As Aqua said, the court system would break down if all the matters that are currently arbitrated had to be resolved via the court system.

hp fa: Your comebacks are very interesting and well versed. My opinion- you guys absolutely hit the home run. The problem is, your runner didn't get to tag home plate on the way back. Did not FAIL to tag home plate. The plate was moved.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Wrong. It's called malicious prosecution. Add to that all the bombast that called the RICO defendants criminals, etc., and you have libel, slander, and perhaps even slander per se if the statements can be connected to the defendants' employment. We're talking about a totem pole of tortious liability that the actors in USAPA have created for themselves - personally.

Good luck with THAT! Sounds like you must be one of 'em. A little sensitive are we?