US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/13-- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Metroyet]

This is the new threat. If the DJ says only NIC. We elect ALPA back on property and go back to dual ratification.

Right. Remember when the AFOC got the DOL to declare a single carrier status? Do you actually think they'll reverse that to accommodate you guys? Wrong again. Dual ratification is up in smoke like so much cash you've forever lost for yourselves and your families.

 

[nic4us]

Yes USAPA can be sued for DFR by the West pilots. Federal court cases can take up to 15 years with appeals. DFRII will likely take more than 10 years for final resolution at which point 90% of East pilots will have retired and the seniority dispute will be meaningless.

underpants

And, an injunction barring implementation of said contract will take about 20 minutes.

So there you have the predicament the company finds itself in. Waste years negotiating a contract for naught. The company states as much in their request for DJ.

See underpants. Everyone already knows that usapa's only tactic is to outspend and delay the Addington class.

Well, justice delayed is justice denied, and Seham's little game is coming to a close.

There will be no DOH contract implemented.

The Nic will be the seniority list in the first implemented contract at LCC, if it ever happens. If it does not happen, the Nic is still the only combined seniority list accepted at LCC in the event of future merger, fragmentation, or bankruptcy forced consolidation.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Nic4 and Calloway,

We know for sure that all participants in this circus will behave rationally. We know for sure the company and the courts as well as the NMB will behave rationally by following their respective mandates. The Nic award would be an aggregate billion dollar windfall for West pilots so they will rationally vigorously try any reasonable or unreasonable action to try to collect it and conversely the East pilots facing a collective billion dollar loss will use any and all available means to prevent it.

The problem is not people behaving rationally it is people behaving unintelligently by not understanding the consequences of their actions. It is not irrational to try to rob a bank as Willie Sutton said "that's where the money is", but it is dumb not to consider the odds of success and the consequences of getting caught or killed in the attempt. That is why most people don't rob banks.

Likewise it is not irrational for West pilots to try to cash the Nic lottery ticket but you must also intelligently consider the extremely long odds of success and whether you are willing to accept all the adverse consequences of nearly certain failure.

For the East pilots the odds of successfully voting in a fair DOH contract is very high. The NMB has a historical 100% success rate achieving contract agreements. The alternative consequences of failure would be perfectly acceptable status quo seniority of continued separate operations with separate DOH contracts. There is very little if any risk for the East pilots to rationally pursue an industry standard contract with fair and equitable seniority integration.

underpants

 

[767jetz]

The problem... is people behaving unintelligently by not understanding the consequences of their actions. It is not irrational to try to rob a bank as Willie Sutton said "that's where the money is", but it is dumb not to consider the odds of success and the consequences of getting caught or killed in the attempt. That is why most people don't rob banks.

Oh, the irony in that statement, coming from the east. BTW, that is also why most people don't try to illegally circumvent the result of binding arbitration. (You know.. Consequence and all that.)

...you must also intelligently consider the extremely long odds of success and whether you are willing to accept all the adverse consequences of nearly certain failure.

Long odds??? Certain failure??? (Not even close.) Better call your USAPA reps and compel them to stop resisting the company's DJ suit at your expense then, lest they waste more time and money on something that has the inevitable outcome you predict.

And what would be the said consequence for fighting to uphold the law and resist the illegal action of USAPA? (illegal as in failure of their DFR and using the majority to force a detrimental outcome on the minority using clearly biased "negotiators" instead of a neutral third party.)

The alternative consequences of failure would be perfectly acceptable status quo

There is very little if any risk for the East pilots

I'm sure this is the rational of the junior east pilots who stand to gain substantially by going from furloughed or very junior to being ahead of west captains overnight. However, once the LOA 93 pay restoration is lost, watch how quickly the east captains who are looking at retiring on LOA 93 desert you to either vote in a Nic contract or join the card drive to oust USAPA.

 

[Al Legheny]

One, you are removing the context of the decision. US Airways was a defendant in that case and filed a Motion to Dismiss because it wasn't a party to the injunctive relief claims and had committed no torts against the Addington plaintiffs, so dismissal was proper because the court did lack subject matter jurisdiction over the company in those claims.

Two, as others have said, all the rulings made by Judge Wake in Addington v. USAPA are gone. Poof. Gone. This is a new case and the company is the plaintiff seeking declaratory relief.

An interesting point, however subject matter jurisdiction is not dependant on what type of hat the party wears; plaintiff or defendant. Subject Matter Jurisdiction pertains to whether or not the court has any authority to decide the dispute in question. Judge Wake has alreday dismissed on those grounds. While you are correct that the Addington litigation is no longer pending and therefore moot, subject matter jurisdiction was still found to be lacking and will likely be found again.

Consider; the company's complaint depends upon the findings of a jury trial that has been dismissed and the actions of the 9th did not clarify the merits of this case. Now there is no case and therefore there is no dispute over subject matter jurisdiction, there simply is no dispute to have a jurisdictional argument over.

The parties are free to bargain and are always subject to the duty of fair representation.


SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Jurisdiction

Subject matter is the cause, the object, the thing in dispute.

The authority of a court to decide a particular type of case is called subject- matter jurisdictionand is is set by the federal or state Constitution, or by state statutes.

It is a fatal objection to the jurisdiction of the court when it has not cognizance of the subject-matter of the action; as, if a cause exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction were brought in a court of common law, or a criminal proceeding in a court having jurisdiction of civil cases only. In such case, neither a plea to the jurisdiction, nor any other plea would be required to oust the court of jurisdiction. The cause might be dismissed upon motion, by the court, ex officio.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's authority to decide the issue in controversy such as a contracts issue, or a civil rights issue. State courts have general jurisdiction, meaning that they can hear any controversy except those prohibited by state law (some states, for example, deny subject matter jurisdiction for a case that does not involve state citizens and did not take place in the state) and those allocated to federal courts of exclusive jurisdiction such as bankruptcy issues (see 28 U.S.C. § 1334). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction in that they can only hear cases that fall both within the scope defined by the Constitution in Article III Section 2 and Congressional statutes (See 28 U.S.C. §1251, §1253, §1331, §1332).

Congressional Statutes, such as the Railway Labor Act prevent the courts from interfering.

It is a fatal objection to the jurisdiction of the court when it has not cognizance of the subject-matter of the action, as in the Railway Labor Act, where congress specifically designated the System Board of Adjustment to hear complaints about the interpretation of the agreemnt between the parties, like the Ttransition Agreement.

Remember, the company filed its action prior to the issuance of the mandate and the final dimisal of Addington. They are now referencing a case that doesn't exist, and a decision from the appeals that doesen't help them clarify this non existant case. There is no active controversy between the parties pending in the courts. There is only the company's request clarify a case which no longer exists. The court has no specific authority to decide the case anyway under the definition of subject matter jurisdiction and the Railway Labor Act.

Judge Silver will likely dismiss.

 

[Freebird]

It means Seeham will make a lot more money next time around.

Record profits and the East is still the lowest paid pilot group.

Nice job USAPA.


USAPA = Bottom of the barrel and proud.

 

[Metroyet]

For the East pilots the odds of successfully voting in a fair DOH contract is very high.

NO Kidding??!!

That was proven to be illegal once. If the DJ doesn't put the final nail in your fantasy, DFR2.0 will.

 

[Metroyet]

An interesting point, however subject matter jurisdiction is not dependant on what type of hat the party wears; plaintiff or defendant. Subject Matter Jurisdiction pertains to whether or not the court has any authority to decide the dispute in question. Judge Wake has alreday dismissed on those grounds. While you are correct that the Addington litigation is no longer pending and therefore moot, subject matter jurisdiction was still found to be lacking and will likely be found again.

Consider; the company's complaint depends upon the findings of a jury trial that has been dismissed and the actions of the 9th did not clarify the merits of this case. Now there is no case and therefore there is no dispute over subject matter jurisdiction, there simply is no dispute to have a jurisdictional argument over.

The parties are free to bargain and are always subject to the duty of fair representation.


SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Jurisdiction

Subject matter is the cause, the object, the thing in dispute.

The authority of a court to decide a particular type of case is called subject- matter jurisdictionand is is set by the federal or state Constitution, or by state statutes.

It is a fatal objection to the jurisdiction of the court when it has not cognizance of the subject-matter of the action; as, if a cause exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction were brought in a court of common law, or a criminal proceeding in a court having jurisdiction of civil cases only. In such case, neither a plea to the jurisdiction, nor any other plea would be required to oust the court of jurisdiction. The cause might be dismissed upon motion, by the court, ex officio.

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's authority to decide the issue in controversy such as a contracts issue, or a civil rights issue. State courts have general jurisdiction, meaning that they can hear any controversy except those prohibited by state law (some states, for example, deny subject matter jurisdiction for a case that does not involve state citizens and did not take place in the state) and those allocated to federal courts of exclusive jurisdiction such as bankruptcy issues (see 28 U.S.C. § 1334). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction in that they can only hear cases that fall both within the scope defined by the Constitution in Article III Section 2 and Congressional statutes (See 28 U.S.C. §1251, §1253, §1331, §1332).

Congressional Statutes, such as the Railway Labor Act prevent the courts from interfering.

It is a fatal objection to the jurisdiction of the court when it has not cognizance of the subject-matter of the action, as in the Railway Labor Act, where congress specifically designated the System Board of Adjustment to hear complaints about the interpretation of the agreemnt between the parties, like the Ttransition Agreement.

Remember, the company filed its action prior to the issuance of the mandate and the final dimisal of Addington. They are now referencing a case that doesn't exist, and a decision from the appeals that doesen't help them clarify this non existant case. There is no active controversy between the parties pending in the courts. There is only the company's request clarify a case which no longer exists. The court has no specific authority to decide the case anyway under the definition of subject matter jurisdiction and the Railway Labor Act.

Judge Silver will likely dismiss.

DFR is a REAL THING and it lives OUTSIDE the system board and the Railway Labor Act. You've been there once before remember? You'll more than likely be there again soon enough.

 

[Phoenix]

Untrue - The east list is not purely DOH today


Untrue - The company has all the leverage because USAPA yielded it to them. Also, how many east pilots would have to join in with the west pilots to ratify a new JCBA using NIC?


Untrue - USAPA is bound by the agreements made by the pilots prior to the formation of USAPA. How big is the membership mandate? What was the last vote count that determined a DOH mandate? Finally, no DFR would be valid for ussing the NIC - it was the result of binding arbitration, a East DFR would get tossed.


Unfounded - there is no proof that it would undoutedly get rejected.


Untrue- the NMB can resolve this and force the NIC without the east pilots' ratification.


Untrue - the east pilots haven't been completely neutral yet. Also, if the choice is LOA93 with no possibility of DOH or NIC plus a non-banruptcy contract pay rate, you can expect many east pilots to vote for a pay raise with the NIC.


Unfounded - how long did the last DFR take? What data do you have to support your claim of a 15-year DFR process?

That's quite a reply. Can I purchase a subscription or at least sign up for the RSS feed?

 

[BoeingBoy]

The courts will continue to provide the exact same answers:

No court jurisdiction over RLA minor contract interpretation disputes and

A DFR claim is not a minor dispute, so courts have jurisdiction.

No court jurisdiction to determine DFR because of lack of ripeness due to unknown future contingencies

But the instant a contract without the Nic is ratified, the case becomes ripe and the court has jurisdiction. That "unquestionably ripe" thing the 9th mentioned.

There is no advantage to East pilots to implement USAPA's DOH integration proposal or as an alternative maintain the DOH status quo on seniority which is an extremely strong indication if not proof that USAPA's DOH proposal is fair and equitable.

DFR exists because deciding fairness isn't up to the union or the majority. The court, and a jury if USAPA wants one, will decide. How long did that take last time?

The declaratory judgment is strictly asking for a ruling that says what the company has to do to not be a defendant in a hybrid DFR suit. No matter which of the three possibilities the court chooses, the company is off the hook. USAPA, on the other hand, is still very much on the hook for a DFR suit if it abandons the Nic award regardless of how the court rules in the DJ.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

An interesting point, however subject matter jurisdiction is not dependant on what type of hat the party wears; plaintiff or defendant. Subject Matter Jurisdiction pertains to whether or not the court has any authority to decide the dispute in question. Judge Wake has alreday dismissed on those grounds. While you are correct that the Addington litigation is no longer pending and therefore moot, subject matter jurisdiction was still found to be lacking and will likely be found again.

Sure it is dependent on what hat one wears. A court will only view the question of subject matter jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff would not file one of them except when their is a counterclaim against them. Judge Wake had accepted subject matter jurisdiction insofar as he had not accepted USAPA's claim that the court lacked jurisdiction become the System Board had sole jurisdiction. You could argue that the 9th never ruled on that, ruling instead that the case was not ripe and therefore they needed no further examination of the issues. So the only hint we have as to subject matter jurisdiction, as it existed in the DFR case, was from Judge Wake saying that the court did have subject matter jurisdiction. Now Judge Silver will get to make her own rulings on jurisdiction.

Consider; the company's complaint depends upon the findings of a jury trial that has been dismissed and the actions of the 9th did not clarify the merits of this case. Now there is no case and therefore there is no dispute over subject matter jurisdiction, there simply is no dispute to have a jurisdictional argument over.

The Company merely needs to amend their Complaint to remove any references to Addington v. USAPA. They can probably change it so that the Court is aware of Addington v. USAPA and that the 9th ordered it dismissed for lack of ripeness. However the Company's suit is for declaratory relief, neither for injunctive relief or tortious damages. The question of subject matter jurisdiction is wholly different and I will be surprised if the case fails for subject matter jurisdiction.

Remember, the company filed its action prior to the issuance of the mandate and the final dimisal of Addington. They are now referencing a case that doesn't exist, and a decision from the appeals that doesen't help them clarify this non existant case. There is no active controversy between the parties pending in the courts. There is only the company's request clarify a case which no longer exists. The court has no specific authority to decide the case anyway under the definition of subject matter jurisdiction and the Railway Labor Act.

Judge Silver will likely dismiss.

Again, I expect an Amended Complaint to resolve the factual errors in the Complaint for Declaratory Relief so that it conforms to the newly revised fact regarding the lack of ripeness in Addington v USAPA. The fact that Addington was not ripe does not in any way spell doom for the US Airways case. It is a wholly different issue that on its face has nothing to do with the DFR case. It relies on completely different theories of law.

I do not believe that Judge Silver is likely to dismiss the Company's Complaint. The bigger and better question will be will she deem the Addington Cross-Claim to be now ripe because of the change in circumstances from just a few months ago? I have no idea how that will play out as of now but it certainly will be interesting.

 

[luvthe9]

Of course it starts with a clean slate. But when findings of fact and depositions occur in DFR II, they better be identical to those of DFR I, or the west only needs to reference those previous facts to prove a change in story.

So the evidence will be substantially the same, except for anything new that has transpired since the first DFR case, and perhaps a different judge allowing or disallowing certain pieces of evidence. And my guess is that Seham will be kept on a shorter leash by the court the next time. The Nic will not be on trial (same as before). The biggest difference will be that in DFR II it will certainly be ripe. With the rest of the strategy being substantially the same, and with the haste at which USAPA was found guilty last time, it sure looks like USAPA's chances in DFR II are not good.

I'm not saying it's a sure thing. Nothing has been a sure thing since day one. But it's an option I'm sure USAPA, even in all the bravado and chest pounding, is afraid of and wants to avoid.

But all this talk of DFR II is very premature, because if the company is told in the Declaratory Judgment that they must use Nic, it's GAME OVER. If not, it only means that they are not legally on the hook if they go down a different path. They still may dig in their heals and stick with Nic. As long as they are bargaining in good faith, the NMB will not release anyone to self help. And USAPA has no leverage to work with. And DFR II still looms in the future as the West's big hammer. No matter what happens in court, USAPA has a Duty of Fair Representation to the West.

Everyone is reading so much into the Declaratory Judgment. It seems to be lost on the East that even before the company filed this case, there was still a clear path set for the west, leading to Nic or DFR II. Nothing has changed there. The DJ is only a possible end game for the West to expedite the inevitable implementation of Nic. There is little down side for them, and a lot of down side for USAPA's stall/delay/separate ops forever game plan. Which is why they are fighting it so hard. The only real victory for USAPA would be if Judge Silver orders the company to use DOH instead of Nic. That will never happen.

So if the DJ is dismissed, the west goes back to plan A. If the DJ says the company is free to negotiate whatever they can with USAPA and will be held harmless, the west goes back to plan A. But if the DJ says the only way for the company to be held harmless is to use the Nic, and anything else they do at their own peril, then again... it's Game Over.

How can you continue to wave the west DFR whatever number flag all the time? The entire issue was launched out into the trash in Addington. Most of us on this board have got a clear understanding that Addington means NOTHING anymore. Could we please move on to pertinent issues other than a case that has no meaning to anyone except you please. Even Wake knows it.So for you to endlessly postulate about how the west is clearly going to get a ripe case has no ground here, and we all know it. If you can't get it, please re read it. It is abundantly clear to most everyone what CLEAN SLATE means. It means it was erased. This is proven by fact, no matter how many times it is said. There is no inevitable implementation of the Nic. There is only a minute chance, and I am being generous here. We all know the west will sue. They sue constantly. They lose constantly. Nobody even pays any mind to the threat of a west suit. It is as sure as the sunrise. Winning those suits? They are striking out constantly and wasting millions. By the way, USAPA was not found guilty. It was erased. Clean slate.

 

[luvthe9]

Oh, the irony in that statement, coming from the east. BTW, that is also why most people don't try to illegally circumvent the result of binding arbitration. (You know.. Consequence and all that.)



Long odds??? Certain failure??? (Not even close.) Better call your USAPA reps and compel them to stop resisting the company's DJ suit at your expense then, lest they waste more time and money on something that has the inevitable outcome you predict.

And what would be the said consequence for fighting to uphold the law and resist the illegal action of USAPA? (illegal as in failure of their DFR and using the majority to force a detrimental outcome on the minority using clearly biased "negotiators" instead of a neutral third party.)



I'm sure this is the rational of the junior east pilots who stand to gain substantially by going from furloughed or very junior to being ahead of west captains overnight. However, once the LOA 93 pay restoration is lost, watch how quickly the east captains who are looking at retiring on LOA 93 desert you to either vote in a Nic contract or join the card drive to oust USAPA.

You state USAPA is ILLEGALLY trying to circumvent binding arbitration. What statute have they illegally violated? I have looked and there is nothing illegal.

 

[Captain Underpants]

A DFR claim is not a minor dispute, so courts have jurisdiction.

But the instant a contract without the Nic is ratified, the case becomes ripe and the court has jurisdiction. That "unquestionably ripe" thing the 9th mentioned.

DFR exists because deciding fairness isn't up to the union or the majority. The court, and a jury if USAPA wants one, will decide. How long did that take last time?

The declaratory judgment is strictly asking for a ruling that says what the company has to do to not be a defendant in a hybrid DFR suit. No matter which of the three possibilities the court chooses, the company is off the hook. USAPA, on the other hand, is still very much on the hook for a DFR suit if it abandons the Nic award regardless of how the court rules in the DJ.

Jim

Ok Jim we will patiently wait for DFRII to be filed sometime in the year 201?. In the mean time I hope you don't mind if we all carry on with more important matters.

underpants

 

[Pi brat]

A DFR claim is not a minor dispute, so courts have jurisdiction.



But the instant a contract without the Nic is ratified, the case becomes ripe and the court has jurisdiction. That "unquestionably ripe" thing the 9th mentioned.



DFR exists because deciding fairness isn't up to the union or the majority. The court, and a jury if USAPA wants one, will decide. How long did that take last time?

The declaratory judgment is strictly asking for a ruling that says what the company has to do to not be a defendant in a hybrid DFR suit. No matter which of the three possibilities the court chooses, the company is off the hook. USAPA, on the other hand, is still very much on the hook for a DFR suit if it abandons the Nic award regardless of how the court rules in the DJ.

Jim

I agree and can't understand why the west pilots don't do everything they can to get to that point.