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

[nycbusdriver]

Both state courts and federal courts strongly adhere to arbitration rulings when done under any contractual or consensual agreement of the parties.

Seriously? Are you really questioning this basic priniciple?

Can someone cite some real cases, or should we just take everybody's word for it? I'm curious to see on which cases you three are basing your argument, and how closely those cases resemble the situation in front of us right now.

So.

Can you cite some cases, or is it all simply bloviation?

 

[BoeingBoy]

The question isn't about the Nic being fair. It's about the ratified list being within a wide range of reasonableness.

Abandoning a solution accepted as fair by courts for one that favors the East at the expense of the West - I bet Seeham will tell you it's a slam dunk if he's collecting millions as long as the gravy train lasts. Maybe he can argue that SCOTUS is biased against USAPA since SCOTUS adopted a 3-prong test of DFR long ago.

Jim

 

[767jetz]

so when the 9th says it does not necessarily have to be in the deal, and you say it is. Guess who we believe?

Actually, the ninth only said "not ripe." And that was in reference to Addington vs USAPA. The 9th never said anything to the company. New day. New case. New plaintiff. Judge Silver very well may say that using Nic is the only way the company can avoid legal jeopardy. If that happens it's game over.

 

[Phoenix]

Which courts? Which cases?

Countless couts, of course! Multitudes of courts, so many that almost every court in every circumstance... but not enough of the total of them to say EVERY court and case.

In ordinary circumstances most courts do give deference to arbitrated rulings.. perhaps that is why Wake went to such great lengths to ensure the Nic became the injunction. It was a valiant effort and probably seemed like the only legitimate conclusion so he had to ensure the jury didn't get any facts that would obscure the conclusion he passionately believed in.

If the 9th had shared the same opinion as Wake, that the Nic was the only lawful solution to the internal union dispute, then it would have upheld Wake's injunction. (That would be an exception to the idea that ALL courts in ALL cases giver deference to arbitrated solutions. )

Some folks are gleeful to point out that there is no longer a West and East to negotiate, but they want to then claim that therefore the past negotiation (Nic) is the only solution. But of course the 9th made it perfectly clear that negotiations will continue and it is abundantly obvious that the negotiations are between the company and USAPA, in which USAPA is responsible to meet the requirements of their duty to fairly represent. And the 9th sent the shot across the bow by making the SCOTUS standard plainly clear to USAPA should they have any thoughts of breaching their duty to fairly represent all pilots.

No shots across the company bow!

Declaratory judgement complete.

 

[mikey60]

Abandoning a solution accepted as fair by courts for one that favors the East at the expense of the West - I bet Seeham will tell you it's a slam dunk if he's collecting millions as long as the gravy train lasts. Maybe he can argue that SCOTUS is biased against USAPA since SCOTUS adopted a 3-prong test of DFR long ago.

Jim

jim

What solution was accepted by the courts?

 

[N924PS]

We did not start USAPA with that specific intent. Prove it. You can't and you know it. But please go ahead and try. Jacobs will make a fool of the west and himself again. I wonder what nice gem that court and judge will clarify this time? Every time the west takes USAPA to court, they make the case for USAPA. This will be more of the same.

I could state, on a witness stand if necessary, that the first time I was appproached during the "card drive" I was asked to sign the card as the only way "we have a chance of overturning the Nicolau Award".

Further, as a guest at the $eham road show at the PHL Marriott, 90% of the presentation was devoted to getting out of the Nic by overthrowing ALPA.

I'm sure the West has access to all the USAPA videos devoted to just that and will be more than happy to play them for the next judge and jury. And Bradford will be on the stand under oath this time.

Stating that USAPA was not started with the specific intent of overturning the Nicolau Award is a complete lie.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Logged on tonight to bid for vacation and had the pleasant surprise of 27 days available. Wow. So I bid to take all 27 in one string. Anyone on the West know what the daily pay rate is for vacation?

 

[nic4us]

Logged on tonight to bid for vacation and had the pleasant surprise of 27 days available. Wow. So I bid to take all 27 in one string. Anyone on the West know what the daily pay rate is for vacation?

Not certain but I think it is 3:40. 27 days will be around 98:40 or so pay if it is all in one month. You should check to make sure it is not 3:45, that would take you over 99 hours, which can carryover pay, and that may not be what you want to do.

Never tried it but if I put all 31 days into one month the pay would go way over 99 and cause problems. I bid 4 seperate weeks and the extra days as a seperate week, usually end up with 5 two week or better breaks. Let me guess, you want the entire month of july? Got some Alaska plans next year?


Here is a question for the board.

Why is it Seham sends Granath to represent his clients in front of a judge, yet has the time to go to Phoenix for a DOH dog and pony show that he has no real bussiness attending?

 

[luvthe9]

Actually, the ninth only said "not ripe." And that was in reference to Addington vs USAPA. The 9th never said anything to the company. New day. New case. New plaintiff. Judge Silver very well may say that using Nic is the only way the company can avoid legal jeopardy. If that happens it's game over.

They did not just say not ripe. This is a total falsehood.

 

[Bear96]

So.

Can you cite some cases, or is it all simply bloviation?

Wow. I can't believe that at this stage there is still confusion about (or refusal to accept) this basic point about arbitration.

But here goes. From the Supreme Court, United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=484&page=29

Key language:

"The courts are not authorized to consider the merits of an award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or misinterpretation of the [agreement] . . . Because the parties have contracted to have disputes settled by an arbitrator chosen by them rather than by a judge, it is the arbitrator's view of the facts and of the meaning of the [agreement] that they have agreed to accept. Courts thus do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts . . . [A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably constructing or applying the [agreement] and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious errors does not suffice to overturn his decision."

I know, I know. The people who do not want to accept the law on the finality of arbitration awards (in all but the most extreme cases) will point out the factual differences between the LCC pilot situation and the case referenced above, and think that means a court can "overturn" Nic, ignoring the larger general principle of great judicial deference to the arbitration process. Feel free to provide a similar case where the arbitration award was overturned. I have done enough free legal research for the morning.

Question for the USAPA fans: Has USAPA really not explained to its members how difficult it is to vacate an arbitration award, and that courts almost never do that?

 

[BoeingBoy]

jim

What solution was accepted by the courts?

You need to put that in context with the back and forth posts that led to the post you quoted. In general, however, courts almost never void an arbitrator's ruling unless fraud, etc, is a factor. Also, the Nic was accepted by the District Court - the 9th only said that the case wasn't ripe, so the ruling was premature. They did not say that the ruling was in error except for timing.

Jim

 

[767jetz]

Has USAPA really not explained to its members how difficult it is to vacate an arbitration award, and that courts almost never do that?

No. But they love to point out how hard they think it is to win a DFR suit, even though the West already did that once.

I chalk it up to confirmation bias... only seeing evidence that supports one's opinion and prefabricated conclusion, while refusing to accept any evidence that proves the contrary, no matter how compelling.

 

[767jetz]

Just wait until the East new hires start coming, and they are coming soon. They'll be voting with us on any and all deals coming.

You are going to have a whole new crop of East soldiers that are ready to keep the seniority theft at bay.

Are you sure about that? Or maybe they see this for what it really is, and know that when the West "inherits" the mess that's left over and captures the majority, they will certainly repair the damage, leaving those same new hires to pay for the east's entitlement attitude. I think any new hire will not want that can of worms in their bag.

 

[fatherabraham]

Are you sure about that? Or maybe they see this for what it really is, and know that when the West "inherits" the mess that's left over and captures the majority, they will certainly repair the damage, leaving those same new hires to pay for the east's entitlement attitude. I think any new hire will not want that can of worms in their bag.

No one here is stupid! You know full well that part of accepting employment involves looking at career advance potential and the average age of pilot pool. Hence the logical solution to choose AAA over AWA as stand alone ops. No entitlement to pay for in any way, just an opportunity to advance quicker than he/she should because of past AWA greed. That would make my day for several of the AWA entitlelist that non stop post here, but admit the unfairness going forward to the AWA (i hope) majority.

 

[luvthe9]

Actually, the ninth only said "not ripe." And that was in reference to Addington vs USAPA. The 9th never said anything to the company. New day. New case. New plaintiff. Judge Silver very well may say that using Nic is the only way the company can avoid legal jeopardy. If that happens it's game over.

Game over until the NMB lawyers parachute into the courtroom.