US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[luvthe9]

Gee now USAPA has rewritten the US Constitution?

Since when does a court ruling make a law without Congress passing it and the President signing it?

No law was created because of the decision.

I love it, did the East Pilots all pass the Bar now and are lawyers too?

You were WAY off the mark all along on the 9th. Talk to ROA CLT. This guys knows what reality is.

 

[luvthe9]

Gee now USAPA has rewritten the US Constitution?

Since when does a court ruling make a law without Congress passing it and the President signing it?

No law was created because of the decision.

I love it, did the East Pilots all pass the Bar now and are lawyers too?

No, we are fine with Seham. He did quite nicely thank you.

 

[Phoenix]

Gee now USAPA has rewritten the US Constitution?

Since when does a court ruling make a law without Congress passing it and the President signing it?

No law was created because of the decision.

I love it, did the East Pilots all pass the Bar now and are lawyers too?

Surely you jest.

Common law (that's the US system) is a legal systems where decisions by courts are explicitly acknowledged to be legal sources. The "doctrine of precedent", or stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by decisions") means that decisions by higher courts bind lower courts.

There are abundant examples.

 

[700UW]

I see once again you avoid the real question at hand.

And all the court did rule that it wasnt the time to file yet, this case is far from over.

 

[Phoenix]

I see once again you avoid the real question at hand.

And all the court did rule that it wasnt the time to file yet, this case is far from over.

The 9th made arguments far exceeding a simple declaration that it is not time to file yet, and I understand fully why dissenters find the 9th arguments too objectionable to acknowledge.

It is clear that no court action will take place until the ratified CBA. No doubt the West might come up with enough money to sue for an injunction to prevent implementation of the seniority list as part of a new contract. Wouldn't that be funny.. if the court allowed the injunction, we would all have a new contract with separate ops until the courts figured out the seniority issue. I suppose the West would still be screaming about harm caused by separate ops.

You will see many quotes from the 9th again. But don't worry, they are just precedent.

 

[Black Swan]

I see once again you avoid the real question at hand.

And all the court did rule that it wasnt the time to file yet, this case is far from over.

Those of us who understand the RLA and the collective bargaining process think otherwise.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I see once again you avoid the real question at hand.

And all the court did rule that it wasnt the time to file yet, this case is far from over.

No,really. It's over. No NIC. You need to watch this video I saw that sort of explains the legal system in the US. I believe it was called "SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK". I thnik I saw it when I was 7 or 8...

 

[luvthe9]

I see once again you avoid the real question at hand.

And all the court did rule that it wasnt the time to file yet, this case is far from over.

You don't get the process at all. By the way, the jets are really clean these days.

 

[Barrister]

Actually, the Supreme Court stated a union's DFR was more narrow than just "wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary." That applies only to the arbitrary prong of the three prong test of DFR. The other two prongs are discrimination and bad faith. So USAPA's seniority proposal, if incorporated in a ratified contract, could be within a wide range of reasonableness and still be a violation of it's DFR responsibility if it were either discriminatory or in bad faith.

To quote the Supreme Court:

Although there is admittedly some variation in the way in which our opinions have described the unions' duty of fair representation, we have repeatedly identified three components of the duty, including a prohibition against "arbitrary" conduct. Writing for the Court in the leading case in this area of the law, Justice White explained:

"The statutory duty of fair representation was developed over 20 years ago in a series of cases involving alleged racial discrimination by unions certified as exclusive bargaining representatives under the Railway Labor Act, see Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 [65 S.Ct. 226]; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210 [65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944) ], and was soon extended to unions certified under the N.L.R.A., see Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra. Under this doctrine, the exclusive agent's statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. [335], at 342 [84 S.Ct. 363, at 367, 11 L.Ed.2d 370 (1964) ].

Jim

Sooooooooo oh wise one is DOH discriminatory....ah....yea......it favors those who have been here longer...and are much older.
is that a systen that serves the union as a whole....ah...yea.......is it arbitrary.......ah no.........
Think you just made USAPAs case....THANK YOU SIR MAY WE HAVE ANOTHER!!

NIC DOA
NPJB

 

[nic4us]

It will not be like the last time because the 9th opinion is now law (and is especially applicable to any future breach of DFR allegations).

It is unquestionable that USAPA will be negotiating THEIR proposal with the COMPANY....

"At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA." (pg. 8006)

It is unquestionable that no DFR suit will go forward until the USAPA proposal is ratified by the pilots....

"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal [that is ratified] ultimately is. (pg. 8007)

It is unquestionable that the 9th has acknowledged that their is no certainty that the Nic would have ever passed as a solution to the internal union dispute...

"It is, however, at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever would be effectuated." (pg. 8007)

It is unquestionable that the 9th went further and stated that if USAPA is forced to bargain with the Nic, no contract will pass.....

"Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership" (pg. 8007)

Thus it is abundantly clear that 9th has given USAPA absolute protection and justification for establishing THEIR proposal on something other than the Nic, because all pilots would be harmed by persisting with the Nic and failing to get a contract.

This isn't about protecting one group to the harm of the other during an internal dispute. The 9th made it clear this is about protecting all pilots during negotiations with the company.

The Supreme Court has ruled on what the standard of duty is.

So which is it east posters?

When usapa gets sued the next time, can the West quote this ruling or not?

This ruling is what is going to keep Seeham from saying we did not bring suit in time. The West needs this ruling to make the DFR stick.

DOH is DOA.

 

[nic4us]

I love it, did the East Pilots all pass the Bar now and are lawyers too?

Well we all know they certainly lowered the Bar, then slithered under it.

 

[luvthe9]

Well we all know they certainly lowered the Bar, then slithered under it.

Yes, sorry we didn't just let you steal our time served. We know you think you deserve it. By the way, when you go out to a restaurant on Fathers Day, I guess you can go 3/4 the way up the line. Welcome to West World. The one where you think you can take what you want.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Sooooooooo oh wise one is DOH discriminatory....

It certainly can be if it is used because it favors one side over another - a pattern that certainly describes the East position. To quote you, "and are much older". Where is age a factor in DOH? I was, and I suspect you are, junior to some that are older and senior to others that are older. But age (or the corresponding time to mandatory retirement) is often mentioned by the East as a factor in the "fairness' of an integration method.

Yes indeed, the East pattern is picking a standard that favors themselves - thus a standard that is discriminatory.

Jim

 

[luvthe9]

And when you go up to the head of the line, and the other patrons object, do you call them snakes and sue them too?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yes, sorry we didn't just let you steal our time served.

Thanks for the laugh...

Jim