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

[ROACLT]

But wait. YOUR majority vote determined the make up of YOUR MEC, who then agreed not to negotiate or be reasonable, and agreed to force binding arbitration, and then agreed to abide by the results.

So the original statement of you not being able to get past binding arbitration is more accurate. That's where your collective actions bit you in the a$$, and that is where your responsibility for this whole mess, (including the lack of unity) starts.

Again as the 9th commented in its opinion, ALPA structured its policy in a way that allowed an indefinite veto, which clearly infers that ALPA policy supported the concept of majority rules in acceptance of the "proposal". I am sure if it makes to trial again, USAPA will be free to show video and letter evidence imploring US Airways pilots not to leave and they were protected from ever accepting the award until a compromise could be reached. Obvious the no trust level existed for US Airways east pilots as they rejected the repeated appeals of various ALPA spoke persons including the president that the "majority rules vote" protected their rights until some solution could be brought forth that would be accepted.

USAPA has a different mandate and the court reminded it of its good faith responsibilities but also made it clear it free to pursue negotiations to find a ratifiable agreement. It really doesn't matter what your view or definition of "good faith" standards are, only what the precedent opinion set forth.

 

[nic4us]

An arbitration binding only as it concerns internal affairs of ALPA. Even then, not so, as ALPA's was free to pursue its overall objective of producing a "proposal" that could be ratified into a single agreement. It's all there in the 9th's opinion.

Not quite. It is only there in your interpretation of the 9th's opinion.

ALPA was bound to "uphold and defend" the results of the arbitration. usapa inherited that duty when they were elected.

Sorry, no welching on your commitments. The Nic is not going away.

The legally defineable, "pilots in the service of America West airlines" have multiple contracts, including the TA and the agreement to enter into binding arbitration, with "the airline parties" and with the "pilots in the service of US Airways".

The majority vote does not change who the signators of the contracts were, just who owes them a DFR and who gets sued when they try to break those contracts, and/or breach that duty.

Put that in your "within a wide range of reasonableness" pipe dream and smoke it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

ALPA structured its policy in a way that allowed an indefinite veto, which clearly infers that ALPA policy supported the concept of majority rules in acceptance of the "proposal".

Now that's out there in la la land. ALPA's seniority integration policy says nothing about a veto by either the majority or minority. It envisions nothing but a resolution one way or another - negotiations, mediation, arbitration. In fact it expressly says that the result is not subject to a vote.

On various other arguments, it'd be nice if people would actually read the pertinent SCOTUS rulings instead of picking a few words from the 9th's ruling and claiming that's the only thing that's legally binding. Especially if they're going to pretend to be an expert or even knowledgeable. This "majority decides..." what's fair or "within a wide range..." is the only standard isn't even worth discussing with someone who refuses to acknowledge the SCOTUS rulings.

Jim

 

[ROACLT]

Now that's out there in la la land. ALPA's seniority integration policy says nothing about a veto by either the majority or minority. It envisions nothing but a resolution one way or another - negotiations, mediation, arbitration. In fact it expressly says that the result is not subject to a vote.

On various other arguments, it'd be nice if people would actually read the pertinent SCOTUS rulings instead of picking a few words from the 9th's ruling and claiming that's the only thing that's legally binding. Especially if they're going to pretend to be an expert or even knowledgeable. This "majority decides..." what's fair or "within a wide range..." is the only standard isn't even worth discussing with someone who refuses to acknowledge the SCOTUS rulings.

Jim

A union has always been free to interpret its own policies and whether through direct statements or commission or conferences, the TA, and ALPA officials had clearly stated that acceptance of the proposal was codified by contract ratification. ALPA officials for months leading up to the election reiterated that the East pilots were in control of their destiny as any contract incorporating the proposal required independent votes of the majority. An issue clearly understood by the 9th Circuit.

Pg 8002
The two merging airlines and ALPA entered into a Transition
Agreement (“TA”), which incorporated by reference
ALPA’s Merger Policy. Under the TA, the carriers agreed not
to object to ALPA’s seniority integration proposal, provided
it did not result in certain additional costs. The seniority integration
proposal could be implemented only as part of a single
CBA. The single CBA would require approval by the East
Master Executive Council, the West Master Executive Council,
and a majority of each of the East and West pilot groups,
effectively giving each side a veto. Until the single CBA was
negotiated, with few exceptions, the TA placed a “fence”
between East and West operations, such that each would continue
to operate under its respective CBA.

It isn't what you or I would pull out of the SCOTUS case the 9th circuit cited, it is the specific points they chose to cite in framing their overall opinion. The 9th Circuit picked specific cases and the specific legal points and interpretations withing those case. It's their view and their knowledge you question, not mine. Appellate opinions tend to be brief and deliberate and pull in no more or less than is required to frame the points of their decision.

Speak to a judge, learn for yourself. I did and I have no vested interest outside of individuals I consider friends and the overall benefit to organized labor. I actually care about court intervention in union business and I think Tashima and Graber do as well.

 

[ROACLT]

Not quite. It is only there in your interpretation of the 9th's opinion.

ALPA was bound to "uphold and defend" the results of the arbitration. usapa inherited that duty when they were elected.

Sorry, no welching on your commitments. The Nic is not going away.

The legally defineable, "pilots in the service of America West airlines" have multiple contracts, including the TA and the agreement to enter into binding arbitration, with "the airline parties" and with the "pilots in the service of US Airways".

The majority vote does not change who the signators of the contracts were, just who owes them a DFR and who gets sued when they try to break those contracts, and/or breach that duty.

Put that in your "within a wide range of reasonableness" pipe dream and smoke it.

The legally definable pilots in the service of America West airlines, are legally represented by USAPA which is empowered by labor law, NMB certified election, and the RLA to modify and negotiate any agreement they are now the signatory of, which is all of them pertaining to the pilots. Has not your contract been modified by USAPA through a vote conducted including all pilots? Doesn't that tell you who your company views and legally knows the signatory of the East and West contracts as well as the TA is?

I am not the one smoking the pipe appears but hey, I understand the emotional need to keep hope alive.

 

[nic4us]

Again as the 9th commented in its opinion, ALPA structured its policy in a way that allowed an indefinite veto, which clearly infers that ALPA policy supported the concept of majority rules in acceptance of the "proposal". I am sure if it makes to trial again, USAPA will be free to show video and letter evidence imploring US Airways pilots not to leave and they were protected from ever accepting the award until a compromise could be reached. Obvious the no trust level existed for US Airways east pilots as they rejected the repeated appeals of various ALPA spoke persons including the president that the "majority rules vote" protected their rights until some solution could be brought forth that would be accepted.

USAPA has a different mandate and the court reminded it of its good faith responsibilities but also made it clear it free to pursue negotiations to find a ratifiable agreement. It really doesn't matter what your view or definition of "good faith" standards are, only what the precedent opinion set forth.

Does that same video evidence capture the president of ALPA telling the angry mob of east pilots that ALPA has no authority to change or void the Nicolau award? Further, that "mutual" solutions would have to be sought for there to be change.

News flash, the "pilots in the service of America West Airlines" have lost all patience with "the pilots in the service of US Airways" and are no longer willing or capable of finding "mutual" solutions.

So I guess we are all stuck with the Nic. Pass anything else, get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe" DFR.

 

[BoeingBoy]

ALPA officials for months leading up to the election reiterated that the East pilots were in control of their destiny as any contract incorporating the proposal required independent votes of the majority.

"Independent votes of the majority" is not the same as "a vote of the majority." The East pilots had the majority, but couldn't over ride the potential veto of the West. ROACLT seems to think that having a majority is all that matters, even in deciding "fairness".

It isn't what you or I would pull out of the SCOTUS case the 9th circuit cited, it is the specific points they chose to cite in framing their overall opinion.

So you're saying that the 9th over-rules SCOTUS? That the 9th, by choosing specific points of SCOTUS decisions, made the rest of the same SCOTUS decision go away? I don't believe that's the case. SCOTUS has specifically ruled that the "within a wide...: is only one of three tests that the union must pass to escape a DFR claim, yet some use the 9th choice of that one test to claim it's the only test. Likewise with the "majority decides..." - SCOTUS has clearly enunciated a standard that says otherwise - the union can't use the majority vote nor can the majority use the union to escape the union's DFR responsibilities.

Just because the 9th didn't use some points from SCOTUS rulings doesn't mean that the entire SCOTUS language isn't binding. Yet some seem to insist that what the 9th quoted is all that matters.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Has not your contract been modified by USAPA through a vote conducted including all pilots?

I don't believe there was a vote. Some West pilots approached the union about filing a grievance and the union decided to change the language.

Jim

 

[ROACLT]

Does that same video evidence capture the president of ALPA telling the angry mob of east pilots that ALPA has no authority to change or void the Nicolau award? Further, that "mutual" solutions would have to be sought for there to be change.

News flash, the "pilots in the service of America West Airlines" have lost all patience with "the pilots in the service of US Airways" and are no longer willing or capable of finding "mutual" solutions.

So I guess we are all stuck with the Nic. Pass anything else, get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe" DFR.

Again as the 9th Circuit recognizes that ALPA is responsible as it relates to implementing its own polices and procedures. ALPA was navigating the process as its legal counsel advised because if they could hang resolution on the parties it allowed them to wash their hands of it.

The 9th Circuit also recognized that the final product of their process was not guaranteed by the nature of the TA and independent votes and ALPA was free to abandon it as it pursued a single contract. You are inferring that because ALPA selected a strategy in trying to find mutual consent, they had no other alternatives and that is simply not the case. ALPA takes the path of least resistance does in not?

There is a reason, your own merger counsel advised you to take the Wye River deal. He knew that as long as ALPA maintained its position as the Collective Bargaining Agent, the resolution process they were following and would likely continue to follow because of their nature allowed your input and if they were replaced with a successor union, it would it policies and processes that would dictate the nature of the resolution. He also knew that USAPA policies which negated the two side had a reasonable chance of prevailing in using its own solution to the seniority integration and probably is well aware of the wide latitude given to unions. If he was as convinced as you are, you would still be utilizing him and he would waiting for his pie in the sky cut of that huge damage payout.

So far it is the Addington Plaintiffs who have wasted money. USAPA just defended itself as ALPA had countless times as all unions have to do from time to time. Unquestionably ripe in that footnote only means that a completed and ratified CBA will trigger the legal threshold for ripeness. It in no way infers that a claim would have merit or achieve success, only that it would be ripe to be made. In the same paragraph it clearly states USAPA legal obligation. "By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members— both East and West" a obligation they took the opportunity to define and not your cases benefit.

Sue away, I am sure USAPA and a majority of members will feel money spent defending the union is well used and not wasted. Coming from a side that just blew 1.8 million in a loss, why be so secure your prognostication is correct. That is a legal blunder of huge proportion.

 

[nic4us]

The legally definable pilots in the service of America West airlines, are legally represented by USAPA which is empowered by labor law, NMB certified election, and the RLA to modify and negotiate any agreement they are now the signatory of, which is all of them pertaining to the pilots. Has not your contract been modified by USAPA through a vote conducted including all pilots? Doesn't that tell you who your company views and legally knows the signatory of the East and West contracts as well as the TA is?

I am not the one smoking the pipe appears but hey, I understand the emotional need to keep hope alive.

I can certainly tell you do understand the "emotional need to keep hope alive".

Go back and read the 9ths opinion again. Specifically, the portion discussing all the possible future scenarios that could prevent usapa from reaching a ratified DOH contract and therefore finding the case not ripe at this time. The very first one I beieve is "the company could reject the proposal", and another one is "usapa could modify the proposal".

Well Perry Mason, the company had already accepted the Nic proposal(bolded it cuase you seem to like that word) because it was the product of the TA's mandate for seniority intergration. The company has not yet given any clues as to whether they would accept usapa's DOH proposal within a tenative agreement and violate their contract with "the pilots in the service of America West Airlines".

If I interpreted the ruling out of context and with misquotes as you do, I could say that "usapa could modify their proposal" is a direct order from the 9th telling usapa, hey here is a way out of this, change your proposal to the Nic and you will not get sued and lose in the future. Oh, wait, that probably is what they are saying.

Yes, "the Pilots in the service of AWA" are now represented by usapa. usapa is now the CBA, change the contracts in an "arbitrary" manner for the purpose of advancing the east pilots at the detriment of the West pilots (read do not use the Nic) get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe" DFR.

 

[ROACLT]

I can certainly tell you do understand the "emotional need to keep hope alive".

Coming from an individual who bases his legal opinion off lawyers that just wasted 1.8 million dollars and produced for you what? Nada, zip, zilch. I will be sure to take your sage legal advice even though I am hoping USAPA and the East pilots do not. Now that is ripe, pun intended.

How many west pilots have asked Parker the question over negotiating the seniority section proposal, and whether it is still an open issue? Maybe you have been one of them and been told, it will be handled at the negotiating table and USAPA is the legal bargaining agent.

Your union officers have discussed with the company officials regarding the 9th Circuits decision. Have a care at what the response was? I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that have said seniority is up to the union and they will not get involved.

By the way, reread the Phoenix trial transcripts. Your counsel conceded that USAPA bargaining DOH was neither Arbitrary or Discriminatory. That is why the "good faith" issue was the only DFR responsibility in question and sadly for Addington the 9th Circuit made sure there was no question as to the legal definition unlike Wake during the case and during jury instruction.

 

[nic4us]

The 9th Circuit also recognized that the final product of their process was not guaranteed by the nature of the TA and independent votes and ALPA was free to abandon it as it pursued a single contract. You are inferring that because ALPA selected a strategy in trying to find mutual consent, they had no other alternatives and that is simply not the case.

Coming from a side that just blew 1.8 million in a loss, why be so secure your prognostication is correct. That is a legal blunder of huge proportion.

Man, you just cannot quit the misquoting and improper interpretations can you?

The 9th did not say, "ALPA was free to abandon the Nic", they said "usapa was at least as free as the predessesor union". As I have already pointed out, ALPA was contractually bound to "uphold and defend" the Nic, and Prater said they had no authority to change it.

We did not blow 1.8 million in a loss. We paid 1.8 million to ensure that little weasel lawyers and reneging majority voters will not escape their commitments due to a lack of timeliness on our part. Would have rather had the lower courts ruling upheld, and saved us all the future cost, but 'cest la vie.

 

[BoeingBoy]

change the contracts in an "arbitrary" manner for the purpose of advancing the east pilots at the detriment of the West pilots (read do not use the Nic) get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe" DFR.

Not just arbitrary - that just the test that "within a wide range..." measures. There's also discriminatory and bad faith for USAPA to overcome.

All the 9th was saying in that "even if it doesn't include the Nic" part, was that it's possible that USAPA could come up with a solution that the West finds satisfactory enough when taken in context of the entire contract that a DFR wouldn't be refiled. They were not saying that the Nic doesn't exist, that USAPA was free to replace it with anything it wanted to, or anything like that.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

Not just arbitrary - that just the test that "within a wide range..." measures. There's also discriminatory and bad faith for USAPA to overcome.

All the 9th was saying in that "even if it doesn't include the Nic" part, was that it's possible that USAPA could come up with a solution that the West finds satisfactory enough when taken in context of the entire contract that a DFR wouldn't be refiled. They were not saying that the Nic doesn't exist, that USAPA was free to replace it with anything it wanted to, or anything like that.

Jim

That is how I read it also.

Simple really, come up with something the West will not sue over, and usapa will not get sued.

 

[ROACLT]

Man, you just cannot quit the misquoting and improper interpretations can you?

The 9th did not say, "ALPA was free to abandon the Nic", they said "usapa was at least as free as the predessesor union". As I have already pointed out, ALPA was contractually bound to "uphold and defend" the Nic, and Prater said they had no authority to change it.

We did not blow 1.8 million in a loss. We paid 1.8 million to ensure that little weasel lawyers and reneging majority voters will not escape their commitments due to a lack of timeliness on our part. Would have rather had the lower courts ruling upheld, and saved us all the future cost, but 'cest la vie.

The majority did say that and further stated the dissent assumes that it was binding on USAPA. Why didn't they agree with the dissent? Because USAPA's obligation is to bargain in "good faith" for all its members without limit or interference in accordance with the standard. The majority was not going to narrow the "good faith" standard by assigning any requirement to it beyond what has already been established. All unions should be grateful. The dissent was not seeking to clarify as he agreed partially with the majority decision but was treading into the merits of the case. The majority did not go there. You could argue the majority did as well but wherever they commented beyond the ripeness issue, the used legal standard and citation already established in the courts.

Spin the loss and your attorney's performance however you like, but until recent it was you and fellow posters that were posting scoreboards. Irony sucks, doesn't it?