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

[ROACLT]

The only reason that the court and lawyers refer to the Nic. as a "proposal" is because the two sides can change it together mutually. But since the east pilot group has eliminated the west union leadership, the change can not be done mutually. There for like it or not both sides are stuck with the Nic and if usapa comes off the Nic you have yourself a DFR.

That is clearly not what the 9th Circuit said. That isn't even what your own merger counsel advised you, nor argued in court but you didn't listen then either. USAPA, according to the 9th Circuit is free to bargain without interference and has an obligation to negotiate in good faith for all pilots East and West. The 9th Circuit made that very clear, in numerous places throughout its opinion with clear language, and by language emphasizing USAPA's legal arguments and language contrary to Wake's findings. It's very clear in the way they structured their opinion.

I think its very clear what USAPA is going to negotiate.

You will have another chance at throwing your money away and I am sure some lawyer will be more than willing to take it. Marty Harper, just took you guys for a 2 million dollar ride and produced zip. In fact by having this go before the appellate court, the ruing and the resulting codification, he ensured USAPA's legal rights as the duly authorized collective bargaining agent for the pilots of US Airways.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The only reason that the court and lawyers refer to the Nic. as a "proposal" is because the two sides can change it together mutually. But since the east pilot group has eliminated the west union leadership, the change can not be done mutually. There for like it or not both sides are stuck with the Nic and if usapa comes off the Nic you have yourself a DFR.

Anybody can sue for DFR. Winning it, though, will be another matter.

 

[BoeingBoy]

allow me to provide the entire the sentence noting the half which you conveniently left out ...

"Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

Allow me to bold the correct part ...

"Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

In other words, USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but if USAPA's integration method disadvantages the plaintiffs (West) as they fear (more advantageous to the East than Nic) there is a "ripe DFR" waiting. The 9th was indeed very careful in their choice of words - they certainly could have said that USAPA was entitled to negotiate a seniority integration within a "wide range of reasonableness" but didn't. They said "does not work the disadvantages that the plaintiffs fear". What disadvantages is and was it clear that the plaintiffs fear? Anything based on DOH and not the Nic. So stray much and USAPA faces that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

In dismissing for ripeness, all the 9th was saying was that the future outcome of USAPA/company negotions is unknown at this time. The end result could be one that doesn't "disadvantage the [West] as much as feared" and there will be no refiling of a DFR suit as a consequence. Or the end result could be one that "disadvantages" the [West] as feared and USAPA will face that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

The only reason that the court and lawyers refer to the Nic. as a "proposal" is because the two sides can change it together mutually. But since the east pilot group has eliminated the west union leadership, the change can not be done mutually. There for like it or not both sides are stuck with the Nic and if usapa comes off the Nic you have yourself a DFR.

The 9th fully acknowledged that ALPA was the sole agent (not the East and West groups) who was handling the internal union dispute and that it was ALPA who was in the driver's seat with regard to arriving upon their proposal, on behalf of all pilots.

USAPA will do just fine, and they won't even make you sign away your right to take them to court by tossing off the job to an outsourced arbitrator.

 

[Barrister]

Allow me to bold the correct part ...

"Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

In other words, USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but if USAPA's integration method disadvantages the plaintiffs (West) as they fear (more advantageous to the East than Nic) there is a "ripe DFR" waiting. The 9th was indeed very careful in their choice of words - they certainly could have said that USAPA was entitled to negotiate a seniority integration within a "wide range of reasonableness" but didn't. They said "does not work the disadvantages that the plaintiffs fear". What disadvantages is and was it clear that the plaintiffs fear? Anything based on DOH and not the Nic. So stray much and USAPA faces that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

In dismissing for ripeness, all the 9th was saying was that the future outcome of USAPA/company negotions is unknown at this time. The end result could be one that doesn't "disadvantage the [West] as much as feared" and there will be no refiling of a DFR suit as a consequence. Or the end result could be one that "disadvantages" the [West] as feared and USAPA will face that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

Jim

Yes oh wise one you are correct....someone will be disadvantaged....the question is: Will it be the 17 year never furloughed guy or the 2 month newbie. Want to make a wager on this one??????????????????????????????

NPJB

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Allow me to bold the correct part ...

...The 9th was indeed very careful in their choice of words - they certainly could have said that USAPA was entitled to negotiate a seniority integration within a "wide range of reasonableness" but didn't.
Jim

They did say that, exactly. Page 8010, second paragraph. Maybe you need a new pair of readers for father's day. Leaving someone a hint wouldn't hurt.

 

[Hate2fly]

Contrary to what the West says, SEHAM absolutely did the best job ever.

luvthe9,

You are correct! Seham and his law firm and Jimmy Brengle spanked the west and the desert judge. All the risk was on the west side. They should have listened to J. Freund at Wye River. The ALPA boys were going to cut the west a great deal! The west will someday look back and realize they should not have been so greedy. The desert judge took them as far as he could. I have always said he had to much skin in the game. Amazing how a best friend can cloud someone's judgement.

Hate

 

[luvthe9]

That is clearly not what the 9th Circuit said. That isn't even what your own merger counsel advised you, nor argued in court but you didn't listen then either. USAPA, according to the 9th Circuit is free to bargain without interference and has an obligation to negotiate in good faith for all pilots East and West. The 9th Circuit made that very clear, in numerous places throughout its opinion with clear language, and by language emphasizing USAPA's legal arguments and language contrary to Wake's findings. It's very clear in the way they structured their opinion.

I think its very clear what USAPA is going to negotiate.

You will have another chance at throwing your money away and I am sure some lawyer will be more than willing to take it. Marty Harper, just took you guys for a 2 million dollar ride and produced zip. In fact by having this go before the appellate court, the ruing and the resulting codification, he ensured USAPA's legal rights as the duly authorized collective bargaining agent for the pilots of US Airways.

And again, we thank the West for making the 9th elucidate the entire manner. I have heard the reason they did it. "We had to or it would expire due to timeliness." Kind of like a soldier asked to stick his head up above the foxhole to make sure the enemy is out there, only to have it blown off. Maybe you should have done the sane thing, and just kept your head down.

 

[ROACLT]

Allow me to bold the correct part ...

"Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

In other words, USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but if USAPA's integration method disadvantages the plaintiffs (West) as they fear (more advantageous to the East than Nic) there is a "ripe DFR" waiting. The 9th was indeed very careful in their choice of words - they certainly could have said that USAPA was entitled to negotiate a seniority integration within a "wide range of reasonableness" but didn't. They said "does not work the disadvantages that the plaintiffs fear". What disadvantages is and was it clear that the plaintiffs fear? Anything based on DOH and not the Nic. So stray much and USAPA faces that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

In dismissing for ripeness, all the 9th was saying was that the future outcome of USAPA/company negotions is unknown at this time. The end result could be one that doesn't "disadvantage the [West] as much as feared" and there will be no refiling of a DFR suit as a consequence. Or the end result could be one that "disadvantages" the [West] as feared and USAPA will face that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

Jim

No, they said USAPA must negotiate in "Good Faith" for both East and West pilots, keeping in mind ripeness will exist once their is ratified contract. You can try to argue over this point all you want but "Good Faith" isn't just a phrase the majority used to complete the sentence, it has direct legal meaning to a unions responsibility as it relates to DFR. This is part of a published appellate opinion and now precedent in the 9th circuit. That is the legal standard USAPA will be held to. By including the East pilots in the statement, it is clear USAPA has a responsibility equally to their interests within the collective bargaining unit. Since the standard is now how USAPA's actions reasonably seek to balance the interest of everyone and that it is within a wide range, USAPA will be in a position that any other union finds itself in when dealing with the issue of seniority or when sued because for a claimed breach of "good faith". Not once has a longevity based integration ever produced a DFR suit that was won. In fact there are cases where a completed seniority integration was retroactively changed to DOH and stood up under the scrutiny of a DFR suit. In this case, there are still to disparate groups yet to be integrated.

The 9th Circuit need not addressed any of these issues as it relates to the ripeness complaint but they did and with purpose. The fact they used the very arguments Seham brought forward both as it relates to what they view the Nicalou award as actually being, or the argument that an indefinite impasse existed under ALPA because of the "seniority proposal", was not by accident. When a higher court rules on an appeal, especially in an opion they publish great thought is placed in how they structure the opinion and discussion. I am not a legal scholar but before I could offer any input, one that I am acquainted with that has nothing to do with this saw the clear correlation between the verbiage used in the 9th Circuit's ruling and the filings and transcripts both before Wake's court and the 9th Circuit and pointed it out to me.

The court doesn't need to say "wide range of reasonableness","Good Faith" is already defined by the US Supreme court as it relates to unions and DFR. If the court says it lacks jurisdiction it doesn't redefine a well accepted term by inserting in its place, "it lacks an authority over the subject of the legal questions involved in the case." They are interchangeable and mean one and the same.

 

[luvthe9]

Allow me to bold the correct part ...

"Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

In other words, USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but if USAPA's integration method disadvantages the plaintiffs (West) as they fear (more advantageous to the East than Nic) there is a "ripe DFR" waiting. The 9th was indeed very careful in their choice of words - they certainly could have said that USAPA was entitled to negotiate a seniority integration within a "wide range of reasonableness" but didn't. They said "does not work the disadvantages that the plaintiffs fear". What disadvantages is and was it clear that the plaintiffs fear? Anything based on DOH and not the Nic. So stray much and USAPA faces that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

In dismissing for ripeness, all the 9th was saying was that the future outcome of USAPA/company negotions is unknown at this time. The end result could be one that doesn't "disadvantage the [West] as much as feared" and there will be no refiling of a DFR suit as a consequence. Or the end result could be one that "disadvantages" the [West] as feared and USAPA will face that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

Jim

More than anything else, clearly- the 9th held forth USAPA is the bargaining agent for both West and East, and affirmed the fact the for the most part, in the determination of seniority and a contract it is USAPA's business basically unfettered by outside influence such as Wake and the Company.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You guys are gonna piss off the "gimme gimme, I want your job and I want it now" guys. Make sure to smell your mail before you open it.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

...The court doesn't need to say "wide range of reasonableness"...

They don't need to, but they did. Page 8010, second paragraph. They were quoting a Supreme Court precedent.

Don't just believe what some guys are saying is or isn't in the ruling. They're making stuff up to suit they're arguments.

 

[BoeingBoy]

They did say that, exactly. Page 8010, second paragraph.

Nope, there they were quoting from a ruling in a different case which they used to support their "not ripe" ruling - ironically the case involved a group of US pilots accusing ALPA of DFR over the termination of the DB plan, not seniority integration. They said nothing about USAPA's ability to be judged by a "wide range of reasonableness" if a DFR is refiled on the seniority integration. They explicitly said that USAPA will be subject to a "unquestionably ripe DFR" if it disadvantages the West as the West fears. How will "disadvantages the West" be determined? What suit will be "unquestionably ripe" is the answer - the suit that found USAPA failed in it's DFR by abandoning the Nic.

ALPA's use of arbitration as the last resort to settle seniority integrations has been tested in court and found reasonable. Courts give great preference to an arbitrator's ruling and are very loathe to set it aside. That is the standard that USAPA will have to meet.

Jim

PS - don't worry, there are enough on both sides making it up as they go that I ignore both. If available I actually read the documents.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Nope, there they were quoting from a ruling in a different case which they used to support their "not ripe" ruling - ironically the case involved a group of US pilots accusing ALPA of DFR over the termination of the DB plan, not seniority integration. They said nothing about USAPA's ability to be judged by a "wide range of reasonableness" if a DFR is refiled on the seniority integration. They explicitly said that USAPA will be subject to a "unquestionably ripe DFR" if it disadvantages the West as the West fears. How will "disadvantages the West" be determined? What suit will be "unquestionably ripe" is the answer - the suit that found USAPA failed in it's DFR by abandoning the Nic.

ALPA's use of arbitration as the last resort to settle seniority integrations has been tested in court and found reasonable. Courts give great preference to an arbitrator's ruling and are very loathe to set it aside. That is the standard that USAPA will have to meet.

Jim

PS - don't worry, there are enough on both sides making it up as they go that I ignore both. If available I actually read the documents.

Then why did they mention that if it wasn't their contention to restate the precedent? They obviously didn't need to for a ripeness determination.

You're clearly wrong again, just as you have been in this entire case. Just keep spinning! Your ALPAfiles will love you for it. You said it wasn't mentioned in the decision. Again, you may need some new readers.

Just so other readers can judge for themselves, Here's the quote( page 8010, second paragraph of the Addison decision):

...Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))...

It stands on it's own. I don't even need to put in any highlights.

Remember the ALPA motto: "All for one, as long as that one is me!"

 

[Hate2fly]

You guys are gonna piss off the "gimme gimme, I want your job and I want it now" guys. Make sure to smell your mail before you open it.

Oldie,

So it has been just over 3 years since Nicolau layed this rotten egg. So far, I have never had any pilot from the east tell me they want anything from the west side of this operation. It is funny to watch the west try to position themselves for all of our east attrition.

The MDA guys and gals are closing in on ALPA with Haber at the controls. Haber as we all know has been there done that with ALPA in the past. Should be fun to watch.

Hate