US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[700UW]

CWA negotiate away duty free hour for mandatory overtime a binding arbitration award
It was given away in concession bargaining during bankruptcy.
And IAM did negotiate airbus scope language a binding arbitration award with management after the judge’s order,Both sides agree to open up the contract and/or negotiate then you vote

I was on the Negotiating Committee, we did not reach a tentative agreement, and the CBA was abrogated.

The only reason we had to go and have talks was because of the Section 1113 motion the company filed, by law we were required too per the bankruptcy laws.

We never negotiated the airbus arbitration award away, our CBA was abrogated by Judge (rubber stamp) Mitchell.

Your information is incorrect. No Judge ordered the IAM to negotiate about the airbus award.

 

[Al Legheny]

Bottom Line. East pilots will NEVER be in a position to dictate the terms of Seniority to West pilots. You stole independent West representation in a Cowardly act of aggression. It didn't work. It won't work in the future. When this becomes "unquestionably ripe" it's a slam dunk DFR regardless of what you've been told. Hiding behind East Ratification will not provide any legal cover. Just get on with it. You're all so convinced you have the muscle to do as you please, just do it. All talk, no action. Get on with it, ratify a joint contract already! Of course you're staring down the barrel of an irreversible checkmate with a joint contract but that's the risk you'll have to face at some point. Sooner the better. According to the confident Easties, they have nothing to worry about in that regard...I say "prove it".
[/quote]


Judge Metroyet, Your Honor, my I point out the following from Judge Tashima and Graber on the 9th Cirruit:

"We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA. See Diss op. at 8021-22."


"Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs, Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 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.3"

 

[luvn737s]

OK but consider this, what if USAPA tries to deliver 4 different contracts up for vote but because the nic is attached it always gets voted down.

Why waste the time? They could have the same plausible deniability if they came out with dual ratification of the contract. But dual ratification would require cooperation before the membership ever voted. Your scenario merely delays kicking the chocks out from under the steamroller.

 

[john john]

They could have the same plausible deniability if they came out with dual ratification of the contract
But dual ratification would require cooperation before the membership ever voted.

Has this ever been done before under NMB rules sounds like a DFR?

 

[Barrister]

Has this ever been done before under NMB rules sounds like a DFR?

Dudes,

Someone just sent me the courts ruling on the denial of the en banc hearing. There is some serious wakeup call contained in that ruling. The courts are getting tired of the Westies and their arguments. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE...has gotten word to then about the NIC and they ain't buying it. YOU WESTIES NEED TO SERIOUSLY READ THIS...if someone knows how please post it....read it a few times ...AND GET OVER IT. The Court says what we have been telling you....and they even make a point to mention that USAPA ws NOT EVEN AROUND during these arbitrations....which were not binding.....in the first place. DUDES YOU NEED TO READ IT...seriously. They even quote one of our guys saying the NIC will not pass....they further note that it has been 5 years since the merger and this continues...and even strongly suggests that you won't even get an injunction next time around. BALL GAME OVER.THE INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED THE FIRST TIME AND .......ARE YOU READY....THEY EVEN TALK ABOUT DOH....thats right...DOH......that dirty little 3 letter thing....AND YOU WON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY. A must read!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[767jetz]

Binding on ALPA maybe, but on USAPA?

You STILL don't get it. It was not binding on ALPA and is not binding on USAPA. It is binding on the pilot groups who entered into the arbitration.

 

[767jetz]

OK but consider this, what if USAPA tries to deliver 4 different contracts up for vote but because the nic is attached it always gets voted down. Usapa switches out the Nic for DOH with C&R's and the contract is immediately voted in. AOL tries to file the injunction and the case is put to the jury - the jury says not guilty of DFR because the union tried to represent the membership. The votes make the decision. I posed a similar senario previously but not many wanted to comment on this possible outcome

I guess anything is possible. But I seriously doubt that USAPA will try this tactic because they run the risk of a contract with nic actually passing. Something everyone on the east says can't happen. The only way to ensure nic does not pass in your scenario is to make the rest of the contract so bad that no one would want it. In that case there is still a ripe DFR because it would be obvious that USAPA put out a substandard contract with the intent of it not passing until they put out a DOH contract.

I think it would be great if USAPA negotiated a good contract for everyone, and then put it out for a vote with the nic. IMO they would be surprised at the result. Like I said, anything is possible.

 

[nic4us]

You STILL don't get it. It was not binding on ALPA and is not binding on USAPA. It is binding on the pilot groups who entered into the arbitration.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We have a winner!!!

By the way, the company has a contractual obligation to those same two pilot groups.

 

[nic4us]

In fairness.

America West pilots argument for US Supreme Court consideration

Read both of your attachments. Interesting stuff. What 9 pages of simple logic from Dr. Jacobs, and 19 pages from Granath that is loaded with improper assumptions and interpretation of the 9ths ruling.

However, the part I like best is the request for a 30 million bond, to cover a 90 day delay. That puts into perspective how much USAPA is on the hook for when the east pilot group finally figures out they are not getting out of binding arbitration.

3 years equals 900 days. That will be 300 million owed to the West pilot group. Thanks for the accounting Mr Granath, we will use that in the coming trial.

 

[Phoenix]

Binding arbitration follows a person or group no matter who represents them. That's what makes it binding. ..

Actually I think what follows a person or group obsessively...
-- to persuade them of something contrary to what is obvious, and
-- has no obvious personal stake in persuading the person or group they obsessively follow and
-- has no recognized association or excepted familiarity with the person or group they obsessively follow...
... that would be a stalker.

 

[FL430]

Go back to the oral arguments. Judge Graber.

So if usapa presented a contract where all women were to be junior to all men but it passed by a majority. Is it a DFR? Did usapa represent the women fairly?

If usapa staples west pilots by DOH but it passes by a majority. Why do you think that is not a DFR?

Are all AWE pilots female?????

The majority elected President Obama - wasn't that a democracy. Was that fair?

 

[flyinawa]

Are all AWE pilots female?????

By AWE, you mean all of USAir? Uh, no. I know it was a confusing comparison but it wasn't meant as "literal". I think the point was "could something unethical be rammed through because the majority wants it to be". If there is anything else we can interpret for you, just let us know.

The majority elected President Obama - wasn't that a democracy. Was that fair?

Yes, it was fair, but I don't understand the comparison that you are trying to draw. Unless perhaps it was the idea of:

Running on the concept of "Change" but not really saying what that meant.
Calling any critics "racist" or in the case of USAPA, "ALPA LOVERS".
Running on a platform of "openness" and then hiding the inner workings of what is going on.
Not carrying through on promises made during the campaign and blaming the previous administration.
Basically, becoming everything you railed against.​

Again, maybe you can clarify what you meant.

 

[Black Swan]

Your totally wrong, using your logic since ALPA negotiated the CBA, it should be null and void and the company should be free to do as they please.

Better go check with AMFA, when they replaced the IAM at NW and UA they were bound by law to all the awards and CBAs.

The PFAA and AFA were bound by the same at NW for the FAs.

AMFA was bound at WN when they replaced the IBT.

When the IBT replaced AMFA at UA, they were bound also.

If you seriously believe what you posted I have some Ocean front property in AZ for you to purchase.

Better do your research, changing unions does not absolve the new union from arbitration awards, LOA, Grievance Settlements and the CBA.

How many classes did you take in labor law?

How many contracts have you negotiated?

How many grievance hearings or arbitrations did you present?

Better than any of that- I read the 9th. That tops anything I or you say, because they hold the hole card, and they said it is not part of the new deal.You can teach all day, right along with Judge Wake. Doesn't make it right . It could be, it USAPA wanted, but I doubt that seriously. USAPA is not bound by the Nic. I say you will be proven wrong, again. Read Baptiste and Wilder- "to hold the successor bargaining agent to the prior agreement IS TO PERPETUATE the former. Get it? Could not be clearer. Next up- shootdown in flames in Supreme Court. Then comes the DOH contract being passed to Parker. What Parker does with it is the question.

 

[Black Swan]

Binding arbitration follows a person or group no matter who represents them. That's what makes it binding. Your union can negotiate and do whatever they think will produce the result they want, but they can not walk away from consequences of those decisions actions. If you came up with something the west can actually live with, and EVERYONE agrees to walk away from the arbitrated award, then it truly would be dead. (Or at least consensually ignored.) That's why ALPA could not walk away from it either. The west had to agree to something else, otherwise the result of the arbitration is... (here comes that word again)... binding.

As long as it followed the rules that were in place at the time both sides agreed to enter the arbitration (which it did), there is no unilateral changing of it. The Nic award was never on trial, nor will it ever be. Every step away from the nic is a risk for USAPA because it is a step closer to a ripe DFR case. You guys are in a corner unless you produce something that everyone agrees to. Not a likely outcome, still but possible. Which is why the 9th took a "wait and see what happens" approach. But if the west pilots feel harmed by USAPA, they have every right to hold on to the award and seek legal remedy since it is binding on the group.

It is one thing to come into our board with the truth. It is another to arrive with a full John Deere hauling a spreader and ten tons of manure. You need to re read the 9th. I say you are totally wrong. Read Baptiste and Wilder. Believe me, they have massive credibility over you. How can you make this stuff up after what the 9th said about it? Seriously- did you even read any of it?

 

[700UW]

Better than any of that- I read the 9th. That tops anything I or you say, because they hold the hole card, and they said it is not part of the new deal.You can teach all day, right along with Judge Wake. Doesn't make it right . It could be, it USAPA wanted, but I doubt that seriously. USAPA is not bound by the Nic. I say you will be proven wrong, again. Read Baptiste and Wilder- "to hold the successor bargaining agent to the prior agreement IS TO PERPETUATE the former. Get it? Could not be clearer. Next up- shootdown in flames in Supreme Court. Then comes the DOH contract being passed to Parker. What Parker does with it is the question.

You just dont get it, do you?

And I see you ignored all the facts.

If usapa didnt negotiate the CBA and not a party to it, why is it still in effect?