US Pilots Labor Discussion-8/12 to 8/19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[nic4us]

No, it is I who must apologize since it's so easy to prove you wrong.

Now that is the best line posted for some time. Congrats B717 you win the Nic4 best line of the day award. Which amounts to nothing more than simple recognition.

 

[Megasnoop]

No, it is I who must apologize since it's so easy to prove you wrong. The AWA MEC expressly hired and paid for our counsel. I'm sure you've forgotten one of our Merger Committee members was a fellow TWA furloughee. In fact, it was his warnings to our MEC about not repeating the mistakes the TWA MEC made that got him appointed to that committee.

Ouch! Worse than I thought! He got paid out of the ALPA general fund. Naw, the federal OLMS report is a lie. Don't pay any attention to them. Look at Medical Reform. Feds all lie. B&A was "paid" by our MEC as well, but the money still came out of the ALPA general fund, a check written by ALPA. It was our descretoinary dues money, just like at TWA. No outside attorney may represent any ALPA property without the exspressed approval by ALPA. That's the way it works, except for merger attorneys. There you hire who you want. Regard your TWA furloughee, Hooper, Horton or whatever his name was. We heard this from the ALPA VP Admin. When he was appointed to your merger committee, he wasn't even a member in good standing. He was delinquent on dues and was a West ALPA objector. Beebe nearly had a coronary over that one. But that has nothing to do with B&W's blog. Do you really think with all the ALPA money they've been paid over the years and want to get in the future that they'd be touting a non-ALPA line in this? Reality's tough. Crew plenty, eat and enjoy. I can't wait to see all the signatories on the "Amicus Curiae" briefs this fall. You think this B&W blog is the end of this?

And just remember, your not going to make us go away. "We have deep depth." Yogi Berra

 

[nic4us]

Hey Mega,

Check this out! Here is what a Federal Judge had to say that backs up Freund's claim that the Nic award was just a proposed list.

the ALPA Merger Policy generates a proposed seniority list, which ALPA promises to present to the merged airlines in an effort to persuade the merged airlines to adopt the list. [/b]See Defs. Opp’n 3-4." .........

Hate2fly,

Reread this portion, and understand 2 things.

First, the company accepted the proposed list, therefore it is no longer proposed.

Second, as with the other areas of all the contracts, such as section 29 etc. replace the ALPA with USAPA. It now read "USAPA promises to present to the merged airlines in an effort to persuade the merged airlines to adopt the list."

 

[hp_fa]

I can't wait to see all the signatories on the "Amicus Curiae" briefs this fall.

I agree. That will be interesting.

 

[nic4us]

RE: The second sentence, take it as someone who doesn't suffer fools well and responded in a less than professional manner.


OH and for the record I've never felt more safe in the air then I do when I'm in the capable hands of a US Airways pilot (either flavor). Now if we could just get the professionalism displayed on the flight deck tranferred to the negotiating table then you'd have something.

No worries we are all good. And thanks for not correcting me, I noticed I spelled here (meaning the place we are currently in) as hear...when I read your post quoting me.... duh!

One more thing, a measured amount of arrogance is somewhat responsible for that safe feeling you get from the USAirways pilot group. I mean to say...could you imagine the opposite an unassured, meek pilot who honestly said to themselves...hey, I am really no good at this job, in fact I am lousy and down right dangerous?

 

[exB717Flyer]

He got paid out of the ALPA general fund.

He followed our direction and not anybody else's. That's all that matters.

Regard your TWA furloughee, Hooper, Horton or whatever his name was.

Horner.

We heard this from the ALPA VP Admin. When he was appointed to your merger committee, he wasn't even a member in good standing. He was delinquent on dues and was a West ALPA objector. Beebe nearly had a coronary over that one.

You got the order slightly wrong. He had to pay and rejoin ALPA before he got appointed.

But that has nothing to do with B&W's blog.

Correct. It has nothing to do with anything. It does say a lot about his character that he was willing to look past his valid complaint against ALPA to serve the AWA pilots.

Do you really think with all the ALPA money they've been paid over the years and want to get in the future that they'd be touting a non-ALPA line in this?

That's a valid point but it wasn't an issue and if it had became an issue legal malpractice could've come into play.

You think this B&W blog is the end of this?

What, you mean the end of self-serving pontificating attorneys? Of course not. Roland worked for the East once before so I'm shocked, shocked, to see him agreeing with counselor Seham.

 

[Megasnoop]

Hey Mega,

Check this out! Here is what a Federal Judge had to say that backs up Freund's claim that the Nic award was just a proposed list.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p...c?2007cv1309-18

Hate2fly, stop kicking them while their down! Don't forget this gem in the Breeger case, same circumstances, totally different conclusion by a Federal Judge:

The USAPA Merger Committee developed a seniority integration proposal to integrate the existing seniority lists of pre-merger US Airways and pre-merger America West pilots.1 The integration of these existing lists was based on the prospective application of date of hire principles. The Merger Committee did not apply date of hire principles retroactively to disturb the relative position of the pilots within the pre-merger East and West seniority lists. The West Pilots, on average, have lower date-of-hire seniority. Therefore the seniority proposal also contains numerous conditions and restrictions designed to protect the unmerged career expectations of those West Pilots.

After approval by the USAPA BPR, the seniority proposal was presented, during collective bargaining negotiations, to US Airways in September 2008. To date, US Airways has not responded to USAPA’s seniority integration proposal and negotiations towards a single collective bargaining agreement continue.

… Plaintiffs allege that USAPA breached its DFR by misinterpreting its own Constitution, and they seek to substitute USAPA’s current seniority proposal with the one
of their own.

On January 28, 2009, the Defendant (USAPA) filed its Motion to Dismiss, contending, among other things, that in the absence of a ratified collective bargaining agreement between the Defendant Union and the Airline, this controversy is not “ripeâ€￾ and, accordingly, there is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

In their Response, Plaintiffs rely almost entirely upon the District Court’s denial of the USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss in a similar case filed by the America West pilots in the District of Arizona. See Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95214 at *24 (D. Ariz. 2008) (Honorable Neil V. Wake, United States District Judge) (unpublished). As discussed below, significant differences in the facts alleged in support of Plaintiffs’ respective DFR claims make Judge Wake’s ruling inapposite (i.e., irrelevant - Ed).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1), the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 96 (1998). Accord Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417, 422 (4th Cir. 1999); and Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). The party seeking federal jurisdiction in this case, the Plaintiffs, have the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1), a court should “regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.â€￾ Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted). The moving party’s motion to dismiss should be granted when “the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.â€￾ Id. (internal citation omitted).

Federal courts may adjudicate “only actual ongoing cases or controversies.â€￾ Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). As a result, federal courts may not entertain actions that are not yet ripe. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967). “The Supreme Court has established a two part test for determining ripeness, by deciding1) whether the issues are fit for judicial decision, and (2) whether hardship will fall to the petitioning party on withholding court consideration.â€￾ Static Control Components, Inc. v. Darkprint Imaging, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 722, 732 (M.D.N.C. 2001) , citing Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 148-49. “An issue is not fit for review if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.â€￾ Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. 2007), citing Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998).

Concerning the ripeness of a DFR claim, the Supreme Court has recognized that the “final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty [of fair representation].â€￾ Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991) (emphasis added). The parties have not cited, and the undersigned is unaware of, any published federal authority addressing whether a union’s conduct may give rise to a ripe DFR claim prior to the conclusion of negotiations with the employer.[/i]

(While recognizing that unpublished decisions 2 have no
precedential value, the undersigned notes that District
Courts in the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern
District of California have held that a DFR claim is not ripe
until a final agreement between the union and employer is
ratified. See Huff v. International Union of Sec. Officers, 2002
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2003 at *17-18 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2002)
(DFR cause of action based on proposed union affiliation
“not yet ripe,â€￾ noting it “would be entirely premature for
the court to act in regard to an affiliation that has yet to be
voted on by union members . . . [because] the affiliation
may not be ratified.â€￾); and Dolan v. Association of Flight
Attendants, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3342 at *14
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 1996) (even with tentative agreement
between airline and union, DFR claim not ripe). Additionally,
the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate
state appellate court with jurisdiction over matters related
to state and local government, has held that “any controversy
arising from the impact . . . [of ongoing labor] negotiations
or arbitration ... will not be ripe until after the bargaining and
arbitration process is completed.â€￾ Fraternal Order of Police v.
Yablonsky, 867 A.2d 658, 663 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).

 

[nycbusdriver]

To all you westies, looks like the legal community is beginning to weigh in on the Addington case. One law firm that does a lot of ALPA work (even did some for us) has weighed in already. But what do they know? Open air BLOG discussion. Comments are already recorded.

None of what prominent labor attorney William Wilder has to say is relevant to the USAviation.com forum. We have our own expert pseudo-attorney here who disagrees, and even sat through the whole thing. Neener, neener.

That's all that counts.

 

[nic4us]

No outside attorney may represent any ALPA property without the exspressed approval by ALPA. That's the way it works, except for merger attorneys. There you hire who you want.

Are you not discussing who the TWA merger attorney was?

 

[nic4us]

Regard your TWA furloughee, Hooper, Horton or whatever his name was.

Beebe nearly had a coronary over that one.

Horner.

Then I would bet Bebe passed a stone when he found out he was junior to him! Just kiddin' Bebe is indeed senior to, K Horner on the Nic list.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Ah, yes, Babtiste and Wilder. Our old friend Roland Wilder is well known to the TWA folk. He was the counsel to the TWA MEC during our merger proceedings with AA. We thought he worked for us but apparently he worked for Duane Woerth and we found this out at the worst possible time. He is indeed an experienced labor attorney but like Mr. Seeham he'll say what gets him the most business. Remember when the AAA MEC had him sue the AWA MEC? How'd that ill-advised suit work out?

You are exactly correct. Lawyers will argue a case for one client, then in another similar case, argue just the opposite for that client. It's their job. An attorney expert in RLA or NLRA law may represent a company one day and be labor's nemesis, then next year be a champion of labor in another case. That's the way our system works, for better or worse. What is important is the expertise in the applicable law, precedent and manner or representation.

That you found out too late that Baptiste & Wilder were really representing ALPA, and not the TWA pilots, is a sad commentary on ALPA, not Baptiste & Wilder. THAT is one of the principle reasons the east pilots were hell bent on getting ALPA the "flock" off the property. ALPA always bragged about all the "expert" help they could offer the pilots, but that "expert" help was always paid by ALPA and always did ALPAs bidding. Sadly, the USAirways (east) pilots learned this lesson many times over, but the pants-wetter MEC officers and the majority of MEC members never really GOT IT. They just continued to hang on every word from the ALPA "experts," and we were sold down the river on more than one occasion as a result. (I think the west pilots even figured that out, as they were once hell bent on dumping ALPA, too.)

A REAL expert is an expert no matter which side he/she argues. Expertise has no loyalties. It just is.

 

[nycbusdriver]

"...is set in stone"

(echo)
is set in stone, is set in stone, is set in stone, is set in stone, is set in stone, is set in stone, is set in stone, is set in stone...

That is....if it stands, if it stands, if it stands, if it stands....

Remember that huge statues of Saddam Hussein that was "set in stone?"

 

[nic4us]

Hate2fly, stop kicking them while their down! Don't forget this gem in the Breeger case, same circumstances, totally different conclusion by a Federal Judge:

Kick away, it is great entertainment.

Totally different conclusion, because it is a set of completely different circumstances being presented.

Your getting good at presenting out of context case law, that has no support for your position, and in fact supports the opposite.

Taking lessons from Seeham I presume.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Unions covered by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act are required to submit annual financial statements to the US Department of Labor. These statements provide basic information and for larger unions the reports are called a LM-2.

Click here to read USAPA's report on the DOL's website and to view informative information regarding USAPA's filing.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[HPDriver]

That is....if it stands, if it stands, if it stands, if it stands....

Remember that huge statues of Saddam Hussein that was "set in stone?"

I don't quite get what your babbling about with your post, but just so you know:

1. the statue was made of bronze

2. the stone base is still there

Is your point that statue represents USAPA because it too is being pulled down and destroyed all the while the stone base, which represents Wake's decision, remains in place and undamaged?

I can go with that.

Is that another echo I hear?!?!!?

it'll stand, it'll stand, it'll stand, it'll stand, it'll stand, it'll stand