US Pilots Labor Discussion 8/25- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[BoeingBoy]

My non-legal opinion and not having read the suit is no, mainly because they were suing the wrong party. The West was no more responsible for the award than the East was - both sides took what they thought was their best shot. If the MEC really believed that the award didn't follow ALPA's policy, they should have sued ALPA for DFR or not following it's own C&B/L's. Those grounds would have almost undoubtedly been fruitless as well - courts have given much leeway for a union to interpret it's own constitution and also that ALPA's merger policy doesn't constitute a violation of it's DFR responsibilities - but at least they'd have been suing the party they thought did them wrong.

Of course, now that time has run out for the East MEC, USAPA, or individual pilots (ala Addington) to sue ALPA you "hear" plenty of "it's all ALPA's fault" thrown around.

Jim

 

[Ames]

If the MEC really believed that the award didn't follow ALPA's policy, they should have sued ALPA for DFR or not following it's own C&B/L's. Those grounds would have almost undoubtedly been fruitless as well - courts have given much leeway for a union to interpret it's own constitution and also that ALPA's merger policy doesn't constitute a violation of it's DFR responsibilities - but at least they'd have been suing the party they thought did them wrong.

Jim

Exactly.

 

[Metroyet]

My non-legal opinion and not having read the suit is no, mainly because they were suing the wrong party. The West was no more responsible for the award than the East was - both sides took what they thought was their best shot. If the MEC really believed that the award didn't follow ALPA's policy, they should have sued ALPA for DFR or not following it's own C&B/L's. Those grounds would have almost undoubtedly been fruitless as well - courts have given much leeway for a union to interpret it's own constitution and also that ALPA's merger policy doesn't constitute a violation of it's DFR responsibilities - but at least they'd have been suing the party they thought did them wrong.

Of course, now that time has run out for the East MEC, USAPA, or individual pilots (ala Addington) to sue ALPA you "hear" plenty of "it's all ALPA's fault" thrown around.

Jim

But....But.........But...........It's only a PROPOSAL!!!!!

 

[nic4us]

Had those changes not happened do you think the lawsuit had merit?

Absolutely no way.

It is my understanding that there are exactly two reasons you can get an arbitration overturned.

1. Some type of fraud,extortion, bribe or other illegal activity occured.
2. The arbitrators decision falls so far outside of common industy practices that it reflects on the arbitrators ability to have made the decision in the first place. ( contrary to Prater's bs the arbitrator could not have decided based on eye color, height and/or some other whimsical method).

The lawsuit the east MEC filled in the DC district court alleged the second had occured. Stating things like "New hires" were place with 17 year "journeymen union members". A falsehood in and of itself, and even if true, not outside of common industry practice. Further, the Nic is a weighted relative seniority integration, completely fair and equitable, and the most frequently used integration system in the industry when pilot mergers occur.

That lawsuit was a complete loser, and likely would never have gone to trial.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

"The lawsuit was a complete loser, and likely would never gone to trial. " WOW just what the 9th circuit court of appeals said , maybe WAKE, HARPER and AOL should of had, that 2mill vision you know! MM!

 

[BoeingBoy]

"The lawsuit was a complete loser, and likely would never gone to trial. " WOW just what the 9th circuit court of appeals said

I take it you're relying on crew room gossip to make that statement. Otherwise you'd know how untrue it is...

Jim

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I take it you're relying on crew room gossip to make that statement. Otherwise you'd know how untrue it is...

Jim

JIM, In case you haven't heard addington was tossed by the 9th, no crewroom rumor! That is true!MM! I was replying to the quote before that stated the DFR filed by the EAST MEC, would have never gone to court just as they insisted addington would prevail, BTW they cleaned out the bagroom the other day and found your lightbulbs and some extra paper goods hope you get them at your next crewroom! MM!

 

[BoeingBoy]

JIM, In case you haven't heard addington was tossed by the 9th, no crewroom rumor! That is true!MM! I was replying to the quote before that stated the DFR filed by the EAST MEC, would have never gone to court just as they insisted addington would prevail, BTW they cleaned out the bagroom the other day and found your lightbulbs and some extra paper goods hope you get them at your next crewroom! MM!

You may be confusing two different suits but probably not since you said "the 9th". Since the 9th said nothing about the East MEC's suit against the West MEC - that suit wasn't before them - you obviously weren't talking about the earlier MEC suit but rather the Addington suit.

In Addington, the 9th did not rule that the suit "was a complete loser and never should have gone to trial" as you claimed. The 9th merely ruled that the suit was filed too early and nothing else. It doesn't really matter which post you were responding to - your statement was not accurate.

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

My non-legal opinion and not having read the suit is no, mainly because they were suing the wrong party. The West was no more responsible for the award than the East was - both sides took what they thought was their best shot. If the MEC really believed that the award didn't follow ALPA's policy, they should have sued ALPA for DFR or not following it's own C&B/L's. Those grounds would have almost undoubtedly been fruitless as well - courts have given much leeway for a union to interpret it's own constitution and also that ALPA's merger policy doesn't constitute a violation of it's DFR responsibilities - but at least they'd have been suing the party they thought did them wrong.

Of course, now that time has run out for the East MEC, USAPA, or individual pilots (ala Addington) to sue ALPA you "hear" plenty of "it's all ALPA's fault" thrown around.

Jim

Interesting point of view (bold italics) on court precedent. I've seen similar comments elsewhere on this forum, but never from you.

Do you think the courts meant this to apply only to ALPA? Or unions in general?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You may be confusing two different suits but probably not since you said "the 9th". Since the 9th said nothing about the East MEC's suit against the West MEC - that suit wasn't before them - you obviously weren't talking about the earlier MEC suit but rather the Addington suit.

In Addington, the 9th did not rule that the suit "was a complete loser and never should have gone to trial" as you claimed. The 9th merely ruled that the suit was filed too early and nothing else. It doesn't really matter which post you were responding to - your statement was not accurate.

Jim

No confusion to me, 2 mil and nothing to show but hey! I thought I could go to court but on APPEAL, my suit is tossed, I'm sorry that is a loser,2 mill loser! The game will be much different going forward! Spin it how you wish! Your crewroom needs some updating!

 

[autofixer]

No confusion to me, 2 mil and nothing to show but hey! I thought I could go to court but on APPEAL, my suit is tossed, I'm sorry that is a loser,2 mill loser! The game will be much different going forward! Spin it how you wish! Your crewroom needs some updating!

He's retired.

 

[AWE Dog]

Absolutely no way.

Stating things like "New hires" were place with 17 year "journeymen union members". A falsehood in and of itself, and even if true, not outside of common industry practice.

Not outside common industry practice? Where else has a new hire been put ahead of somebody with even 15 years LOS. I call BS.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

He's retired.

I Know all to well his is the RETIREMENT crewroom updating! MM!

 

[Black Swan]

Absolutely no way.

It is my understanding that there are exactly two reasons you can get an arbitration overturned.

1. Some type of fraud,extortion, bribe or other illegal activity occured.
2. The arbitrators decision falls so far outside of common industy practices that it reflects on the arbitrators ability to have made the decision in the first place. ( contrary to Prater's bs the arbitrator could not have decided based on eye color, height and/or some other whimsical method).

The lawsuit the east MEC filled in the DC district court alleged the second had occured. Stating things like "New hires" were place with 17 year "journeymen union members". A falsehood in and of itself, and even if true, not outside of common industry practice. Further, the Nic is a weighted relative seniority integration, completely fair and equitable, and the most frequently used integration system in the industry when pilot mergers occur.

That lawsuit was a complete loser, and likely would never have gone to trial.

"Exactly two?" You forgot the big third one. The one where you elect a new representative entity that negotiates seniority. To use the former is to perpetuate the former. The former is gone.

 

[cleardirect]

Not outside common industry practice? Where else has a new hire been put ahead of somebody with even 15 years LOS. I call BS.

Where else does 15-16-17 years get you furloughed?

I call your BS and raise.