US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/23- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[john john]

You can't be serious.

Why did we sell the EMB 170s?

Because we were out of money.

That should clue you in to the precarious state was in.

Same reason the compay sold the E190
MONEY. your point

 

[john john]

It simply cannot choose to nullify what had already occurred prior to USAPA becoming the bargaining agent.

This done all the time with every collective bargaining contract with a vote from their members
It is that simply

 

[hp_fa]

If it is a federal court shouldn't they all operate the same?

Yes, but they all have published local rules. What I was really getting at was the manner in which counsel presents himself/herself in front of the court and what might be accepted as far as demeanor in one court may be different in another court.

I am originally from New York and I can say that in my experience New Yorkers tend to be more brash, assertive and seemingly have an air of "I am from the big city and you are not" type of attitude. Now don't get me wrong, this statement isn't a one size fits all comment. Attorneys tend to be more assertive and aggressive than other members of society but what passes for acceptable behavioral norms in one area might be completely different somewhere else. As I said I have no experience with what constitutes what passes as acceptable in NY courts, but I do have knowledge of what passes for acceptable in Arizona and I can say that Seham's methods concerning the Addington case were, IMO, at or beyond the limits here in Arizona.

 

[hp_fa]

Judge Wake said himself that he might have let things go too far.

I think the context of that remark is in connection with what evidence he allowed the jury to hear. Before the trial began he had made it clear he was not going to allow litigating the Nicolau decision. However certain facts were allowed and then he allowed material he really didn't want to allow in, but he allowed it because of trying to keep the case fair in the context of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. If he had to do the same case again he might rule differently or set different ground rules via pretrial rulings and the pretrial statement. What he was trying to do was keep the case presented to the jury simple enough for them to understand without extraneous material that would simply confuse them.

Remember that the court of appeals never ruled one way or the other on the issues of admission of evidence, simply that the case was not ripe.

That and the fact that he got overturned on ripeness...how do you put all that aside and preside over parts of the case again? I wouldn't think he would want the controversy.

Wake's rulings, other than ripeness, were not overturned. Actually, IMO, if the court of appeals actually had ripeness problems I would have thought they would have expressed them when the Class certification issue was presented to them via a special action. Instead they allowed the trial to proceed. I never quite figured out the subsequent decision after they had let the trial proceed.

 

[Pi brat]

Yes, but they all have published local rules. What I was really getting at was the manner in which counsel presents himself/herself in front of the court and what might be accepted as far as demeanor in one court may be different in another court.

I am originally from New York and I can say that in my experience New Yorkers tend to be more brash, assertive and seemingly have an air of "I am from the big city and you are not" type of attitude. Now don't get me wrong, this statement isn't a one size fits all comment. Attorneys tend to be more assertive and aggressive than other members of society but what passes for acceptable behavioral norms in one area might be completely different somewhere else. As I said I have no experience with what constitutes what passes as acceptable in NY courts, but I do have knowledge of what passes for acceptable in Arizona and I can say that Seham's methods concerning the Addington case were, IMO, at or beyond the limits here in Arizona.

Seems a judge should be above that, if not maybe there is some validity to the biased court theory.

 

[BoeingBoy]

This done all the time with every collective barraging contract with a vote from there members
It is that simply

So the union can write up any contract it wants, have it pass a membership vote, and the company has to abide with it? I think not. Seems like there's a little something called negotiation between the union and company that takes place before the membership gets to vote - the union can't unilaterally pick and choose which provisions of the existing contract are valid.

Same with the transition agreement - the company and union agreed to it so the (new) union can't arbitrarily decide to ignore part of it.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

So the union can write up any contract it wants, have it pass a membership vote, and the company has to abide with it? I think not. Seems like there's a little something called negotiation between the union and company that takes place before the membership gets to vote - the union can't unilaterally pick and choose which provisions of the existing contract are valid.

Same with the transition agreement - the company and union agreed to it so the (new) union can't arbitrarily decide to ignore part of it.

Jim

I agree, but can they never change anything that is in it? Like the min. fleet. Will we always have to have those numbers?

When I listen to Kirby and Parker they seem to be saying that they have lived up to the the TA by accepting the Nic award, but they are unsure if it has to remain unaltered or even used in the future.

There are sections of the contract that have been changed and some of them impact certain pilots more than others.

There is no guarantee that the company will go along with any seniority list, you are right, the union can't just demand it. Wasn't that a big part of the "unripe" thing?

 

[john john]

So the union can write up any contract it wants, have it pass a membership vote, and the company has to abide with it? I think not. Seems like there's a little something called negotiation between the union and company that takes place before the membership gets to vote - the union can't unilaterally pick and choose which provisions of the existing contract are valid.

Same with the transition agreement - the company and union agreed to it so the (new) union can't arbitrarily decide to ignore part of it.

Jim

Very true negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the parties put it out to vote
Isn’t that what is going on at the negotiating table NOW

 

[BoeingBoy]

I agree, but can they never change anything that is in in?

Any contract between the pilots (as represented by...) and the company can be changed through negotiation, or even written so a particular agreement disappears upon some event or time. Take the transition agreement - it is only effective during the transition from 2 separate airlines to one integrated airline with a single pilot contract. It also has provision for renegotiating it's contents.

The union just can't do it unilaterally by saying "That was agreed to by the old union, not us, so it doesn't apply any longer." A replacement union inherits all the contractual commitments made by the former union. If it were otherwise, why are you still working under LOA 93 - USAPA could just say "The former bargaining agent signed that, not us, so it doesn't apply any longer".

Jim

ps - I think that was the basis for the "not ripe" ruling - until a contract is negotiated and passed there is no way to know what the combined seniority list will look like. To paraphrase, the 9th said that until that point is reached, the West will not know whether the harm they fear will occur or not - USAPA could adopt the Nic award or come up with it's own solution that doesn't harm the West as they fear. Personally I don't expect either of those to happen, but one or the other could in theory happen.

 

[Phoenix]

The 9th "held" that the case was not ripe. Everything else was "dicta".

You should dust off your law class notes or ask for a refund. Your insinuation that no words except "not ripe" have any force is unique.

If Judge Wake flippantly disregards the legal reasoning contained in the discussion (saying they are just "dicta") then he can fully expect to be schooled again.

The 9th never based their conclusion on proposed, hypothetical, or actual negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant going forward. Never. The negotiations to which the 9th refer are "in fact" (and can only be so) as they are obviously between the company and USAPA. USAPA can and is negotiating with the company and the 9th fully recognized the legality of that fact, as well as the possibility (it is foundational to their conclusion of "not ripe") that the outcome of those negotiations (between the company and USAPA) could render plaintiff's lawsuit without (or with) merit, depending on the outcome.

The 9ths opinion is full of the obvious acknowledgment that the company and USAPA (not the plaintiff and the defendant) must negotiate a conclusion to the seniority proposal. Once the CBA is ratified (with the seniority proposal that may or may not be Nic) the internal union dispute will be brought to a head or it will be miraculously resolved to the satisfaction of all pilots.

If Wake wants to blaze a new trail without any regard to the 9th legal reasoning that acknowledges that the company and USAPA will negotiate the seniority proposal then I wish him all the egg his face can gracefully handle.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Very true negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the parties put it out to vote
Isn’t that what is going on at the negotiating table NOW

For a combined contract in general, yes. To my layman's mind, the TA specifies a process for determining how the combined seniority list is to be reached. That process was completed and a combined seniority list constructed before USAPA became the bargaining agent. Can USAPA now, after the fact, unilaterally change the combined seniority list without being guilty of a failure of it's DFR responsibilities? What the company is asking in it's judgment request is whether or not it will be exposed legally if it negotiates anything except the Nic Award.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Wake's rulings, other than ripeness, were not overturned.


Actually, IMO, if the court of appeals actually had ripeness problems I would have thought they would have expressed them when the Class certification issue was presented to them via a special action. Instead they allowed the trial to proceed. I never quite figured out the subsequent decision after they had let the trial proceed.

I'm dying to read all the rulings of Wake that remain (other than the ones in the order to dismiss). It must be quite a list.

Addington should sue the 9th for their $1.8M.

 

[snapthis]

Appeal filed with the Supreme Court!

 

[nic4us]

If Wake wants to blaze a new trail without any regard to the 9th legal reasoning that acknowledges that the company and USAPA will negotiate the seniority proposal then I wish him all the egg his face can gracefully handle.

Um...the company already negotiated the method of integration. If they now renege, guess what.

Get sued, waste money, be tied to usapa in "unquestionably ripe DFR".

The 9th got their decision soooo wrong, and it is evident in the company's apprehension to negotiate anything with usapa. The company is not interpreting the 9ths decision in the same manner as usapa, that is for sure. They will not touch the seniority issue, because they know what contracts they agreed to, and they had nothing to do with a bunch of disgruntled malcontents attempts at reneging on binding arbitration.

Wake is not going to tell the company and usapa you cannot negotiate seniority, he is going to tell them, you are free to get yourself sued, and you are going to lose if the seniority list comes back anything other than the Nic.

Nowhere in the 9ths decision did it greenlight a unions failure of its DFR. Nor did they even address the company's liability for contractual breach in collusion with the usapa.

 

[traderjake]

Same reason the compay sold the E190
MONEY. your point

We were broke.

The status quo at USAirways was not an option absent the merger.

I believe at the very least we would have been cut in half.