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

[luvthe9]

Appeal filed with the Supreme Court!

Oh Boy, I'm sure this will be high on there list. Keep those donations coming in kids!!!!

 

[Captain Underpants]

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

Jim,

A good summary but you are mixing two separate issues. First is a contract interpretation dispute. Do the West pilots have a contractual right to an unmodified Nic award? This issue is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the system board. No Federal court could ever declare a contractual right to the Nic award. The West pilots have already filed two grievances on this issue which were lost or abandoned. You seem to believe all provisions of the TA can be changed by negotiation except the seniority provisions. The system board has exclusive jurisdiction and can only interpret the contract. They can't declare certain parts of the contract to be non-negotiable or permanently off-limits to modification.

The second issue is will USAPA's future actions violate Federal DFR law. Of course we won't know until the contract is ratified and the DOH seniority list is then the official integrated seniority list and a new DFR case is filed and decided. Looking at the history of DFR litigation we can see a new DFR case would have almost zero chance for success. The basis of DFR law grants unions the authority to resolve disputes and make judgements on the multiple fairness issues they face. Unions win 98% of DFR seniority dispute cases. ALPA has been sued for DFR hundreds of times but has never lost a DFR judgement.

The goal is a fair and equitable seniority integration. USAPA is proposing a reasonable solution that protects both DOH and relative positon and serves the interests of all the pilots. USAPA's proposal is still flexible and they may yet find a better solution before the final seniority provisons are ratfied by a vote of the pilot group.

underpants

 

[cleardirect]

Jim,

A good summary but you are mixing two separate issues. First is a contract interpretation dispute. Do the West pilots have a contractual right to an unmodified Nic award? This issue is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the system board. No Federal court could ever declare a contractual right to the Nic award. The West pilots have already filed two grievances on this issue which were lost or abandoned. You seem to believe all provisions of the TA can be changed by negotiation except the seniority provisions. The system board has exclusive jurisdiction and can only interpret the contract. They can't declare certain parts of the contract to be non-negotiable or permanently off-limits to modification.

The second issue is will USAPA's future actions violate Federal DFR law. Of course we won't know until the contract is ratified and the DOH seniority list is then the official integrated seniority list and a new DFR case is filed and decided. Looking at the history of DFR litigation we can see a new DFR case would have almost zero chance for success. The basis of DFR law grants unions the authority to resolve disputes and make judgements on the multiple fairness issues they face. Unions win 98% of DFR seniority dispute cases. ALPA has been sued for DFR hundreds of times but has never lost a DFR judgement.

The goal is a fair and equitable seniority integration. USAPA is proposing a reasonable solution that protects both DOH and relative positon and serves the interests of all the pilots. USAPA's proposal is still flexible and they may yet find a better solution before the final seniority provisons are ratfied by a vote of the pilot group.

underpants

You had better let your boys over at MDA know this. The east pilots all think the MDA case is going to change the Nicolau.

BTW I would not say that stapling 80% of the west pilots is a reasonable solution.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

A good summary but you are mixing two separate issues.

Can USAPA disregard the result of final and binding arbitration after the fact? If so, does it's replacement seniority list comply with it's DFR responsibilities. Neither of those questions qualify for internal resolution. It would be the proverbial fox guarding the hen house - USAPA deciding if it had done anything wrong. So it's for the courts to decide, not a system board.

As far as the chances of a successful DFR suit, don't ignore the uniqueness of this situation - a union's merger policies were followed to conclusion and the company accepted that conclusion, then the majority side voted in a new union formed expressly to circumvent binding arbitration and replace the combined seniority list with one more to the liking of the majority. I personally know of no case like it, so historical chances of success are meaningless. However, SCOTUS has been pretty clear when it comes to the majority using the union to force it's idea of "fair" on the minority.

Jim

 

[A320 Driver]

Can USAPA disregard the result of final and binding arbitration after the fact? If so, does it's replacement seniority list comply with it's DFR responsibilities. Neither of those questions qualify for internal resolution. It would be the proverbial fox guarding the hen house - USAPA deciding if it had done anything wrong. So it's for the courts to decide, not a system board.

As far as the chances of a successful DFR suit, don't ignore the uniqueness of this situation - a union's merger policies were followed to conclusion and the company accepted that conclusion, then the majority side voted in a new union formed expressly to circumvent binding arbitration and replace the combined seniority list with one more to the liking of the majority. I personally know of no case like it, so historical chances of success are meaningless. However, SCOTUS has been pretty clear when it comes to the majority using the union to force it's idea of "fair" on the minority.

Jim

If they were smart, and that is a big if, they (USAPA) would come up with a seniority proposal that meets the fairness issue of today's landscape instead of 5 years ago. Much has changed (such as the age 60 rule) and if they have to defend it in court, it just seems to me that you would want something defendable...DOH is not. Something has to break this deadlock. The courts could force NIC on the East but they can't force those pilots to vote for it. The 9th mentioned just such a scenario if I remember right.

Unfortunately, USAPA has themselves painted into a corner with their bylaws. I don't believe this company will ever agree to a contract that would have enough benefit to it to overcome the NIC. Of course, writing this is a complete waste of time since the lines are drawn, but it's my time to waste.

Driver B)

 

[Barrister]

That's a given, but I doubt he will be there in person on 10/12/10.

Actually, based on how Judge Silver reacted to the over-length document and her reputation here in Phoenix, Seham should be considering whether or not he is better off with Wake then Silver. As another poster commented he did appear to bend over backwards to understand where Seham was coming in his arguments and objections during the previous proceedings. Silver is an unknown to him, but he has already seemed to miff her and that is never a good thing.

Please HP...you are showing a serious lack of real world experience...I'm sure
the judge will be thinking ....you sob......you are the one who filed a brief that was
waaaaay to long.....I have been waiting for you to show up......PLEASE....that's like
being scolded for using too much single spaced lines when WE KNOW THE RULES SAY DOUBLE!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[cleardirect]

Please HP...you are showing a serious lack of real world experience...I'm sure
the judge will be thinking ....you sob......you are the one who filed a brief that was
waaaaay to long.....I have been waiting for you to show up......PLEASE....that's like
being scolded for using too much single spaced lines when WE KNOW THE RULES SAY DOUBLE!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

I guess you east pilots don't believe in rules. Some people actually think that rules have meaning. A federal judge that granted an exception to a rule then has a lawyer violate that exception. While trying to defend a group that is ignoring their obligation to follow the rules and live up to binding arbitration.

Do you think that judge Silver has not done some research and looked at the Addington case. Read what Wake had to say. Pulled the transcripts and found out how Seham operates? Reputations are hard to shake especially in the small world of federal court.

That judge might find a general disregard for rules to be disturbing. Not a single occurance but a pattern of scofflaw. Perhaps not the court that Seham the rule breaker would want to be in.

 

[nic4us]

Oh Boy, I'm sure this will be high on there list. Keep those donations coming in kids!!!!

Whether or not the Supremes decide to hear our case is a complicated issue that the court will have to determine based on their case load, the importance of the legal questions at hand, the relative importance of cases competeing for the limited docket, and the fact that there is ongoing litigation related to this case (so it might get resolved) in lower courts.

Whether or not AOL should have filed is a simple question. We said we would, we told the 9th we would, we have.

We live up to our word and fulfill our obligations. Try it some time.

The kids are contributing. Save a portion of your lump sum for the coming assesment.

 

[nic4us]

If they were smart, and that is a big if, they (USAPA) would come up with a seniority proposal that meets the fairness issue of today's landscape instead of 5 years ago. Much has changed (such as the age 60 rule) and if they have to defend it in court, it just seems to me that you would want something defendable...DOH is not. Something has to break this deadlock. The courts could force NIC on the East but they can't force those pilots to vote for it. The 9th mentioned just such a scenario if I remember right.

Unfortunately, USAPA has themselves painted into a corner with their bylaws. I don't believe this company will ever agree to a contract that would have enough benefit to it to overcome the NIC. Of course, writing this is a complete waste of time since the lines are drawn, but it's my time to waste.

Driver B)

If they were smart? Well there is the flaw in your premise right their. usapa was not founded on rational intelligence, but emotional reaction.

I have posted before: If they were smart, usapa would simply use the Nic, absolutley avoid all the cost of litigating further lawsuits that they will likely lose, actually get a contract that would be implementable and not blocked by further injunction and litigation, and seek (as Prater called them) "mutual solutions" in the remaining sections of the contract.

I think we are saying generally the same thing, however, I think a ratifiable Nic inclusive contract could be reached. If the company's suit ends in a result that says they must use the Nic, usapa's bylaws are inconsequential and we will see a Nic contract ratified.

 

[A320 Driver]

I think we are saying generally the same thing, however, I think a ratifiable Nic inclusive contract could be reached.

And there is where we disagree. I don't think the company will pony up a contract with enough offset to make it ratifiable (is that a word?). As badly as you want the NIC, there are people who are just a desperate not to have it.

Driver B)

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't think the company will pony up a contract with enough offset to make it ratifiable (is that a word?).

While things are in limbo I tend to agree with you although I suspect a vote would be closer than some on here claim. But if a judge says USAPA has to use the Nic after appeals are exhausted, I suspect you'd see enough East pilots thinking "We gave it a try but lost so show me the money" to pass a contract.

Jim

 

[Captain Underpants]

Can USAPA disregard the result of final and binding arbitration after the fact? If so, does it's replacement seniority list comply with it's DFR responsibilities. Neither of those questions qualify for internal resolution. It would be the proverbial fox guarding the hen house - USAPA deciding if it had done anything wrong. So it's for the courts to decide, not a system board.

As far as the chances of a successful DFR suit, don't ignore the uniqueness of this situation - a union's merger policies were followed to conclusion and the company accepted that conclusion, then the majority side voted in a new union formed expressly to circumvent binding arbitration and replace the combined seniority list with one more to the liking of the majority. I personally know of no case like it, so historical chances of success are meaningless. However, SCOTUS has been pretty clear when it comes to the majority using the union to force it's idea of "fair" on the minority.

Jim

Jim,

The legal questions for now have been answered by the courts and the system board. The Addington class claims were dismissed at both the system board level and at the 9th circuit court. You can argue about the reasons for but not the current effect of the legal decisions. You can sue and appeal 50 times over the same issue but each time it becomes progressively more difficult to win your claim on the same issue that was previously denied.

The company must by law reach agreement with USAPA over a new contract. The new contract will reflect compromise and many decisions by the union over mulitple fairness issues impacting each pilot differently. Only 1% of DFR cases are able to certify a class action. Many but not all West pilots will be satisfied with the new contract terms with the same being true for East pilots. Each pilot does have a right to sue the union for DFR and I would expect multiple lawsuits from both sides. Yes every case is unique but the fact remains that nearly all DFR cases are dismissed for various legal reasons. Of course they would have to be or unions would be unable to function.

underpants

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,

The legal questions for now have been answered by the courts and the system board. The Addington class claims were dismissed at both the system board level and at the 9th circuit court. You can argue about the reasons for but not the current effect of the legal decisions. You can sue and appeal 50 times over the same issue but each time it becomes progressively more difficult to win your claim on the same issue that was previously denied.

You definitely misunderstand what the 9th ruled although I'm sure you believe what USAPA wants you to believe. All the 9th ruled was that the suit was filed too early, not that it lacked merit (or had merit). That also appears to be the company lawyer's understanding since it filed seeking declaratory relief.

Jim

 

[Freebird]

Jim,

The legal questions for now have been answered by the courts and the system board. The Addington class claims were dismissed at both the system board level and at the 9th circuit court. You can argue about the reasons for but not the current effect of the legal decisions. You can sue and appeal 50 times over the same issue but each time it becomes progressively more difficult to win your claim on the same issue that was previously denied.

The company must by law reach agreement with USAPA over a new contract. The new contract will reflect compromise and many decisions by the union over mulitple fairness issues impacting each pilot differently. Only 1% of DFR cases are able to certify a class action. Many but not all West pilots will be satisfied with the new contract terms with the same being true for East pilots. Each pilot does have a right to sue the union for DFR and I would expect multiple lawsuits from both sides. Yes every case is unique but the fact remains that nearly all DFR cases are dismissed for various legal reasons. Of course they would have to be or unions would be unable to function.

underpants

Until then, USAPA will continue to spin the news in their updates. The Desperation and Blame is overflowing back east.

One thing you conviently miss, is that the case was dismissed on Ripeness rather than merit. The West has a case. The East is going to lose. The cowards running the union know it. As do you.

I really like USAPA's email about the company funding Broken Arrow. Look around, USAPA has done more to BUST THE UNION on property than anyone. When I say USAPA, I mean the East pilots who support them by keeping our pay at the bottom of the industry. USAPA hasnt any UNITY from this group and never will without the NIC in place.

USAPA = Spin, spin, spin

 

[Freebird]

Until then, USAPA will continue to spin the news in their updates. The Desperation and Blame is overflowing back east.

One thing you conviently miss, is that the case was dismissed on Ripeness rather than merit. The West has a case. The East is going to lose. The cowards running the union know it. As do you.

I really like USAPA's email about the company funding Broken Arrow. Look around, USAPA has done more to BUST THE UNION on property than anyone. When I say USAPA, I mean the East pilots who support them by keeping our pay at the bottom of the industry. USAPA hasnt any UNITY from this group and never will without the NIC in place.

USAPA = Spin, spin, spin

r reading enjoyment. East F.O. Says......


crazystnic, on 04 October 2010 - 05:41 PM, said:

clear you keep trying to claime that the mid to bottom of the east list is screwing the top of the AAA east list..

bottom line is the difference in CAPT and F/O at AAA is about 3 years. Many of us were hired in 86 and 87. vs 84 for those that are captains.
those Captains have benefited since 84 in the left seat vs us in the F/O seat since 87. We don't have to do anything to save there butt/s They have made 45 K or more per year more than us for over 20 years. WE OWE THEM nothing. If we hold out to not have the nic inflicted on us, it's the least they can do. ... the F/O's have taken enough in the shorts. So stop trying to guilt us that we are screwing the senior.