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

[Black Swan]

OMG! :blink: I can't believe there are still those who subscribe to this theory of hiding from binding arbitration by changing their name. Honestly, is there really a need to debate this point endlessly? Neither side will be convinced of the others position. One thing is for certain, when the dust settles we will all know for sure how final or not binding arbitration really is.

You call dumping ALPA and creating USAPA a name change? There is really no debate if you understand what is going on here. This is a slam dunk case of internal union affairs and until you wrap your head around it, you are going to remain confused for a long time.

 

[Barrister]

I agree. Regardless of what they say here, the East pilot's biggest inherent problem was themselves collectively, not any national organization or the influence of bigger airlines.

Is the recall drive actually in progress? There have been some here who claim it is just a fantasy.

My prediction is that if the loa 93 grievance is lost, and the company stands on the Nicolau award and refuses to enable USAPA to drag them into a lawsuit, then the few remaining USAPA/Cleary supporters on this forum will disappear without a word of retraction for all that's been said.

You would be wrong. Read the tea leaves here. USAPA loses the Dec. action.
They appeal. ....where does all of this eventually wind up...probably
back in the 9th....when does that happen.....about 5 years from now. In the
meantime 1000 F/Os out east upgrade. 60K raise right there. Want me to keep going??
You ain't getting it. With NIC things back east get worse that EVER...especially
with Parker downsizing PHX. Just got to wait on those votes.....about 5 years from now.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Black Swan]

There's spin and there's that answer, which has absolutely nothing to do with USAPA seeking to delay the LOA 93 ruling, which was being discussed when I made the post you quoted.

But since you're on the subject, the 9th said absolutely nothing about the Nic not being final and binding. In fact, they explicitly said "We do not address the 'thorny' question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA" in one of the footnotes addressing the dissent. But I'll give you a chance to quote the part of the 9th ruling where they said that the Nic wasn't final and binding on USAPA.

Jim

OPINION

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:

3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nevertheless, plaintiffs now allege in their transfer motion that the, “pilots agreed to use binding arbitration” (Doc. # 642 at p. 2) (emphasis added). That is inaccurate, and willfully so. Plaintiffs not only stipulated to the contrary (Doc. # 417, p. 5, at ¶ 14), but the Court of Appeals found otherwise. See Addington, 606 F.3d at 1177.



And, in making the lack of injury determination, this Court necessarily rejected plaintiffs’theory of their case that a failure to implement a predecessor union's proposal one even the former union was free to drop is somehow a violation of the duty of fair representation. Id. at *14, n.3 [/u]( USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor”)

Third, and more fundamentally, date of hire seniority terms in the context of corporate mergers cannot constitute harm at all because they have been specifically upheld by the Supreme Court, the precedent of this Court, and other circuits, as a fair and equitable exercise of a union’s prerogative. Indeed, under controlling precedent in this circuit, date of hire (or “dovetailing”) amounts to no less than the ‘gold standard.’ In Laturner v. Burlington N., Inc., 501 F.2d 593, 599 (9th Cir. 1974),
Third, and more fundamentally, date of hire seniority terms in the context of corporate mergers cannot constitute harm at all because they have been specifically upheld by the Supreme Court, the precedent of this Court, and other circuits, as a fair and equitable exercise of a union’s prerogative. Indeed, under controlling precedent in this circuit, date of hire (or “dovetailing”) amounts to no less than the ‘gold standard.’ In Laturner v. Burlington N., Inc., 501 F.2d 593, 599 (9th Cir. 1974),
this Court stated:

It has long been recognized that the use of such a method to integrate seniority rosters is an equitable arrangement for resolving the inevitable conflicts which arise whenever a merger occurs [citations omitted] ... we thus view the implementation of a date of hire consolidation to be well within the “wide range of reasonableness”
[which] must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents ...

See also Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 348, n. 10 (1964) (“integration of seniority lists should ordinarily be accomplished on the basis of each employee’s length of service with his original employer ...”); De Boles v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 552 F.2d 1005, 1014 (3d Cir. 1992) (dovetailing is valid even where it “disadvantage the union members who ha[ve] been employed by the younger of the two consolidated companies.”); Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1533 (7th Cir. 1992); Ekas v. Carling Nat’l Breweries, Inc., 602 F.2d 664 (4th Cir. 1979).


They claim that the Supreme Court would reverse because, this case will encourage other unions to refuse, in bad faith, to implement an arbitrated seniority integration” (DktEntry 52 at 1-2), when this Court has already found the Nicolau arbitration was merely “the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA.” Addington, 606 F.3d 1174, at *15, n.3. But there is no arbitration that USAPA was ever a party to anywhere in this record. And the district court properly dismissed (and plaintiffs did not appeal) the removed state claim, which asserted the pilots themselves were a party. There not only is no federally mandated’ arbitration, there is no arbitration at all, merely a predecessor union’s bargaining proposal.

 

[Hate2fly]

And, in making the lack of injury determination, this Court necessarily rejected plaintiffs’ theory of their case that a failure to implement a predecessor union’s proposal – one even the former union was free to drop – is somehow a violation of the duty of fair representation. Id. at *14, n.3 [/u](“USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor”)

Third, and more fundamentally, date of hire seniority terms in the context of corporate mergers cannot constitute harm at all because they have been specifically upheld by the Supreme Court, the precedent of this Court, and other circuits, as a fair and equitable exercise of a union’s prerogative. Indeed, under controlling precedent in this circuit, date of hire (or “dovetailing”) amounts to no less than the ‘gold standard.’ In Laturner v. Burlington N., Inc., 501 F.2d 593, 599 (9th Cir. 1974),

...They claim that the Supreme Court would reverse because, “this case will encourage other unions to refuse, in bad faith, to implement an arbitrated seniority integration” (DktEntry 52 at 1-2), when this Court has already found the Nicolau arbitration was merely “the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA.” Addington, 606 F.3d 1174, at *15, n.3. But there is no arbitration that USAPA was ever a party to anywhere in this record. And the district court properly dismissed (and plaintiffs did not appeal) the removed state claim, which asserted the pilots themselves were a party. There not only is no ‘federally mandated’ arbitration, there is no arbitration at all, merely a predecessor union’s bargaining proposal.

Swan,

This is one of my favorite quotes from the 9th........

3 We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA.

Somebody got spanked!

Hate

 

[Hate2fly]

Here are some more gems! Quotes from the 9th.

"The parties to the arbitration, as found by the Ninth Circuit, were “the US Airways Pilot Merger Representatives and the America West Pilot Merger Representatives.” Addington, 606 F.3d at 1177."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 648 Filed 08/10/10
"Nevertheless, plaintiffs now allege in their transfer motion that the, “pilots agreed to use binding arbitration” (Doc. # 642 at p. 2) (emphasis added). That is inaccurate, and willfully so. Plaintiffs not only stipulated to the contrary (Doc. # 417, p. 5, at ¶ 14), but the Court of Appeals found otherwise."Keep the donations coming.

Hate

 

[exB717Flyer]

Keep quoting the 9th. Your creative interpretation of their statements is amusing but more importantly your misunderstanding of their significance is very amusing. The appellate court made one ruling and one ruling only: the case wasn't ripe. Everything else they wrote is interesting but irrelevant because it has no legal bearing. Appellate courts don't retry cases, they only rule on points of law during the conduction of the case. But for the ripeness issue the case was won by the Addington plaintiffs. If you feel lucky about your chances in another DFR trial then we shall both find out.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Is the recall drive actually in progress? There have been some here who claim it is just a fantasy.

There is a card drive in progress to get the recall put to a vote. I believe the threshold to force a vote is signatures by 25%+1 of the membership. The West alone can easily achieve that. Truly, the chances of a recall vote succeeding are not so good but it's worth a try.

 

[Hate2fly]

Some more of my favorite quotes.........some of the desert judges best work?

*Excluding Defendant’s exhibits: No. 1003 (Notice of Removal, because this would have shown the ALPA West MEC attorney Freund describing Nicolau as merely a bargaining proposal), No. 1048 (AWA MEC message, because this would have

shown ALPA pressuring the West to compromise Nicolau).




* No. 1068 (ALPA West MEC attorney Freund’s email, because this would have shown that ALPA

considered East operations more profitable and thus a basis upon which East pilots

would reject voluntarily accepting the Nicolau award).


*Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate” an “arbitration award” that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company


*Judge Emmet Sullivan - Memorandum Opinion November 30, 2007



“Ultimately, 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.” See Defs. Opp’n 3-4.

Notice Judge Emmet Sullivan gets it! Too bad the desert judge got spanked by the 9th.

Hate

 

[Black Swan]

There's spin and there's that answer, which has absolutely nothing to do with USAPA seeking to delay the LOA 93 ruling, which was being discussed when I made the post you quoted.

But since you're on the subject, the 9th said absolutely nothing about the Nic not being final and binding. In fact, they explicitly said "We do not address the 'thorny' question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA" in one of the footnotes addressing the dissent. But I'll give you a chance to quote the part of the 9th ruling where they said that the Nic wasn't final and binding on USAPA.

Jim

If you are going to quote the Thorny Issue, you better remember to use it in its' entire context. To not do is to purposely mislead.

 

[Black Swan]

Keep quoting the 9th. Your creative interpretation of their statements is amusing but more importantly your misunderstanding of their significance is very amusing. The appellate court made one ruling and one ruling only: the case wasn't ripe. Everything else they wrote is interesting but irrelevant because it has no legal bearing. Appellate courts don't retry cases, they only rule on points of law during the conduction of the case. But for the ripeness issue the case was won by the Addington plaintiffs. If you feel lucky about your chances in another DFR trial then we shall both find out.

We got you profit sharing and a DC Plan. You purposefully held the east pay down out of spite. Damage? Hello! Try crying to a court when your pay was higher for years, and you were fine with it. Then you have no clue as to what Internal Union Affairs constitutes. Try making the case why you were damaged when you jumped all over the seniority list when the Nicolau is specifically stated by the 9th to not be any issue at all. Then you try again, after your first extreme clarification by the 9th( to the tune of 2 million, thank you) and try and use it when you were specifically told by a Federal Court is was not a requirement of use by USAPA. Please, do it! And use Jacobs also. We feel extremely confident.

 

[CallawayGolf]

We got you profit sharing and a DC Plan. You purposefully held the east pay down out of spite. Damage? Hello! Try crying to a court when your pay was higher for years, and you were fine with it. Then you have no clue as to what Internal Union Affairs constitutes. Try making the case why you were damaged when you jumped all over the seniority list when the Nicolau is specifically stated by the 9th to not be any issue at all. Then you try again, after your first extreme clarification by the 9th( to the tune of 2 million, thank you) and try and use it when you were specifically told by a Federal Court is was not a requirement of use by USAPA. Please, do it! And use Jacobs also. We feel extremely confident.

So Management has now accepted your DOH seniority list?

 

[767jetz]

First, when most of us are gone, we (who are gone) really don't care what you do. Have at it.

Do you admit this to your junior co-workers in person? I would think they'd take offense to hear this whole exercise is just for your own purposes and you really don't care what happens to them when you're gone.

Interestingly, your 17 year, junior, furloughed pilots who USAPA are using as a "call to arms" to rally support for your "cause" are exactly the ones who you say you don't care about. How telling is that?

 

[luvthe9]

If you are going to quote the Thorny Issue, you better remember to use it in its' entire context. To not do is to purposely mislead.

Agreed. Totally disingenuous to quote the "THORNY ISSUE" like it was. Use the entire quote or forget it.

 

[767jetz]

Yeah... same kind of stuff was said about the ALPA decert drive at U... "you won't get 200 cards"... WRONG!

Totally different scenario. An apples to oranges comparison. When you make grandiose promises to 60% of your potential members who will benefit directly at the expense of others (windfall), it's much easier to get the cards needed. Otherwise you must rely on facts and the level of satisfaction (or lack thereof) in current representation. Which is why UPA, DPA, and others generally fail to muster enough support.

 

[Black Swan]

Swan,

This is one of my favorite quotes from the 9th........

3 We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA.

Somebody got spanked!

Hate

Yoh Hate:

It was nice to see you at the picketing event, good press coverage, I think I saw your picture, along with the 150 plus pilots who showed up, in the paper and on the news !!! Cleary has got this wired!

Also remember that Jeff Freund in a memo told J.R. , J.Mac and K.S. on August 29, 2005 (Do you think the West Pilot Group got that memo?) the following: "I think the pressures and risks are all on your side of the transaction, not the US Airways side. Here are my thoughts....The judge who has been sheparding US Airways along for the last three years and two bankruptcies will not let it collapse."

Second, I believe that the company can operate without a transition agreement, but you can’t. You have scope protections, but keep in mind that the new company will be US Airways and will be flying under its certificate. While the two companies remain separate, there will be little to restrict the company from shifting flying from AWA to AAA or from allowing all the new flying to AAA without a transition agreement keeping flying separate.


Additionally, Jeff Freund wrote the folllowing is his Notice of Removal filed on July 24, 2007:…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate” an “arbitration award” that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company,