Care to cite a case with the same fact base as this? Crew news - yes, I did watch it and am waiting for an eastie to quote the part I found most enlightening.
I do love the revisionist history - were you the one whose kid had the "Let My Daddy Vote" sign? The PHL and PIT reps tried to stop the "Get an agreement, any agreement" crowd, unsuccessfully due to the gang of fearful GAG followers I might add.
Jim
So, Jim, enlighten me. What part do YOU speak of?
I don't know about the "Let My Daddy Vote" sign, however, are you one that wishes to DENY pilots the right to vote? That is tyranny...similar to Empire tyranny we all speak of. Since you relish to relive past history, here is your defining principle of Piedmont PIETY and your holier than thou apostate, Tory Vaughaun. Here is what HE had to say about Empire (which could have very well been American West as well, fill in the blank Jim because YOU ARE THE BEST!):
"I am one of those Piedmont pilots who stood up in an LEC meeting in ORF back when we were discussing PAI/Empire and made the case for not giving you DOH. I wasn't the only one but I was one of those
demanding what we did.
Yes, that was a greedy position to take . In retrospect I wish we would have given you C and R's that would have implemented DOH after a time period. I was trying to protect my career and family and that was the justification for my actions back then. It could have been handled better but you also failed to mention that we did give you C and R's like DOH protection in SYR and Furlough by DOH. These items were also included in the Kagel award. Where the problem came in was another merger that we couldn't have foreseen back in 1986. If Piedmont had stayed Piedmont I truly believe you wouldn't have written your post above. However we have the fact that there were several mergers along the way including PSA, US Air, Shuttle, and now America West. We brought several items to the table including wide bodies that many original Piedmont pilots were kept off of for many years because of DOH. In addition our pension plan was the one that brought the lump sum option to the table that many original Piedmont pilots will never see while some others from US Air and PSA obtained that."
As far as case law, I can predict the outcome BASED ON THE RECORD, and I ASSURE YOU I have read, briefed AND presented the very legal arguments that are before the court and REJECTED by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth, btw, was predictable with a high degree of certainty of the outcome. Jacobs rolled the dice on Bybee when he KNEW his background of arbitration law...Bybee wrote the appelate opinion on one of the longest lasting and biggest arbitration cases to come about in the Ninth....USA vs. Park Place. And Jacobs was able to sway HIM to write the disenting opinion in OUR case. What Jacobs failed to tell him, all the while QUOTING the Federal Arbitration Act (listen to the oral arguments) was that the Supreme Court in Circuit City Stores v. Adams the Federal Arbitration Act does NOT APPLY TO TRANSPORTATION WORKERS....aka R-L-A!!!
"A provision in respondent’s application for work at petitioner electronics
retailer required all employment disputes to be settled by arbitration.
After he was hired, respondent filed a state-law employment
discrimination action against petitioner, which then sued in federal
court to enjoin the state-court action and to compel arbitration pursuant
to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The District Court entered
the requested order. The Ninth Circuit reversed, interpreting
§1 of the FAA— which excludes from that Act’s coverage “contracts of
employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”— to exempt all
employment contracts from the FAA’s reach.
Held: The §1 exemption is confined to transportation workers."
As far as the PHX crew news, why don't you listen to the last two minutes of Parker with the title "this i'snt about $1,500". It starts with "let me get to this thought"...
Jim, you "parrot" what Jacobs law firm throws out yet you do NO legal work for yourself. You ask for a case where other unions have done what we have done. There have been unions under NLRB, in fact one went to the Supreme Court but the issue was ruled MOOT while it was ther and dismissed. However, one dissenting Justice thought the case should have been heard on the merits....here is the jist:
the union (AFL at the time) agreed to an seniority integration board which decided the merger of the two unions (both AFL) should go DOH (imagine that). Nine out of ten of the workers in the larger group thought the merger should have stapled the smaller group so they voting in the CIO. They then entailed the smaller group and were sued in state court for a DFR. The jury found them not guilty and so the appeal. Unfortunately, the record somehow became muddled during the appeal and the Supreme Court believed the issue should be rendered moot and was therefore denied. The disent thought the discussion should have continued on the merits.
That is the best I can remember from memory and I cannot recall the case. But this HAS happened before. Why don't YOU cite a case where the MINORITY won the DFR on the same basis??? If the shoe fits.....
