Ronnie, DUDE, so it happens to substantiate a point of view DUDE! MM! Oh thank you oh god of board edicate!
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Yep, sums up tripartite pretty well.
However, the tripartite contract, the TA, says we will use the Nic. Breeger and Naugler have no claim in the TA to sue the company for using the Nic, as the TA does not call for a DOH list. It is usapa and ALPA who are sued by the other plaintiffs, not the company, and not over violation of a contract, but, selective interpretation of its their constitution and bylaws.
Seham is a moron trying to mix apples and oranges in the company's DJ. The company's DJ is to keep the company from getting sued, what Seham is talking about is trying to keep usapa from getting sued, a completely seperate issue.
But I say, go ahead and include Breeger and Naugler, and explain to the judge why usapa and ALPA are getting sued. It is because neither of them can be counted on to adhear to their own policies, contracts, obligations and duties.
The only groups invovlved in this entire fiasco living up to their word is the company and the West pilots.
i) Resolving The Controversy Within The Pilot Group.
USAPA – as the certified collective bargaining agent – has the exclusive authority
and obligation to negotiate in the collective interest of the bargaining unit it represents.
7 See Doc. # 1, Complaint, ¶ 16.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 38 Filed 09/07/10 Page 25 of 68
- 5 -
Part of that bargaining process is the resolution of conflicts that arise within the bargaining
unit. That is the Union’s job, not the Company’s. Indeed, the Company’s determination to
create a certified class of West pilots for the purpose of evading the existing negotiating
process runs counter to its obligations under the Railway Labor Act. See Barthelemy v. Air
Line Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1007 (9th Cir. 1990) (the “RLA ‘imposes the affirmative
duty on the employer to treat only with the true representative, and hence the negative duty
to treat with no other.”).
It is not for the Company or this Court to determine preemptively what combination
of wages, benefits, work rules and seniority provisions would satisfy the interests of the
collective pilots or any subgroup therein. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit in Addington
determined that the federal judiciary’s premature involvement in the collective bargaining
process could doom the pilots to continuing impasse by saddling USAPA with an unratifiable
agreement. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, if the final agreement is “acceptable
to” the West Pilots, the alleged fear of litigation currently held by US Airways would never
materialize.8 By deferring consideration of this premature claim, the parties will be
afforded the “opportunity to function [through collective bargaining] to iron out
differences.” Young v. City of Detroit, 652 F.2d 617, 627 (6th Cir. 1981).
Moreover, allowing USAPA the opportunity to negotiate an agreement that satisfies
a majority of the West pilot subgroup would dispositively resolve any DFR claim under
existing precedent. Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1533 (7th Cir. 1992);
8 The alleged class is not uniform; there are senior West pilots whose interest is adverse to their
disgruntled junior litigants. See, USAPA brief to Ninth Circuit, No. 09-16564, DktEntry: 7074777,
p. 67.
Case
USAPA – as the certified collective bargaining agent – has the exclusive authority
and obligation to negotiate in the collective interest of the bargaining unit it represents.
7 See Doc. # 1, Complaint, ¶ 16.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 38 Filed 09/07/10 Page 25 of 68
- 5 -
Part of that bargaining process is the resolution of conflicts that arise within the bargaining
unit. That is the Union’s job, not the Company’s. Indeed, the Company’s determination to
create a certified class of West pilots for the purpose of evading the existing negotiating
process runs counter to its obligations under the Railway Labor Act. See Barthelemy v. Air
Line Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1007 (9th Cir. 1990) (the “RLA ‘imposes the affirmative
duty on the employer to treat only with the true representative, and hence the negative duty
to treat with no other.”).
It is not for the Company or this Court to determine preemptively what combination
of wages, benefits, work rules and seniority provisions would satisfy the interests of the
collective pilots or any subgroup therein. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit in Addington
determined that the federal judiciary’s premature involvement in the collective bargaining
process could doom the pilots to continuing impasse by saddling USAPA with an unratifiable
agreement. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, if the final agreement is “acceptable
to” the West Pilots, the alleged fear of litigation currently held by US Airways would never
materialize.8 By deferring consideration of this premature claim, the parties will be
afforded the “opportunity to function [through collective bargaining] to iron out
differences.” Young v. City of Detroit, 652 F.2d 617, 627 (6th Cir. 1981).
Moreover, allowing USAPA the opportunity to negotiate an agreement that satisfies
a majority of the West pilot subgroup would dispositively resolve any DFR claim under
existing precedent. Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1533 (7th Cir. 1992);
8 The alleged class is not uniform; there are senior West pilots whose interest is adverse to their
disgruntled junior litigants. See, USAPA brief to Ninth Circuit, No. 09-16564, DktEntry: 7074777,
p. 67.
Case
usabusdriver
Advanced
- Aug 12, 2007
- 205
- 113
Al,
I am not a fan of management, but I have to say that having an east/west discourse over winter operations knowledge is a rather futile endeavor when Uncles Al, Lyle, and Ed run the show. Just say'n.
Count II of the Addington suit alleged that the Company had violated the Transition
Agreement “because it has not been negotiating with USAPA in good faith to institute
Integrated Operations by adopting a single collective bargaining agreement that would
implement the Nicolau List.” (08-1633 Doc. Doc. No. 86, ¶ 101). US Airways successfully
argued in favor of the dismissal of Count II on the grounds that, under the Railway Labor
Act, the claim presented a dispute that was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System
Board. 588 F. Supp. 2d at 1064. After the scheduling of their class grievance for hearing
before the System Board, the Addington plaintiffs elected to withdraw the grievance in
favor of focusing exclusively on their Count III DFR claim against USAPA.
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
So now you want to steal jobs from the West to try to recover our some of what we lost.
Thanks for the admission.
GorgeousGeorge
Senior
- Apr 29, 2008
- 326
- 357
More like first dibs on what people sacrificed to preserve based on the sacrifices and how long they have been around. What a union concept.
More like first dibs on what people sacrificed to preserve based on the sacrifices and how long they have been around. What a union concept.
Why should you have first dibs at jobs awa pilots brought to the merger? Only the east pilots would think that the 1800 pilot jobs awa brought to this merger belong to the 1700 furloughs bankrupt usair brought to this merger.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Do you even realize how many of the furloughs on the East resigned and never came back when they were recalled? (That 1700 hundred myth is so ancient history.)
No one East of the Mississippi wants dibs on anything West of the Mississippi. I know, I know, you think everyone on the East is lying and really has dreamt all their life about how to live, retire, and die in Phoenix.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,196
Have you guys ever met an aircraft that you have not damaged?
CV580ETOPS
Senior
- Nov 9, 2006
- 311
- 81
Really....Care to share that statement with the 90 or so east pilots that live in the PHX area whos sorry fat a$$es I haul back and forth to PHL or CLT every month ?
cv
It happens to be an opinion, and coming from you if it looks ignorant I'll take that as a complement, now go back to stocking those shelves and hating the EAST pilots for not supporting your wildcat strike! MM!
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
No junior, you have missed the whole point as usual. We had our problems we paid for them. We don't want to pay for yours too.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
