employment rights of their represented members.” Id. at *51.
In addition to the substantive challenge that Naugler presents to the legal viability of
Nicolau, the pendency of that action undermines the Company’s request in Count I, which
seeks a declaration that USAPA must, pursuant to its DFR and RLA duties, bargain for
implementation of Nicolau. As recently argued by ALPA in Naugler, it raises the
“prospect of inconsistent judgments,” because Naugler could result in a finding that
Nicolau was tainted by ALPA’s DFR breach, while the Company currently asks this Court,
in Count I, to declare that the list is valid and that USAPA is barred from negotiating for
anything other than Nicolau. (See Granath Decl., Ex. A at 49).
The Company, in its current request for declaratory relief, asks this Court, through
6 The district court in Addington barred USAPA from presenting any evidence challenging
the process, procedure, or decision of the Nicolau Award.” (08-01633, Doc. # 362 at 2).
This included evidence relating to the pending Naugler litigation. The ruling, contrary to
established precedent, precluded USAPA from establishing why it “never accepted the
arbitration decision in principle.” Associated Transport, 185 N.L.R.B. at 633.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 69 Filed 11/01/10 Page 8 of 10
Counts I and II, to opine on whether or not Nicolau must be included in any future CBA.7
Therefore, the Company seeks a resolution that will affect not only the West pilots, but the
lives and careers of over 3,000 East pilots, who the Ninth Circuit found have already
“expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the Nicolau Award.” Addington,
606 F.3d at 1180. Yet, in the face of this, the Company somehow continues to argue that it
is only the West pilots, and not the East pilots, who are necessary parties.
IV. CONCLU
