US Pilots labor thread 11/5-

[Metroyet]

Absolutely!.......which if no consensual agreement between USAPA and the new union would guarantee a new Federal arbitration using Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's which has DOH as the precedent. ALPA merger policy could not be used by law under a McCaskill-Bond mandated arbitration.

underpants

Using the Nic. and whatever other list. TWO lists.

DOH is meaningless in another arbitration. No matter how appealing the fantasy, the Nic. arbitration did happen, it was legal, final and binding. That was affirmed in Fed. court and will be reaffirmed in the 9th.

No entity can ignore the injunction. Using any other list is...by definition...NOT a legitimate union objective. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the facts of the case a bit better.

Doug Parker, once again, was talking out of his rear end.

 

[hp_fa]

Yes what about Wake's injunction? Wake has already ruled USAPA can abrogate the Nicolau award with a "legitimate union objective".

Huh? Abrogate? Don't you mean that Wake would re-visit his ruling if their was a change in circumstances related to the injunction?

 

[ClueByFour]

Yes what about Wake's injunction? Wake has already ruled USAPA can abrogate the Nicolau award with a "legitimate union objective". New merger would mean entirely new union objectives. Yes the West could file a new DFR lawsuit but with a new transition agreement, new 3 way joint contract and new consensual or arbitrated seniority list using DOH in place good luck with that one.

They would win that DFR just as quickly as they won Addington. Niclolau is the list USAPA would be presenting to any future merger partner or arbitrator.

Absolutely!.......which if no consensual agreement between USAPA and the new union would guarantee a new Federal arbitration using Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's which has DOH as the precedent. ALPA merger policy could not be used by law under a McCaskill-Bond mandated arbitration.

You need to re-read McCaskill-Bond. It calls for a "fair and equitable" seniority list integration (Section 3). If that fails, it's off to arbitration (section 13). Neither of these things in any way, shape, or form references DOH.

You essentially get ALPA merger policy (the arbitrator variety). Nicolau is most likely a McCaskill-Bond permitted outcome. Think that one over for a second.

 

[BoeingBoy]

When Parker mentioned a "merger oif three groups, not two" he was correct - at least assuming such a merger occured prior to operational integration of the pilots at US. There are three groups - East, West, and the piloots of the merger partner.

However, some seem to insist on inserting an additional word into the meaning of Parker's words - :seniority", as in "seniority merger of three groups, not two".

While three groups of pilots would indeed be merging, seniority integration would only put two lists together - the list for the merging airline's pilots and the Nic list.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

I had a scheduling question about an Appellant's Reply about the time that the Appellees' Response was filed. The person that I had this conversation with told me that the Court of Appeals had, by written Order, shortened the time for filing any Reply. It appears that the Appellant failed to comply with that Order.

The next question is the one you asked, what does a court generally do with a late filing? In my experience the Court reads the filing. After reading the filing it decides whether or not to bar the filing due to being late or not. However, this is a US Court of Appeals and they do things differently. The staff counsel are likely to be reviewing this issue before it gets to the panel. I expect that staff counsel will then forward the Reply along with a memorandum regarding any late filing issues and any recommendation they have whether or not any late filed document should be reviewed.

So, the answer I give you now is "I don't know." It certainly would have been far easier for counsel to simply have filed on time and not raised any timeliness issue(s).

Counsel filed on time. I would be suspect if lawyers were talking about cockpit procedures, and am just as suspect when pilots and non lawyers try to do the same with legal procedures (note, not issues…procedures)

I know a lot of folks were surprised when USAPA got the appeal, and got an expedited appeal at that. The fact that the appeal was expedited changed the timeline. Looks like a lot of folks are caught so off guard they are not paying attention. Next.

RR

 

[Captain Underpants]

Using any other list is...by definition...NOT a legitimate union objective. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the facts of the case a bit better.

Wake was clear in his ruling. USAPA can abrogate the Nic list when they have a legitimate union objective. Your statement would require Wake to reverse his decision as well go against the prior case law cited by Wake that specifically allows unions to change arbitrated seniority lists as long as the union is motivated by a legitimate union objective.

I have worked with many of the original Allegheny and Mohawk pilots and they were a fine group of men and extraordinarily skilled and experienced pilots. Mohawk was bankrupt and shut down at the time of the Allegheny merger. Mohawk routes and aircraft were merged into AAA and some of the Mohawk pilots were recalled to active while many remained on furlough. The seniority dispute went to arbitration and the arbitrator ruled that fairness required all the Mohawk pilots including those furloughed to integrate with full date of hire seniority. The poor economic condition of Mohawk would not justify super seniority for Allegheny pilots.

The Allegheny Mohawk merger was considered and still is considered the model of fairness towards employees during merger integrations. Most pilot contracts have Allegheny Mohawk labor protective provisions (LPP's) to protect employees and guarantee fair treatment during a merger. Even now 40 years later the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's formed the basis for the McCaskill-Bond law seniority integration protections. While the law does not require a specific integration method to be used it by law protects seniority agreements made between employees representatives and the carriers and requires the lists to be integrated in a fair and equitable manner. McCaskill-Bond specifically prohibits the use of ALPA merger policy unless both pre-transaction carriers are represented by ALPA.

The key points of McCaskill-Bond are:

-Requires by law a fair and equitable seniority integration
-Protects by law any new seniority mutual agreement made between the carriers and the representatives of the employees
-Requires either an NMB Federal arbitration or other mutually agreed to alternative dispute resolution process to settle any remaining seniority issues not settled by collective bargaining between the employee representatives and the carriers.

This all means USAPA can negotiate a new seniority agreement between the other union representative and the carriers and that agreement is absolutely protected and considered fair and equitable by the McCaskill-Bond seniority protection law. Wake would be prohibited by law from interfering with a seniority agreement that is protected by McCaskill-Bond. The McCaskill-Bond law was written to prevent outside parties especially Federal Judges from interfering with or trying to dictate unfair seniority integrations.

underpants

 

[nic4us]

Absolutely!.......which if no consensual agreement between USAPA and the new union would guarantee a new Federal arbitration using Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's which has DOH as the precedent. ALPA merger policy could not be used by law under a McCaskill-Bond mandated arbitration.

underpants

Underpants,

Allegheny-Mohawk requires seniority integration "in a fair and equitable manner", not DOH.

So in another merger, what would be "fair and equitable"? Although usapa thinks it fair to reneg on agreements, break commitments, and rearrange seniority list whenever it is convienient for them, I doubt they will get a go ahead nod from any future merger partner, who would likely be the surviving union.

Also, you are assuming usapa is still on the property by the time a seniority integration arbitration could take place. Barring a merger with a much smaller airline, we all know any merger means good riddance usapa.

So, all this threeway merger talk is simply academic. If it happened, seniority integration would either use the Nic, or for all practical purposes, be undistinguishable from an integration that did.

 

[nic4us]

By George, this is the first brilliant comeback you've posted here! Nonetheless, you are still dead wrong.

Glad you liked it.

You must have missed all those comebacks I had for EastUs, Nostrodamus, Pacemaker,et al. Whatever happened to those folks?

 

[Reed Richards]

While three groups of pilots would indeed be merging, seniority integration would only put two lists together - the list for the merging airline's pilots and the Nic list.

Jim

According to Judge Wake, that might or might not be true. I am not even sure how far he will go in forcing a labor union to negotiate certain terms, especially (in this as yet fantasy scenario) he would be carrying the bargaining position of a possibly twice removed union to the table.

These are interesting discussions, aside from our emotions. We are currently in the Ninth trying to answer some of the truly unique questions brought up by the creation of USAPA and it's relationship/responsibilities to Nic and two pilot groups.

Current labor law is either about to be rewritten or simply traced over with a black sharpie. None of us really know how this will all end, excepting our own logic and resulting conclusions. You own logic says Nic is forever, mine says it is already history. Others with the power to do so will soon tell us both the answer Jim.

RR

 

[hp_fa]

Counsel filed on time. I would be suspect if lawyers were talking about cockpit procedures, and am just as suspect when pilots and non lawyers try to do the same with legal procedures (note, not issues…procedures)

Ummm, I have a legal background and I can read and understand the applicable rules of procedure. So, who are you addressing with your comment?

 

[BoeingBoy]

According to Judge Wake, that might or might not be true.

RR

It has nothing to do with what Judge Wake might or might not do. I was merely pointing out what Parker actually said as opposed to what some seem to think he said (orr at least read into what he said). But if you can find where Parker said that a merger would entail a three way seniority integration I'd be happy to admit my error.

Jim

 

[Captain Underpants]

It has nothing to do with what Judge Wake might or might not do. I was merely pointing out what Parker actually said as opposed to what some seem to think he said (orr at least read into what he said). But if you can find where Parker said that a merger would entail a three way seniority integration I'd be happy to admit my error.

Jim

The actual Parker quote:

Asked whether a merger would be prevented by the inability to combine two pilot groups following the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two."

underpants

 

[Phoenix]

Ummm, I have a legal background and I can read and understand the applicable rules of procedure. So, who are you addressing with your comment?

Who knows.. but surely he wasn't referring to me.. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[TheBadCat1313]

Parker says lots of things. You east folks believe him when you want to and don't believe him when you don't want to. There's only one thing to remember, though. He represents the shareholders. Period. End of story.

 

[Hawkhunter]

Parker says lots of things. You east folks believe him when you want to and don't believe him when you don't want to. There's only one thing to remember, though. He represents the shareholders. Period. End of story.

Funny thing, I was thinking the same thing about you Westies!