US Pilots Labor Thread 12/30-1/5

[hp_fa]

Happy New Year to you as well.

 

[electricjet98]

Anyone seen EastUS, lately. Apparently banned from Pilotloop.com.

 

[electricjet98]

Everyone may like to take a look at the 12/29 AOL filing. If successful, the USAPA games will get very epensive for USAPA members. I should reprase that; it will get very expensive for east USAPA members.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wow...I got the paralegal and the Oracle all in the same breath....

I may need a minute.

No problem - take all the time you want. After all, anyone who thinks the NMB is the proper forum for litigation involving unions under the RLA needs to read slowly.

USAPA did not hide the fact that their CBL's embraced a DOH format (as does almost every other trade union)...they didn't advertise themselves without disclosure, so the fact that they were the elected agent clearly made for some changes in "assumptions of previous positions"...no? )

As you say...No. The new CBA assumes all agreements made by the previous CBA (and in this case agreements made between factions of the same CBA). It can't decide which pre-existing agreements to assume and which not. It can't decide to unilaterally change the terms of pre-existing agreements.

What it can do is attempt to negotiate changes to pre-existing agreements between the former CBA and the company - but is constrained in what changes it can make without crossing the DFR line. And it cannot, thanks to the way USAPA set itself up, renegotiate pre-existing agreements between the two factions of the previous CBA - there is no West representative body with whom to negotiate those changes.

As I've said before - USAPA can have any merger policy it wants (subject to DFR limits) proactively. What's clear, however, is that the USAPA merger policy was formulated and intended for this merger only. The position that previous mergers won't be reexamined has already been announced and federal law preempts USAPA's DOH policy for any future mergers.

Jim

 

[V1cut]

Well, Jimmy-Joe..seems you stopped chasing Mrs. Boy around the table a few years ago...and we gain from your loss.

The fact is that the courts shall decide what fractional remnants a new union is responsible for..not what at you or any other silver-back decides is important.

Lets all just sit back and watch a judge tell a LEGAL union that they MUST adopt a seniority list that conflicts with their CBL's that were MADE PUBLIC prior to the vote of said union.

Your time is better spent chasing the dog around the table, pal.

Or whatever you tend to chase.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Must be trying to see how many of the mods' ground rules you can break in a single post...sad that that's the best you can do.

I'd suggest taking your own advise - wait for the judge to rule. If you stop posting ill-informed (or made up) legal opinions I'll stop responding to them.

Jim

 

[Tiger 1050]

Lets all just sit back and watch a judge tell a LEGAL union that they MUST adopt a seniority list that conflicts with their CBL's that were MADE PUBLIC prior to the vote of said union.

V1,

Here is what Judge Wake has said thus far...

"USAPA vehemently argues that it had every right to renounce its express
obligation to the ALPA Merger Policy and the arbitrated seniority award, to which it is
bound by the 2004 CBA and the Transition Agreement. It says it may recant a prior
bargaining position and adopt a seniority policy based upon date of hire. Seniority rights
“are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated
by later negotiated changes in this agreement.†Hass v. Darigold Dairy Prods. Co., 751
F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). As a general proposition, the seniority scheme under the
Nicolau Award is not the only permissible way to resolve post-merger seniority issues
within unions. For instance, there is nothing per se unacceptable about a seniority
agreement based on the date of hire. Laturner, 501 F.2d at 599; Rakestraw v. United
Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1533 (7th Cir. 1992). USAPA refers repeatedly to these
principles at their highest level of generality. The problem is, though the benefit of the
Nicolau Award is surely what motivates the West Pilots, their legal objection to
USAPA’s date-of-hire seniority policy is not directly substantive, but rather procedural.
The alleged breach of the duty stems from the bad faith manner of USAPA’s determined
attempts to evade the Award. Irrespective of whether seniority rights “vest†in a
proprietary sense, a union may not arbitrarily abridge those rights after a merger solely
for the sake of political expediency. Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 800
(7th Cir. 1976); see also Rakestraw, 981 F.2d at 1531.
The Ninth Circuit has not dealt directly with this fact situation, but the union’s
position flies against the headwind of cases from other circuits. The D.C. Circuit has held
that a union breaches its duty of fair representation when it “arbitrarily adopt and
announce a bargaining policy on seniority merger motivated only by a desire to win the
votes of a majority of the employees.†Truck Drivers & Helpers, Local Union 568 v.
NLRB, 379 F.2d 137, 145 (D.C. Cir. 1967). This is so because to adopt such a policy
under the circumstances “would . . . constitute a default by [the union] in its obligation to
represent fairly all the employees in the unit for which it becomes the exclusive
bargaining representative.†Id. Along the same lines, a union may not delegate its
decision-making function to a referendum of employees “with the understanding that their
actions will be motivated solely by their own personal considerations†because such a
referendum violates the union’s duty to consider the views of all those it represents.
Branch 6000, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. NLRB, 595 F.2d 808, 812 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
USAPA was formed and has taken action as a creature of majority will. Though the will
of the majority is not inherently discriminatory, see id., in this case the East Pilots are
alleged to have targeted the Nicolau Award in a way that gives scant consideration to the
West Pilots’ interest. By casting off the brokered arrangement after its predecessor
agreed to the process by which it was reached, USAPA “has renounced any good faith
effort to reconcile the interests†of both pilot groups. Truck Drivers, 379 F.2d at 142-43

 

[electricjet98]

Lets all just sit back and watch a judge tell a LEGAL union that they MUST adopt a seniority list that conflicts with their CBL's that were MADE PUBLIC prior to the vote of said union.

No debate that USAPA was legally elected. You also seem to be implying that since the CB&L's were made public prior to the NMB election, the election was therefore some kind of democratic vote or referendum on DOH and that USAPA would therefore be justified to implement by force, something other than the Nic.

 

[Metroyet]

Lets all just sit back and watch a judge tell a LEGAL union that they MUST adopt a seniority list that conflicts with their CBL's that were MADE PUBLIC prior to the vote of said union.

Click your heals together three times and repeat,

"There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home, There's no place like home.....


Judge Wake is going to take your "legal union" and shove it up sideways.

Nobody is dumb enough to believe your USAPA B.S.

8 months in and nothing, (but class action lawsuits) to show for the effort.

Well Done Easties.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I just want to wish the pilot group(and everyone for that matter) a happy & safe New Year.

 

[Richard]

Folks,

The tailstrike situation has little if anything to do with the labor issues, and it's irrelevant whether East or West was involved at this point.

Let's keep this thread on labor. I have split out the discussion of the tailstrikes to a separate thread as it is not directly related to the labor union disputes.

Thank you and Happy New Year,

Richard

 

[nostradamus]

Cactus 18 side of the story

 

[Dog Wonder]

Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak.

Do you guys ever go to work?

 

[kubotapilot]

Hey all, Happy New Year !

Let me toss this hypothetical question out to the group. Just a hypothetical for discussion.....so no bashing, flaming, ranting etc... that most of the children have been exchanging lately ok? Just an adult, civilized debate on this one question :




What would happen if for some crazy, remote reason a Federal court declares the Nic award INVALID ??? As in technically flawed and thus unusable by any CBA ???




Also, as I asked ClearedDirect earlier, with no response...

Can any of you connected legal types let me know when the DFR trial date is ?? If not set is there any of you who has the time line for the DFR case? Information such as expected time frames for Interrogatories, Discovery, Depositions, Motions etc... as I don't have the time to do the research and I assume that many of you frequent posters here do ???

Thanks

 

[Piedmont1984]

If the award was declared invalid, I would most likely strip to the waist, roll inverted - and valsalva...... or some reasonable facsimile thereof to express my pleasure.