US Pilots Labor Thread 3/11-3/18 OBSERVE THE RULES

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Sure its on class certification and not the merits of the case itself, true enough. But, it is illuminating in and of itself to see how something that usapa and its supporters have been trumpeting as of late, is referenced by the Judge as hardly even meriting further discussion. Its not the first time such a disconnect has been revealed either.

 

[Megasnoop]

Let me try a more fact-based version.
That is the short version. I attempted to be objective.

You forgot about this little gem, hp (it came from AWAPPAs current attorney, Jeff Freund):

1.Thus, the “arbitration award†Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate†is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority listâ€). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating†and “arbitration,†the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company. Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate†an “arbitration award†that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.

Got to LUV Jeff Freund. Our number one witness (but not only on the above).

That said, the East MC (which no longer exists) swung for the fences and struck out. Then the East MEC (which also no longer exists) swung for the fences with an ALPO-funded lawsuit and struck out, too. Then ALPO, trying to save their pork (dues money), tried the Wye River Hail Mary. They struck out, too. With ALPO still in power at the time, I can almost understand the West MECs position. Afterall, ALPO convinced the West ALPO would win the representation vote. USAPA, which had NOTHING to do with the above, got elected on a DOH platform. Now were in court. But is AOL now the one swinging for the fences? Well know soon. One thing that AOL will have to think about: just like arbitration, once you go to court, you lose control.

But as I said a year ago, LOS made a lot more sense that either relative seniority or DOH. Its middle ground. Either side swinging for the fences has its risks. But with an arbitration award that the West is convinced is in stone, I can see their point of view.

On the positive side of class action is now the "DFR 6" have the ability to negotiate for the entire class. If they go that route and come up with a "less than NIC," then anyone who doesnt like that can opt out and sue on their own. Before the class action decision, grabbing at AOL was like trying to pick up Jello. My guess, AOL wont consider negotiating, unless the testimony goes south on them. But if USAPA sees its going their way, then they probably wont negotiate. We (both sides) are all such a predictable lot.

Also, as Ive said before, however this turns out isnt going to make much difference to me or how I bid. Ill never have the flexibility I have now for an upgrade to make sense, be it under NIC, DOH, LOS or dart board. With 8 years to go and my seniority, Ill accept where Im at.


Da' Snooper

 

[cleardirect]

You forgot about this little gem, hp (it came from AWAPPAs current attorney, Jeff Freund):

1.Thus, the “arbitration award†Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate†is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority listâ€). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating†and “arbitration,†the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company. Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate†an “arbitration award†that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.

Got to LUV Jeff Freund.

Da' Snooper (AKA Megan)

Well that is a nice piece of history. But as with most defenses used by the east, irrelevant. Might want to read the DFR complaint. AWAPPA is not a party to this litigation. So what does Freund have to do with the current situation?

Next, even if at the time it was a proposal. Again history, the facts have changed. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was a proposal. What exactly were they proposing to do? Would that be to get the company to accept the list. Yes that happened. We have gone over that. Two signed letters have been posted here accepting the Nicolau as the list. So now what is the proposal again? It is no longer a proposal it is the list.

What does this snippet have to do with USAPA having their rear end handed to them by the judge in this last order? Other then to divert attention from the subject at hand. This case being certified as a class action. The same case that USAPA fought inch by inch to stop. But failed.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Well Snoop drug the Freund one out, we're still waiting for nostradamus though. He should be along shortly with that link to the original rico complaint.

 

[Megasnoop]

Well that is a nice piece of history. But as with most defenses used by the east, irrelevant. Might want to read the DFR complaint. AWAPPA is not a party to this litigation. So what does Freund have to do with the current situation?

Next, even if at the time it was a proposal. Again history, the facts have changed. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was a proposal. What exactly were they proposing to do? Would that be to get the company to accept the list. Yes that happened. We have gone over that. Two signed letters have been posted here accepting the Nicolau as the list. So now what is the proposal again? It is no longer a proposal it is the list.

What does this snippet have to do with USAPA having their rear end handed to them by the judge in this last order? Other then to divert attention from the subject at hand. This case being certified as a class action. The same case that USAPA fought inch by inch to stop. But failed.

Clear, you are so quick on the reply. You must have missed my edit. Give it a look. Comment on it if you want.

Actually AWAPPA has intwined itself deeply in this, since there are overlapping leaders. About Freund, you cant unring the bells hes already rung, and theres more than just his filing in court.

Snooper

 

[Tiger 1050]

After having read the most recent order (as well as past orders) from Judge Wake I must say that Seham and his firm seem woefully out of their league... Makes one cringe to think he already plans on irritating the 9th Circuit with a plea to appeal. Wow.

For all those easties that were trumpeting the "plaintiff's don't even understand their own lawsuit" mantra should read this order. I am sure you'll find it very enlightening.

 

[Freighterguynow]

What does this snippet have to do with USAPA having their rear end handed to them by the judge in this last order? Other then to divert attention from the subject at hand. This case being certified as a class action. The same case that USAPA fought inch by inch to stop. But failed.

Guess there's something in it for everyone:

Plaintiffs also seek monetary and declaratory recovery relating to dues and fee
payments on behalf of the class.

Where the claim for injunctive relief “predominatesâ€￾ over any claim for monetary recovery

In this case, the claims for injunctive relief do predominate

In other words - there isn't going to be a big payday only ( if you DO win DFR ) nothing more than a requirement to use the Nic going forward.

]Since that will never pass membership ratification, all efforts then to East LOA 93 snapbacks and the rest of the process will rot for a decade if needed.

Oh, and you will pay dues as well:

The Court has already expressed its concern that there may be no legal basis for a
class-wide refund of union dues and fees (doc. # 202, at 8)

 

[ClueByFour]

Got to LUV Jeff Freund. Our number one witness (but not only on the above).

You must be listening to Seeham.

It does not matter (and if you read the latest order from the judge, you can infer where he is going) how Freund (or anyone else, but Wake and/or the jury) characterizes it. The question is one of fair representation.

You guys can put Fruend on right after the West counsel dismantles Sully, if the judge even allows either.

This judge is clearly not going to allow the "appeal to emotion" stuff, even during a jury trial.

You have a look at the latest order? Really not good for a lot of the stuff you've posted, Nos, East, et al.

 

[Tiger 1050]

In other words - there isn't going to be a big payday only ( if you DO win DFR ) nothing more than a requirement to use the Nic going forward.

I believe the two issues have been bifurcated. If the west is successful in their DFR claim then another trial with another jury will hear about any damages sought.

Since that will never pass membership ratification, all efforts then to East LOA 93 snapbacks and the rest of the process will rot for a decade if needed.

I think what you said here is that you get the snapbacks and everything else sits on a shelf because of membership ratification. Is that right?

Well if that is your intended message, realize that this is a federal court issuing an order. And while the Judge may not "make" you ratify some onerous clause with in some future contact he can make it so financially distasteful that you'd much rather follow his order. I'm quite sure we'll see some element of "force" in his ruling. Going against an order is contempt of court. Fines and possible jail time. Remember APA?

Oh, and you will pay dues as well:

The Court has already expressed its concern that there may be no legal basis for a
class-wide refund of union dues and fees (doc. # 202, at 8)

Yes I believe that we'll be required to pay dues. No doubt. I wonder though if you could convince a court to allow the plaintiff's to pay their own restitution? What I mean is, could the Judge fine the union and the union assess the membership to cover these fines all the while the plaintiff class is required to pay the assessment also? I highly doubt that.

 

[hp_fa]

For what it is worth...

I read the Order regarding class certification that was dated 3/10/09. I can't get past the perception that Judge Wake truly seems upset with USAPA's positions in this litigation, their filings and how their counsel is proceeding in this matter. USAPA seems to be trying to delay adjudication of the primary issues of the Injunction issues which the Court has clearly stated will be decided sooner rather than later.

As I have posted elsewhere, I am really trying to be objective when I read these documents. It just seems to me that USAPA, in connection with this litigation, is heading for a train wreck. While it remains to be seen how Judge Wake rules on evidentiary matters (Motiions in Limine and rulings from the bench) that will be allowed to be presented to the jury, I don't think his record in rulings in this case bodes well for USAPA.

 

[Pi brat]

For what it is worth...



As I have posted elsewhere, I am really trying to be objective when I read these documents.

Oh yeah, that's obvious. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Piedmont1984]

hp fa

Just curious, but what do you think about the jury being from AZ and the possiblity that they may be biased in favor of the plaintiffs.

IOW, the plaintiffs are employees of the former hometown airline. They have family ties, community ties, etc.

Is it presumptuous or paranoid on my part to assume that a tainted jury pool may exist - and thereby serve as grounds for an appeal?

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Oh yeah, that's obvious. Thanks for the laugh.

You mean a laugh like this? - - - -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnvjYsRPZg

Fair enough - we hope you enjoy the ride.

 

[Piedmont1984]

On the issue of LOA 93 and snap backs, I think the phrase snap back is a bad one. I also have a suggestion.

Let's scrap the idea of a "clean slate" contract and focus instead on Dec 31 of this year - when LOA 93 EXPIRES. With the expiration of LOA 93 the controlling document is Restructuring #1. The provisions, pay rates and benefits within that document are quite acceptable to me in many ways.

We are getting nowhere negotiating a brand new contract, lets focus on simply returning to a pre bankruptcy collective bargaining agreement - which aleady existed with language already in place.

As for the 190 guys and gals - LOA 190

 

[hp_fa]

Is it presumptuous or paranoid on my part to assume that a tainted jury pool may exist - and thereby serve as grounds for an appeal?

It is possible, however I think it is highly unlikely that any potential taint could be a viable grounds for appeal.

Jury selection is generally done by the court and the parties. While I don't know Judge Wake's exact procedure, what I have normally seen occur is that the Court will first ask members of the jury pool if they know any of the named parties or had dealings with them. Those that answer yes may either be summarily dismissed or further voir dire (questioning of the jury members) of them may proceed to find out if there is indeed any disqualifying prejudice. The Court shall strike potential jury members if it perceives a prejudice to either party. The parties may request jury members to be struck. Finally, once the jury pool is reduced the parties may strike various members of the jury using "peremptory" strikes. A parties peremptory strike may be challenged by opponents if it is deemed to be based on discrimination. Finally the jury is reduced to the size that will hear the matter and one or two extra jurors will also be seated. Most courts do not determine who the alternates are until the case is ready to be deliberated by the jury so that all the jurors are paying full attention and not expecting to be dismissed at the end of the trial.

Think of it this way. In actions that occur with parties being in various states, the case needs to be filed somewhere, so there is always one or more parties that are not of the state in which the action is filed. Federal courts can only obtain jurisdiction of a case under limited circumstances, such as diversity or jurisdiction when the matter exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount, whether a federal question of law exists, or other limited reasons. Accordingly, there is nearly always an out-of-state party. The courts where the issue is to be decided will do all that is possible to provide a fair venue to both sides.

Does that help?