US Pilots Labor Thread 3/4-3/11-READ THE FIRST POST

[souperfly]

Here is where I differ. Based on what I know as an outsider, it appears to me that the process was not really interrupted. It continued through binding arbitration and an award was made. Has the process not gotten to an award being made in a binding arbitration I would agree with what you wrote, specifically that the process was interrupted. Here is an analogy that describes how I view what seems to have happened. Someone makes an offer on a house that is accepted. That person meets all their contractual obligations and goes to closing to sign all the documents and does so. After the closing the lender has cold feet and stops payment on the closing checks. The party buying the house signed the papers but the party selling never got their funds. Who is the owner of the house? Who has the rights to the house? (This is just an illustration and not a fact pattern likely to happen. It is a fast illustration only.)

I have a theory I'd like you to explore, if you're interested. You are obviously an ex-HP Fa...now enjoying some legal-oriented life, albeit not a practicing attorney as yet. Have you considered (by your west slant) that the West in their zeal to litigate against every East pilot in a sweeping motion they made some months back, they they have ignored the idea of "agency" as it appliees to a represented class? That they ignored this issue speaks to their unyeilding zeal to cast as wide a net as possible to catch every 'fish" they can while "fishing". I can't help but be reminded of the phrase EastUS likes so much.." I want the captain seat, and most of all, I want EVERY East pilot to pay for it..."

I'm not a lawyer, but some of the wide-sweeping "posturing" the west has trumped up speak to their true motive.

What do you say, counselor?

 

[souperfly]

The transition process is complete when the single contract is ratified. There were three separate and independent steps that had to be accomplished before integrated operations could be conducted.

1 - Single ops certificate
2 - Single seniority list
3 - Single contract

It mattered not which was completed first or the order of completion, as long as all were completed. It could have been seniority first, ops cert second, contract third, or any other order. As of today, two of the three steps have been completed - SOC and seniority list.

The question before the court is whether or not the majority can circumvent the completed seniority integration by changing CBA's without that CBA being in violation of it's DFR responsibilities.

Jim

Finally, something we agree on. Yep, and with it's NMB sanctioned election including ALL...ALL...ALL LCC pilots, USAPA won the election. And since the west likes to claim that they were outnumbered in this election, it'd be interesting to show the actual numbers' that revealed it was not a full "east-west"" outnumbered vote. Indeed, not all east pilots voted for USAPA, and that can be proved. So then, with the future union truly "up in the air"...USAPA won. And they are entitled to create CBL's accordingly. That the west pilots NEVER participated from the very beginning will drastically impact their DFR case...they were invited: they just didn't like the terms, or the idea...

I don't like OBAMA....doesn't change a thing, does it.

 

[A320 Driver]

Well, we're talking about a jury here. One key point they probably will hear is how do you go about representing people who don't want to be represented? USAPA won the election and clearly the West folks wanted nothing to do with it and would not provide reps. They will probably hear and see evidence that the West in effect created their own "mini-unions" complete with financial support and a concerted effort to short circuit USAPAs representing ability.

If I was on a jury and was convinced that people resisted being represented, I'd probably vote against them.

Just an opinion.

A320 Driver B)

 

[souperfly]

Hellooo?

we have a winner!...

Tell him what he's won, Bob...

You got it, bud.

Now, you know...they will argue that it was not their "responsibility" to be represented...it was USAPA's to do it for them.

A complete transference of responsiblity is about to happen in court. They will downplay the actions they've taken, and suggest that USAPA was remiss in their "duty" to them, although they effectively "ran away from USAPA"

I'd hate to be on their side when this whole deal goes down.

 

[hp_fa]

I have a theory I'd like you to explore, if you're interested. You are obviously an ex-HP Fa...now enjoying some legal-oriented life, albeit not a practicing attorney as yet.

My legal career pre-dated my airline career.

Have you considered (by your west slant) that the West in their zeal to litigate against every East pilot in a sweeping motion they made some months back, they they have ignored the idea of "agency" as it appliees to a represented class?

First, if you don't mind, let's address the bias comment. It is totally true that I flew for America West, therefore I at least casually knew some of the pilots. I may have even had a drink or two with them. But I would strenuously dispute any intended bias on my part because I may have known some of them as opposed to not having known East pilots.

Having worked in law I learned that there are multiple points-of-view on given sets of facts. If you have read many of my comments from the past you would probably ascertain that I believe in the process of law. I also know the law is far from perfect because it isn't always the party with the facts that wins, but rather the party that can out-finance the other party that wins by attrition. (Before everyone gets all upset, that is a general observation of law in general and not related to my view of the pilots' litigation.) I actually pay attention to what the parties say, what they hope to achieve and how they proceed in a given matter. That type of information has my attention.

Now, let's get specific regarding how I perceive and feel about your question.

As a predicate observation I believe USAPA and East ALPA had never done much to endear themselves to the West pilots. The one item that I do recall them doing as a totally nice gesture was the sharing of some bonus monies. However other than that there wasn't much. They seemingly insisted on DOH and/or LOS as the primary criteria of a merger list. West failed to agree with that and the two sides opted to resolve their dispute under the terms of the ALPA Merger Policy since both airlines were, at the time, represented by ALPA. That meant binding arbitration and both sides participated fully and a decision was rendered by the agreed upon arbitration panel. It seems to me that it was only after the arbitration award that East pilots decided to dump ALPA and create a new union specifically designed to avoid the results of the arbitration award. (I know some folks claim that their discontent with ALPA was far longer running, however there never was any prior serious effort to de-certify ALPA from the property.) USAPA did replace ALPA in a totally legal and binding election under the NMB.

With that bit of backdrop I will address your question.

It appears to me that the West pilots did not in any way feel as if they were a part of USAPA. USAPA was seemingly created to marginalize and disenfranchise the West pilots. They pretty uniformly refused to pay dues to USAPA and subjected themselves to potential termination and/or agency fees regarding their position regarding USAPA now representing them as a bargaining agent. However, as I recall, it was USAPA that seemingly was the first party to seek judicial intervention in what I percieved to be an ill-advised lawsuit against a number of West pilots for having allegedly displaying some ill-advised behavior towards USAPA. (Since I lack any first-hand information about the incidents I use the term "alleged" since there never was any civil or criminal finding made that the alleged incidents occurred. However, for purposes of discussion I accept that something that I will describe as ill-advised occurred.) At any rate it appears to me that USAPA, through counsel, decided to use a sledgehammer in the form of a RICO suit to stop any alleged behavior. If memory serves they we seeking millions of dollars in compensation. Can you honestly think that any union would do such a thing, under the alleged facts present, to prospective members?

As I said, the West pilots appeared to take a position that carried some degree of risk with choosing not to become active members of USAPA. They seemingly made a decision based on their perception of how much USAPA would seemingly represent their interests. Also, remember that the USAPA membership agreement contained some rather unusual language that needed to be agreed upon in writing before any membership application would even be considered by USAPA.

What do you say, counselor?

Just to once again be clear, I am not a lawyer.

Based on my perception of the facts and the equities involved I believe that West has the far more compelling case. That said, I am not the judge. I also have had plenty of experience and know there is never anything you can take for granted whenever any contested matter is placed before a judge, jury or other trier-of-fact. It may turn out to be my perceptions are wrong, but I don't think so.

My interest in this case isn't personal, but more of an interest of a unique merging of two prior careers and an interesting fact pattern being present for eventual adjudication.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Finally, something we agree on. Yep, and with it's NMB sanctioned election including ALL...ALL...ALL LCC pilots, USAPA won the election. And since the west likes to claim that they were outnumbered in this election, it'd be interesting to show the actual numbers' that revealed it was not a full "east-west"" outnumbered vote. Indeed, not all east pilots voted for USAPA, and that can be proved. So then, with the future union truly "up in the air"...USAPA won. And they are entitled to create CBL's accordingly. That the west pilots NEVER participated from the very beginning will drastically impact their DFR case...they were invited: they just didn't like the terms, or the idea...

I don't like OBAMA....doesn't change a thing, does it.

Nobody says USAPA election was flawed.

Nobody claims all east pilots voted for USAPA.

Nobody claims they are not entitled to create their own C&BL's.



One can claim that by making the DOH issue the forefront issue of its election promises, USAPA inappropriately used this promise, knowing full well after the fallout from the nic, that a majority, which would be impossible for the west to hold, would most certainly vote for the chance to bring DOH to a reality. Here's some case law quoted.


If granted leave to file this motion, Plaintiffs will demonstrate as a matter
of law that, prior to the April 2008 NMB election, USAPA “adopted and
announced a bargaining policy on seniority merger [a date-of-hire seniority
policy] motivated only by a desire to win the votes of a majority of the
employees.â€￾ Truck Drivers & Helpers, Local Union 568 v. NLRB, 379 F.2d
137, 145 (D.C. Cir. 1967). Plaintiffs will show that announcement of this
policy and other actions effectively made the NMB election a popular
referendum on the Nicolau Award such that USAPA improperly delegated its
decision-making function to a referendum of employees “with the
understanding that their actions will be motivated solely by their own
personal considerations.â€￾ Branch 6000, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v.
NLRB, 595 F.2d 808, 812 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

As far as refusing to participate we'll just have to see if that is an issue or not. I believe the RLA requires a union to fairly represent ALL regardless of their membership status. Now what you can do is go after those who are trying to get out of paying. Just as you can pursue those who fail to meet their dues obligation through Section 29, you also have a responsibility to fairly represent ALL those included in craft and class. So will the Judge entertain this "but they refused to participate" argument? I don't know. But I will say that I think it has very little to do with the notion that it somehow limits USAPA's ability to fairly represent. USAPA has known all along what we out west want! In fact it's just ONE thing. For USAPA/East to live up to their obligations.

 

[souperfly]

Also, remember that the USAPA membership agreement contained some rather unusual language that needed to be agreed upon in writing before any membership application would even be considered by USAPA.

While I can't copy all of your post. most of it is interesting.."unusual language" you mean like that included in EVERY union contract? I was NEVER consulted about ALPA's CBL's when I was a kid coming up...you signed...period. No "vote" to see how I felt...no "gut check"...you sign...you pay. That was ALPA.

So to differentiate , you claim USAPA is inappropriate.

While on FUR in a job years ago, I was hired/indoctrinated by Teamsters.

I carried an ALPA card for over 20 years.
Nobody cared.

"Want to work here?...sign this..."

There was no asking of my opinions, or my feelings...it was what it was, if you wanted to work at that carrier.

And you follow these guys into court now?

OK..

 

[souperfly]

Please, Tiger, tell me how these claims vary from those of our recent Presidential race....

All claim to do something, if elected. If they don't...too bad. If they do.....shock and awe.

Your point again?

 

[Piedmont1984]

This argument that the Nic was the sole reason for USAPA's existence is another misconception. That USAPA is simply a pretense for circumventing the Nic. If the Nic prevails in court, USAPA will continue as the duly elected CBA quite well thank you.

There was a great deal of anti ALPA sentiment in the wake of our pension loss and LOA93. And I'm not convinced that ALPA would be gone if Doug Parker had simply given the east pilots parity from day one.

Remember, had 200 pilots voted the other way, John Prater would still be sending us updates.

The Nic was the last nail in ALPA's coffin.

 

[hp_fa]

While I can't copy all of your post. most of it is interesting.."unusual language" you mean like that included in EVERY union contract? I was NEVER consulted about ALPA's CBL's when I was a kid coming up...you signed...period. No "vote" to see how I felt...no "gut check"...you sign...you pay. That was ALPA.

I don't personally have a USAPA application that contains the exact language. However I did find this post that discusses the application and reaction(s) to the wording and provisions of the application. In my view the application that was discussed in that context was a attempt to get America Weest pilots to sign away their rights, probably with the hope that folks would sign the application and never read what they were signing.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I don't personally have a USAPA application that contains the exact language. However I did find this post that discusses the application and reaction(s) to the wording and provisions of the application. In my view the application that was discussed in that context was a attempt to get America Weest pilots to sign away their rights, probably with the hope that folks would sign the application and never read what they were signing.

Again, stupid arguments. Just because you agree to abide by the constitution, it doesn't mean you can't attempt to change it. Each session of congress in the US, ALL senators and congressmen are sworn in and each one swears that he will abide by the constitution. Then they have amended it 27 TIMES! No one was trying to get anybody to sign away their rights. Some were just too thick headed to see what they were really giving up by trying an "end run" around the membership requirements. No organization anywhere, that I know of, would allow membership for anybody that has the stated goals of destroying that organization. It's one thing to disagree on something while trying to work within the system to change it, or attempting to overthrow the organization entirely.

 

[hp_fa]

Oldie, I totally agree with working within the system in order to change it. However, I am not personally aware of any union contract language quite like what I was seeing be described. Additionally I am not personally aware of another fact pattern quite like this one where after a binding arbitration was decided that the losing side basically decided to ignore the arbitration and cramdown seniority provisions via a new union.

 

[nic4us]

Hellooo?

we have a winner!...

Tell him what he's won, Bob...

You got it, bud.

Now, you know...they will argue that it was not their "responsibility" to be represented...it was USAPA's to do it for them.

A complete transference of responsiblity is about to happen in court. They will downplay the actions they've taken, and suggest that USAPA was remiss in their "duty" to them, although they effectively "ran away from USAPA"

I'd hate to be on their side when this whole deal goes down.

It is not the West responsibility to play along with your union just because it won the election. I believe, as a matter of fact, that any pilot has the guaranteed right, under federal law and the RLA, to not join a union, become an objector, and not participate in union membership.

I am an objector, I refuse to join your union. I object to its C&BLs, which discriminate against the West pilot group. I was advised by West legal cousel that joining would offer the best protections going forward. I wanted to take the advice we were paying for, but then I read the application for membership and decided that there was no way I would put my name on it.

Here is the kicker, I do not have to seek representation, I can even shun it, but USAPA still has a DFR toward me, and cannot discriminate against me, even by majority vote.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Please, Tiger, tell me how these claims vary from those of our recent Presidential race....

All claim to do something, if elected. If they don't...too bad. If they do.....shock and awe.

Your point again?

Did you see the quote I provided? If that doesn't answer your question then I would guess that no matter what I say will matter to you.

Presidential politics? Better get that point to Sehams desk right away! I'm sure he'll want to point this out to the Judge.

C'mon debate with some case law or something. Most (not everything) of what I hear from the east is regurgitated crap emotions.

 

[souperfly]

I think we all see the pattern here.

Thanks