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

[nycbusdriver]

Souper,

Maybe this will clarify things a little. This is a quote taken from Judge Wake regarding the point you bring to light here.


"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.â€￾ 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 “vestâ€￾ 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."

Please cite the date the judge issued this. I would like to see the entire statement for context.

 

[Hawkhunter]

You do understand that your claim that the NIC is a windfall to the West is merely opinion. An opinion not shared by the West or the arbitration panel.

That is why the West overlooks your claim of windfall, we all, everyone of us West pilots, lost seniority. We do not see how moving backwards equates to a windfall.

Here is a West opinion, you do not have to agree. The NIC favored the east far too greatly and did not grant furlough protection for the bottom of our list. Now we have 103 soon to be 175 furloughs.

Has the east exhausted its new hire list yet? How about the recalls?


Its not a claim its a fact. Anybody with any common sense can see it is a windfall. If the NIC was being used all of the furloughs would be from the East. By the way, we have all moved backwards. You just want to move forward over our backs. You guys amaze me. I guess the court will decide what is going to happen but dont think your lotto ticket is going to pay out anytime soon. I had one of you guys flip me off the other day. Yeah, you guys are real victims.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Can you post a quote from ALPA merger policy on that point here?

I've posted it many times already. No need to take my word for it - read docket #96.

" Some members have asked what will happen if pilots from one group or another sue the Association either to block implementation or to force implementation of the Nicolau award. I repeat - there is no required timetable for implementation of the award. that only happens with a single collective bargaining agreement."

 

[Tiger 1050]

Please cite the date the judge issued this. I would like to see the entire statement for context.

Sure. See attachment for the entire order. My quote is from page 9 lines 8-26 I believe.
View attachment Judge_Wake_Order_Nov_20_2008.pdf

 

[cleardirect]

I've posted it many times already. No need to take my word for it - read docket #96.

" Some members have asked what will happen if pilots from one group or another sue the Association either to block implementation or to force implementation of the Nicolau award. I repeat - there is no required timetable for implementation of the award. that only happens with a single collective bargaining agreement."

Freighterguy.

Better check your source on your quote. Document 96 is a letter from John Prater making a statement. Not written merger policy.

Even excepting that statement as true. So there is no time requirement. That is what part of this DFR is about. Usapa’s duty to make a good faith effort to implement the arbitrated award. By throwing out the Nicolau and replacing and attempting to implement DOH is not showing good faith. Failing in their duty to represent.

It can then be argued that after a year and a half of not negotiating FOR the arbitrated list. Usapa has failed in their good faith effort. Go back and read what usapa has said about the company not negotiating in good faith over the same time frame.

John Prater can and did say a lot if things. Some of them correct some of them incorrect. But at this point what Prater said is irrelevant. Prater of ALPA have no bearing on us at this time. It is usapa responsibility to implement the arbitrated list. Not make one up.

 

[souperfly]

The alleged breach of the duty stems from the bad faith manner of USAPA's determined attempts to evade the Award.

(while this above excerpt is from Wake, it is a summary of the allegation only.)


Irrespective of whether seniority rights “vestâ€￾ 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."

(Going to be interesting for the west to prove this.)

Also, has anyone considered the ramifications even if the jury finds for the west and what happens next? IF the Nicolau list is to be forced upon USAPA (in direct violation of it's C&BL's), it doesn't get implemented until a joint contract is fully executed. Until that time, the company is still in seperate ops...and can and will furlough from whatever side it deems needed., right up to min fleet/staffing limits. ( I think they're almost at these limits now) If a joint contract is signed that included the Nic in it's present form, the resultant "re-furlough" of East pilots, and recall of West pilots (that is inconsistent with USAPA's C&BL's) would result in yet another DFR by the East pilots who are re-furloughed NOT by DOH.

If the jury were to find for the plaintiffs in this case, who knows what the remedy would be...$$$, whatever...but I am not convinced the judge has the authority to force USAPA to change it's C&BL's in order to be compliant with the Nic.

I guess we'll see, but I doubt it's going to be as simple a fix as some westies think.

 

[cleardirect]

Please cite the date the judge issued this. I would like to see the entire statement for context.

Could you cite or post the document where Freund said that the Nicolau was only a bargaining position. You know, for context.

 

[hp_fa]

Let me put in one suggestion for those of you who are going to read, or re-read, the Order. This same advice would hold true for any reading of any Orders, Appellate decisions or legal briefs in any matter, not just the Addington case.

Any legal reading of cases or actual Orders is not a speed-reading exercise. It takes time and effort to read it and understand it. You can absolutely speed-read the first few and last few paragraphs to see the actual ruling, but if you are trying to analyze the document and what the judge's thoughts and rationale were, you need to read slowly. Unfortunately, most lay readers don't have access to law libraries or Westlaw to pull out and read the cited cases to see what were the issues in that case and see how the court reached whatever conclusions it reached. There are a lot of nuances in legal writing that need to be understood in order to fully appreciate what has been written.

 

[nic4us]

Its not a claim its a fact. Anybody with any common sense can see it is a windfall. If the NIC was being used all of the furloughs would be from the East. By the way, we have all moved backwards. You just want to move forward over our backs. You guys amaze me. I guess the court will decide what is going to happen but dont think your lotto ticket is going to pay out anytime soon. I had one of you guys flip me off the other day. Yeah, you guys are real victims.

It is by no means a fact. It is an opinion, one that you obviously share with Jetjok1. I disagree, that is my opinion.

Fortunately, the only opinion that counts is that of the arbitrator, and if in his opinion all those who were recalled and hired after the merger should be on the bottom of the list, and hence, furloughed first ( this is what you point as what would be the case now), well then I would have to agree.

What is with the continued use of the lotto reference?

I hold no ticket to be cashed. What I have is a number on a list that defines my place within the company pilot roster. I do not expect it to "pay out" I simply expect that the union will not be able to discriminate against me in your favor. So do not expect the USAPA to hand you a "lotto ticket" that you can "cash" purchased on the "backs" of the West pilots, its my opinion it will not "pay out".

Frankly, if I were flipped off at work I would find it humorous in a pitiful way. Truely sorry you experienced that.

 

[Tiger 1050]

I've posted it many times already. No need to take my word for it - read docket #96.

" Some members have asked what will happen if pilots from one group or another sue the Association either to block implementation or to force implementation of the Nicolau award. I repeat - there is no required timetable for implementation of the award. that only happens with a single collective bargaining agreement."

Is this a quote from docket #96? I have not read it and I'll assume that it is. First if in fact I am correct in assuming that this is a quote from docket #96 then this is [EDIT: I see Clear correctly stated that this was from John Prater]. Or at least it's USAPA's legal counsel. Either way what you have here is opinion. While I do not necessarily disagree with this opinion I would point out that, first, this statement invokes the TA. If you, on the one hand, invoke the TA and it's "single collective bargaining agreement" clause then you can't assert that ALPA merger policy can be disregarded on the other hand. Either USAPA is bound by all former agreements or they are not. Second, Judge Wake could, if he sees fit, remove that clause from the equation thereby implementing the Nic. Will that happen? I personally doubt it. However one would be wise to realize that the Judge does have wide latitude regarding remedy in this case.

 

[hp_fa]

If the jury were to find for the plaintiffs in this case, who knows what the remedy would be...$$$, whatever...but I am not convinced the judge has the authority to force USAPA to change it's C&BL's in order to be compliant with the Nic.

I think he can. Remember, the issues that are proceeding to trial in April arise from equity. The judge has wide latitude in equity claims.

 

[Metroyet]

The alleged breach of the duty stems from the bad faith manner of USAPA's determined attempts to evade the Award.

(while this above excerpt is from Wake, it is a summary of the allegation only.)


Irrespective of whether seniority rights “vestâ€￾ 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."

(Going to be interesting for the west to prove this.)
IF the Nicolau list is to be forced upon USAPA (in direct violation of it's C&BL's), .....the resultant "re-furlough" of East pilots, and recall of West pilots (that is inconsistent with USAPA's C&BL's) would result in yet another DFR by the East pilots who are re-furloughed NOT by DOH.

If the jury were to find for the plaintiffs in this case, who knows what the remedy would be...$$$, whatever...but I am not convinced the judge has the authority to force USAPA to change it's C&BL's in order to be compliant with the Nic.

I guess we'll see, but I doubt it's going to be as simple a fix as some westies think.

When will it sink in that the Majority CANNOT simply hide behind some bogus, hind-sight drafted, C&BLs that were plainly designed to disenfranchise the West?

On Seniority matters, the C&BLs are a meaningless document. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Isn't this just common sense?

 

[Tiger 1050]

When will it sink in that the Majority CANNOT simply hide behind some bogus, hind-sight drafted, C&BLs that were plainly designed to disenfranchise the West?

On Seniority matters, the C&BLs are a meaningless document. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Isn't this just common sense?

Have ever wanted to believe in something so badly that... Well you get my point.

 

[souperfly]

When will it sink in that the Majority CANNOT simply hide behind some bogus, hind-sight drafted, C&BLs that were plainly designed to disenfranchise the West?

On Seniority matters, the C&BLs are a meaningless document. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Isn't this just common sense?

What "majority" are you speaking about? East pilots? or the pilots who voted for USAPA...this "majority/helpless minority" thing is old. We've already established that not all East pilots voted for USAPA...you need a new tag line.

And to the latter, what is a meaningless document is the Nic. Of course, this will play out in a real court, with a real jury...not your daily soapbox.

For HP, I guess we'll just see what Wake has the authority to do, but you and I disagree on this.

 

[hp_fa]

Fair enough.