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

[souperfly]

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

This from a West pilot.....hilarious!

chant with me: Nic, Nic Nic....(ad nauseum)

 

[cubfan]

On a different note, this is something that I feel will affect all east and west alike, the company has asked the union to include west language of 99hrs of block per month, and for rsv pilots to call for release after a trip segment when you get back to base. All this language will do is put more on the street or keep those already gone out longer. We already have the largest amout of monthly allowed block hrs in the industry, don't let them increase them more. This cost JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Not only jobs, but not good for your health either. Any language like this is a deal breaker for me, NIC or no NIC. Everyone needs to let their reps know that not only no on these issues, but HELL NO..........

 

[hp_fa]

On a different note, this is something that I feel will affect all east and west alike, the company has asked the union to include west language of 99hrs of block per month, and for rsv pilots to call for release after a trip segment when you get back to base.

The calling for release garbage is designed to allow you to be tagged, which is an awful practice that can also be unsafe.

Here is an example. You are on a multiple day trip where you were scheduled to fly into a city very late and fly out very early on the second following day. In other words a 28-hour or longer layover. The pairing is scheduled to end when you fly back to base.

Now, since your pairing is scheduled to end after the one leg home to base, what do you do with your sleep schedule? Do you go right to bed for a short 2-3 hour nap and then change your sleep schedule back to normal nighttime sleep by spending a day doing things and then sleeping a bit before flight? Or do you Sleep a long time, spend the afternoon and evening busy and then get 5-6 hours of sleep before the wake-up call and have your body back on a more normal circadian rhythm?

Now, you fly back to base and call to be released. Nope, you are tagged and going to sit at the airport for 2-4 hours and then take a long flight (4-6 hour) flight. I faced the practical problems of this nasty practice often and you don't want to allow it to happen to your reserves.

 

[cubfan]

The calling for release garbage is designed to allow you to be tagged, which is an awful practice that can also be unsafe.

Here is an example. You are on a multiple day trip where you were scheduled to fly into a city very late and fly out very early on the second following day. In other words a 28-hour or longer layover. The pairing is scheduled to end when you fly back to base.

Now, since your pairing is scheduled to end after the one leg home to base, what do you do with your sleep schedule? Do you go right to bed for a short 2-3 hour nap and then change your sleep schedule back to normal nighttime sleep by spending a day doing things and then sleeping a bit before flight? Or do you Sleep a long time, spend the afternoon and evening busy and then get 5-6 hours of sleep before the wake-up call and have your body back on a more normal circadian rhythm?

Now, you fly back to base and call to be released. Nope, you are tagged and going to sit at the airport for 2-4 hours and then take a long flight (4-6 hour) flight. I faced the practical problems of this nasty practice often and you don't want to allow it to happen to your reserves.

I couldn't agree more, I'm back on rsv with 20yrs, they tried this with me, and I told them 10:15 off in base after completion of trip. They tried to tell me I was still good because I hadn't reached my total allowed duty hrs for day. I asked them to read me the chapter and verse in the contract that said this was ok, also told them I could read them the 10:15 off in base. I told them I could help, but first I needed to go home relieve the babysitter, find a new one, eat, contact my wife, feed the dogs,etc...they hung-up. Don't ever allow this, you will then have no recourse. If your short, contact a furloughed pilot.

 

[Tiger 1050]

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.

A Federal Judge disagrees with you regarding the majority/minority issue. Clearly if it were as you seem to believe the Judge would not have ruled the complaint ripe for adjudication. The DFR itself stems from the Nic thereby making the nic more than just meaningless.


Another quote from Judge Wake:

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).

 

[toganoflex]

[Mitchell H. Rubinstein
B.A., Cornell University;
J.D., Hofstra University School of Law
Senior Counsel, New York State
United Teachers
Teaches Labor Law

February 12, 2009

Rare Cause of Action For Breach of Duty Of Fair Representation Stated
Addington v. U.S. Airlines, 588 F. Supp.2d 1051 (D. Az. 2008)Download 588_F_SUPP_2D_1051_2-11-09_1331.txt is a rare plaintiff DFR win-or at least the successful defeat of a motion to dismiss. This is an RLA case where pilots of a smaller airline that merged with a larger airline stated a claim that after the merger, the union breached its duty of fair representation to the minority. The court reasoned in part:
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 *1060 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.
This decision is lengthly and well worth a read.
Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

[toganoflex]

Hp,

yeah, binding arbitration!. Both sides agreed to it. No problem with that. But one minor fact that continually seems to be overlooked/avoided by the West, is that, although it's binding and final, IT CAN'T BE A WINDFALL TO EITHER SIDE. And that's where the crux of the problem lies. It was a windfall to the west. Having said that, there needs to be some common ground on the DOH/LOS argument with restrictions (fences, what-have-you). I just know that it can't be straight NIC nor can it be straight DOH. IMHO it's somewhere in between.

I can and will be straight Nic.

You need to come off this "windfall" crap because the term is subjective and does not apply to arbitrators.

ALPA's merger policy was very specific in that the two MEC's would work toward and list that was fair to both sides and, should that fail, and med/arb would come into the picture. Once you allow it to move to an arbitrator you open the door wide open as to what he decides. Its a risk you take to complete the process.

All those guidelines you keep crying about never applied to Nic. He used his own judgement based on the information he got in all those hearing that none of the east pilots bothered to read up on.

You're DOH world is about to come crashing down in May. In the mean time, keep shoveling your dues to Seham. What's one more loss?

 

[souperfly]

yes, thank you Toganoflex...we all have read the document. Is this going to be a slam-dunk? Nope. Is it going to be spirited, yes, indeed. However, broad statements like "the will of the majority" are going to be challenged in court for the jury. While I am as guilty as everyone else, the fact is nobody can forecast what will happen for the jury to see. You all wanted your day in court...you're going to get it (along with the jury that you didn't want)

 

[souperfly]

I can and will be straight Nic.

You need to come off this "windfall" crap because the term is subjective and does not apply to arbitrators.

ALPA's merger policy was very specific in that the two MEC's would work toward and list that was fair to both sides and, should that fail, and med/arb would come into the picture. Once you allow it to move to an arbitrator you open the door wide open as to what he decides. Its a risk you take to complete the process.

All those guidelines you keep crying about never applied to Nic. He used his own judgement based on the information he got in all those hearing that none of the east pilots bothered to read up on.

You're DOH world is about to come crashing down in May. In the mean time, keep shoveling your dues to Seham. What's one more loss?

The problem is, though the benefit of the Nicolau Award is surely what motivates the West Pilots, ( Judge Wake)


I think Wakes comment speaks volumes about the winfall the west got via the Nic...don't you?

try again.

 

[EastUS]

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

We differ. I'd find such actions fully indicative of an utterly immature individual who's so clearly unable to control even himself that he certainly has no business controlling any pasenger carrying aircraft. Such behaviour's certainly "pitiful" from any supposed professional, but hardly excusable. What I find rather interesting is that I've NEVER yet heard anyone out west actively, actually condemn that sort of pathetic BS....which speaks volumes.

 

[toganoflex]

The problem is, though the benefit of the Nicolau Award is surely what motivates the West Pilots, ( Judge Wake)


I think Wakes comment speaks volumes about the winfall the west got via the Nic...don't you?

try again.

"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 interestsâ€￾ of both pilot groups. "

OK, your turn now.

 

[EastUS]

The DFR itself stems from the Nic thereby making the nic more than just meaningless.

This will all be eventually decided in court. Until then? = It's all just issues of personal opinions.

 

[toganoflex]

yes, thank you Toganoflex...we all have read the document. Is this going to be a slam-dunk? Nope. Is it going to be spirited, yes, indeed. However, broad statements like "the will of the majority" are going to be challenged in court for the jury. While I am as guilty as everyone else, the fact is nobody can forecast what will happen for the jury to see. You all wanted your day in court...you're going to get it (along with the jury that you didn't want)

Read it again then. For this case to be drawing the attention of labor attorneys is nothing to sneeze at.

And don't count out a summary judgement prior to 4/28.

 

[souperfly]

Nope, we can do this all day, and it means nothing. I just quoted, verbatim, Judge Wake from your own article to counter your "no winfall" drivel to jetJok...clearly, he sees it differently than you do....in fact, the vast majority of airline pilots across this nation see it differently than you do...but hey, whatever. Don't worry, the jury will see it all...soon enough.

 

[hp_fa]

And don't count out a summary judgement prior to 4/28.

I do not expect this to happen in this case because of timing and other factual question issues that don't make the Addington case ripe for summary judgment at this time.