US Pilots Labor Thread 5/13-19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[spike99]

For the same reason usapa just lost their 1st DFR case.

Maybe, but I don't think so. If the Nic is included in a contract which is voted on and approved by the members of the union, it would be very difficult for a judge to say the parties were not fairly represented. In my opinion, the only reason the Addington case had any merit was the fact nothing had been presented to the company, or membership for a vote. If USAPA crafts a contract which complies with Judge Wakes decision, and it is voted on by the members, any judge will have a difficult time overturning said agreement.

 

[necigrad]

Just a bit of clarification on the Fleet Seniority integration. By and large the lists (East and West) were integrated pursuant to the IAM and TWU Constitutions. Those documents stipulated that, in the event of two Unions being involved, the lists shall be merged pursuant to Allegheny Mohawk. The Allegheny Mohawk decision (as anyone arguing about what is right and wrong with seniority determinations) states that integration shall be in a FAIR AND EQUITABLE manner. It was determined that for Fleet fair and equitable was DOH. In the CBA that was voted in the Tower employees were slotted in where their DOH fit in.

As Fleet I'm not 100% up on the details of your issues, but I believe I can sum up the differences (I hope). The Pilot work groups, being both (at the time) represented by ALPA, were covered by the ALPA merger policy for mergers (whatever it was called). That policy was followed resulting in a manner that favored the West pilots. Is that accurate?

If the above is accurate, then here, as a Fleet (West if you think it matters) employee is how I see it. Two ALPA work groups merged. The ALPA merger integration policy took place. East get screwed over. East is going to continue trying to get what they perceive as a loss back. That's how I see it, and honestly, I don't blame them. I don't think I'd do it, but they're doing what's best for them. Now because of this I'm watching a bunch of pilots internet lawyer their way through the convoluted RLA, assuming they have the knowledge and education to speak legalese, which is quite similar to a mishmash of Cantonese and Cyrillic, and based on thousand of judicial decisions and rulings spanning 100 years.

 

[Captain Underpants]

ps underpants. Same answer. Anywhere it says system seniority list will use the arbitrated list.

That would only be true if it were specifically stated in the Nicolau award. The Nicolau award does not say the integrated seniority list is to be used for all current contract references to seniority or that those references can never be changed. It does not attach to the other sections of the contract until ratification by member vote. You are assuming all the contract references to seniority will remain unchanged and will be ratified as is in a new contract. The seniority references are not exactly the same between the East and West contracts and would have to be reconciled anyway into a joint contract. If all seniority issues are forced to advantage West as you suggest the contract obviously could never be ratified.

DOH and longevity references do not need a list as the data is maintained in company computers. You can't change a pilots date of hire any more than you can change a pilots birthday as they are both unchangeable historical events.

The union has a duty of fair representation to East pilots as well. There are multiple fairness issues to reconcile in a new CBA. If the West gets more in section A for example then the union has a duty to balance the shortfall for the East in section B......

The Nicolau award has never been negotiable. Every single word and reference in the contract always has been and always will be negotiable as required by labor law.

underpants

 

[hp_fa]

In my opinion, the only reason the Addington case had any merit was the fact nothing had been presented to the company, or membership for a vote.

I agree to the extent that had Nicolau been contained in a CBA, by either ALPA or USAPA, that the plaintiffs would have had either a much harder or impossible task in prevailing in a DFR action. At this point I do not believe that anything other than Nicolau can be included in any proposed CBA until any one of the following occur:

1) a CBA is approved by membership (by agreeing to a CBA containing Nicolau in which the West would have a veto right in the nature of a mandatory West-only and East-only separate ratification votes of any CBA in the nature of what both East and West had been entitled to under ALPA merger policy (Whether East would vote separately as East or their total votes would be added to West totals in the event that West approved any CBA is an open question);

2) West (represented by whom is an open question) negotiates a change to Nicolau;

3) Judge Wake modifies whatever injunction he is to issue or specifies a time at which point the injunction shall become a nullity; or,

4) the 9th Circuit reverses and remands the case back to the trial court. Absent any of them occurring I don't believe Nicolau can ever not be included as the combined seniority list. (Of course as I write this I believe the Court is still drafting the injunction so it's contents are fluid but believed to be similar in nature to what the Court discussed from the bench on 5/14/09.)

Man that sounds confusing...

 

[hp_fa]

That would only be true if it were specifically stated in the Nicolau award. The Nicolau award does not say the integrated seniority list is to be used for all current contract references to seniority or that those references can never be changed. It does not attach to the other sections of the contract until ratification by member vote. You are assuming all the contract references to seniority will remain unchanged and will be ratified as is in a new contract. The seniority references are not exactly the same between the East and West contracts and would have to be reconciled anyway into a joint contract. If all seniority issues are forced to advantage West as you suggest the contract obviously could never be ratified.

Underpants,

If what you propose were to be done than I strongly suspect that the parties would be re-visiting Judge Wake via a contempt action under the proposed permanent injunction. The other point is I severely doubt that the Company would negotiate any such language in light of Addington (as we now know it).

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

Underpants,

If what you propose were to be done than I strongly suspect that the parties would be re-visiting Judge Wake via a contempt action under the proposed permanent injunction. The other point is I severely doubt that the Company would negotiate any such language in light of Addington (as we now know it).

Our jumpseat is by reservation, not seniority,while not contractual, an example of the flexibility available to mitigate nic. Our reserve bucket system, you gonna sue us for that too because it disregards the seniority list? you can't pick and choose reality. While these may not be the strongest examples of the point being made, they clearly make the point so if your response is along the lines of "oh yea" please dont bother

 

[bigbusdrvr]

So let me get this straight. Now that the court case is over, assuming the apeals process is timely and results in a simmilar outcome as the addington case....

There are no fences with the nic...so an east pilot can have the next capt bid in PHX

Assuming some east captains will want to leave lovely, inexpensive, "mild" wintered, northeast crew bases. Only to go to sunny, warm, friendly neighbored, yearround vacation spot PHX for a crew base......

Off course this will open up slots for west f/o's to upgrade in the east....

Kind of a win-win....west gets capt bid in blowin snow, congested airspace, disgruntled old crew...
east gets capt bid in .....well, paridise........

Ole Ber'Rabbit would say,,,,,"Dont throw me in da brier patch misser Bear"..........


Go Figure.........

 

[hp_fa]

Our jumpseat is by reservation, not seniority,while not contractual, an example of the flexibility available to mitigate nic. Our reserve bucket system, you gonna sue us for that too because it disregards the seniority list? you can't pick and choose reality.

Agreed, unless it is negotiated otherwise.

My point on the stuff that arises outside of the strict confines of Section 22 is that if the Section 22 list is currently used for things outside of the current Section 22, then it can't be claimed that Nicolau should not be used in conjunction with those same sections in the next CBA.

 

[AWE_SHUCKS]

Agreed, unless it is negotiated otherwise.

My point on the stuff that arises outside of the strict confines of Section 22 is that if the Section 22 list is currently used for things outside of the current Section 22, then it can't be claimed that Nicolau should not be used in conjunction with those same sections in the next CBA.

we want to move back to a seniority based reserve like it used to be and was changed from, are you suggesting we cant?

 

[flyboeing737]

you guys know there will never be a joint contract with nic, and we know you will never give up nic. why do you keep ignoring this undisputble fact. you say move on.. that will only happen when that fact is acknowledged and a different course is charted...any suggestions, i mean realistic suggestions?

$125 an hour forever.

 

[hp_fa]

we want to move back to a seniority based reserve like it used to be and was changed from, are you suggesting we cant?

I am suggesting that unless it is specifically negotiated that my best guess is that status quo must be maintained between the last contracts and the next contract. Areas where there are differences between the East and West contract will need to somehow be negotiated. (I posted a few pages ago in this thread about the practical issues of just how West can and would negotiate now that it is included in USAPA. It would need funding and its own counsel to be able to negotiate whatever sections need negotiation to reconcile the two contracts before a merged single CBA could be written and properly construed by the parties.)

In connection with your quote above, can't it also be said that you wanted to move back to a DOH seniority system? I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to point out some practical problems with where things currently stand.

 

[nic4us]

Hmmm...how's the weather in your world?


Regarding your proposal that USAPA pay for both sides of this lawsuit, you are on some serious paote friend. HP's question is troubling in that it should be obvious who the "parties" are going forward at this point...USAPA (and it's members with voting authority) and the company.

Wake has made it pretty clear. Maybe you should review his discussions with the lawyers regarding potential remedies and the fallout thereof.

Weather is fine thanks for asking.

Umm in case you have not heard a third group, a class of former America West pilots has sued the union, and recieved a verdict in their favor in federal court. So going forward there will be three groups. USAPA ( whose lifespan may be limited) the company, and the class of pilots who have yet to see their remedy and/or the damages they are entitled to.

rather than review judge Wake's thinking out loud which I have already read, I will wait for the remedy in its final form next week.

 

[nic4us]

Absolutely false! The Nic award says nothing about vacations. If Nic wanted to control Vacation bidding he should have put it in the award. You want the judge to negotiate the contract for you but he does not have the authority....USAPA has the sole authority to negotiate the contract subject to ratification by the pilots.

underpants

You still are not getting it. USAPA does not have the authority, right, obligation, power, jurisdiction,clout,command,charge,or nuts, to negotiate anything that fails its duty of fair representation. Any attempt at abrogating the Nicolau award for the benefit of the east at the expense of the West fails that duty. So negotiate away, you are not getting out of this.

 

[nic4us]

The Pilot work groups, being both (at the time) represented by ALPA, were covered by the ALPA merger policy for mergers (whatever it was called). That policy was followed resulting in a manner that favored the West pilots. Is that accurate?

Absolutely incorrect. The policy was followed resulting in a fair and equitable distribution that favored the east slightly. However, it did not give the entire airline to the east, did not make them senior to their west counterparts and they threw a hissy fit, and we find ourselves where we are today.

 

[fatherabraham]

Absolutely incorrect. The policy was followed resulting in a fair and equitable distribution that favored the east slightly. However, it did not give the entire airline to the east, did not make them senior to their west counterparts and they threw a hissy fit, and we find ourselves where we are today.

Nic,

Are you delusional? Favored the East.... Yeah right!
Hence the reason they are or have tried ad nausium to
Avoid said East windfall to protect YOU guys from the NIC.
If it sound/looks/walks like a duck......

FA