US Pilots' Labor Thread 5/26 to 6/2-- NO PERSONAL COMMENTS

[hp_fa]

I thought we had a good chance until I read the jury instructions.

Why? Was it the lack of an instruction on what the legal definition of "bad faith" was? Actually I thought the jury instructions left the jury a lot of wiggle room to decide for USAPA.

I really thought (my opinion) that the jury was turned-off by what they saw and perceived of USAPA's legal team. I thought Mr. Bringle was the best of them, but even he had that one "Kodak Moment" of drama when he got mad during the cross-examination of Sully. The signals the defense team were sending with body language, reactions to hearing things, causing most of the sidebars and the way they cross-examined, in my opinion, gave the jury a bad feeling for them and, by association, USAPA. The idea in a jury trial is to get and keep the jury on your side. Tell them the story, be truthful, and bring them along with you on the story. I just thought USAPA's counsel generally failed to do this.

I hold onto mine, based on the way the 9th Circuit ruled on JA/ALPA. Just some more of that DFR, the trial court decided, “By way of remedy, the district court: (1) directed ALPA to apply its current merger policy providing for negotiation, mediation and arbitration in order to resolve merger and seniority integration disputes between the two groups of pilots; (2) directed ALPA to treat the former Jet America pilots as a separate ALPA-represented group for purposes of implementing this policy and to appoint three Jet America pilot merger representatives; (3) vacated and set aside the October 6, 1987, seniority integration agreement between ALPA and Alaska Airlines; and (4) specified the basis by which pilots would be furloughed, promoted and given flying assignments in the interim period until a new agreement could be reached.â€￾

The district court retained jurisdiction and awarded damages (correct pay based on the final list), but only based on those inflicted by the illegal agreement. Again, USAPA & LCC have NO AGREEMENT! Im still not sure you understand the difference.

I have not read the JA case. Do you have a link or some way to get it to me so that I can read it?

Without reading it first I would toss out that I believe it can be said that USAPA and LCC do have binding agreements, albeit ones that USAPA inherited as it became sole bargaining agent. Obviously there is not a CBA in place that USAPA and LCC did negotiate so that is correct in that context.

717flyer, you got a long road ahead of you, lots of obstacles and not a lot of money to win the appeal. Best of luck, may the best (and most well-paid) attorneys win! Snooper-dooper

I remember going to a Continuing Legal Education seminar once, the topic being trial advocacy. The thrust of the presentation seemed somewhat outrageous, specifically that attorneys made a difference in how a trial was decided was less than 5% of the time. That information was based on review of a lot of cases and juror interviews after trials. What the seminar educators were trying to get across is that over 95% of the time the facts determine the outcome and fancy lawyering is seldom the main factor in how a case is resolved at the trial level.

The facts in this case were decidedly against USAPA. A large part of the problem was unknown to the pilots before the certification drive and subsequent election, specifically that Bradford had shopped for quite a few legal opinions of what could be done and how it could be done. Based on what I have read and heard, Bradford hired the firm with the most extreme view and, not coincidently, the view that was intended from the beginning to provide them with the results they dreamed of, DOH and Nicolau DOA. Almost all of the other opinions that USAPA, or even the East MEC, received were contrary to the positions taken by Seham and his firm.