US Pilots Labor Thread 6/2-6/9 STAY ON TOPIC

[hp_fa]

That ought to be short enough to keep from boring those readers.

Are you calling me verbose? 🙂

 

[nic4us]

That ought to be short enough to keep from boring those readers.

DOH bad :down: Nic good

So easy a caveman can do it!

 

[luvn737s]

Are you calling me verbose? 🙂

No, your posts provide enough light to illuminate the issues. "Others" just generate worthless heat.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

I would like to thank the obviously west pilot who sat in our JS from CLT to BWI the other day...we had a tasty discussion about things..and he wound up as speechless as you all will.

Of course, he didn't identify himself as such....in plain clothes and no ID with a glowing red lanyard...repleat with the $1000 saguaro cactus tie-tac...and all...........

Freshly back from Europe...and needing a ride: you're welcome.

Tell your friends back out West that you still get rides out East.

 

[Megasnoop]

Snoop, Ellis was not a DFR suit. It was a case where non-members paying agency fees objected to various expenses for which they were charged and the method of payment of the monies that were paid or assessed to those non-members.

Doesnt have to be about DFR. As you know the Supreme Court normally addresses only the narrow issue before it. But they felt so strongly about putting the issue of germane expenses to rest, they went way beyond the original filing. They ruled The expenses of litigation incident to negotiating and administering the contract or to settling grievances and disputes arising in the bargaining unit are clearly chargeable to petitioners as a normal incident of the duties of the exclusive representative. The same is true of fair representation litigation arising within the unit, of jurisdictional disputes with other unions, and of any other litigation before agencies or in the courts that concerns bargaining unit employees and is normally conduct ed by the exclusive representative.

The same is true of fair representation litigation. hp, you can nitpick all you want, but fair representation litigation to the Supremes in that ruling was litigation in a DFR lawsuit. Your buddies will never get out of paying for the USAPA defense.

 

[hp_fa]

Snoop, we are gonna disagree on this one without finding common ground. I say the wording in Ellis can be distinguished from the Addington fact pattern and you say no. We'll see how it plays out but it just makes no sense whatsoever for plaintiffs to sue USAPA for DFR, win and end up paying some of the legal bills to essentially sue themselves. I think the courts will distinguish that, you don't.

Anyway, have a good night.

p.s. - They aren't my buddies.......

 

[Megasnoop]

I do not know what is going on with the ALPA subpoenas, but I would not want to be Jack, if it looks like perjury may have occured.

Your imagination got the better of you. Just because Plaintiffs (claim to) have learned of documents that likely directly contradict the testimony of one of USAPA’s key witnesses, Jack Stephen., dosnt mean Jack didnt tell it like he knew it. But its a great conspiracy theory anyway. I would never defend Jack Stephan, but suggesting he perjured himself is out of line. You dont get a pass for including the word, “if,†Nic4. Your innuendo is uncalled for.

Damages are easy.

IF you had a damage case, which you dont. The ALPA/USAPA laugher is a desperate attempt to manufacture damages that arent there. Your attorneys want to be paid. If you could prove the conspiracy, you could BK both USAPA and ALPA. Thanks to post-trial events, now even less chance Wake can find any damages at all. After the trial was over, AOL got hit with a double whammy from arbitrator Bloch and the NC Federal Court.

A big problem for Addington is that a similar DFR case, Breeger (Empire/Shuttle), was thrown out of a North Carolina Federal Court on May 13th because it wasnt ripe. In the NC case the magistrate judge noted that the plaintiffs in Breeger quoted freely from the Addington litigation. The 9th Circuit must now sort out which court is right. The NC Court or the AZ Court? Or could we say "East Vs West?"

NC Chief District Judge Robert Conrad made a distinction between Breeger and Addington in that Judge Wake was allowing the litigation to proceed because there was also a claim of “bad faith†negotiation. That was count two of Addington. But any bad faith claim ended when Harper agreed to pre-trial stipulations that USAPA was negotiating in good faith, not delaying, just not using the Nic Award. The testimonies of Burman, Addington, Iranpour, Wargocki, Velez, Dotter, Payne and Hemenway said the same thing. Breeger/Empire/Shuttle pilots, God bless them! We didnt ask for Breegers “help,†but we got it.

The NC magistrate judge in Breeger stated, “Plaintiffs’ reliance on Judge Wake’s decision to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in the “companion case†filed by the America West pilots in the District of Arizona is misplaced. Judge Wake premised his decision on the allegation, not present here, that the Defendant Union was deliberately delaying negotiations with US Airways in order to prevent the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement, as follows: The claim against USAPA is ripe for adjudication. At least in these circumstances, representation claim. It satisfies the constitutional case or controversy requirement to allege, as the Plaintiff West Pilots have, that USAPA has breached its duty by deliberately delaying the single collective bargaining agreement in order to frustrate its pre-existing obligation to the minority and thereby causing injury to the West Pilots in the form of ongoing furloughs and other detriments. Addington, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95214 at *24 (emphasis added). As the Defendant points out in its Reply, these Plaintiffs have not alleged that USAPA is deliberately delaying negotiations with US Airways. Instead, they make the contrary allegation, that USAPA is currently attempting to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement incorporating the disputed seniority list.

On May 22, Nick Granath filed the following brief in Federal Court, Statements of Fact, “USAPA has not engaged in any delay in negotiating a single collective bargaining agreement, but rather is pursuing the bargaining objective of obtaining a single collective bargaining agreement with an integrated seniority list.†That fact was not only stipulated by Harper, but confirmed by pre-trial stipulations and the testimonies of Burman, Addington, Iranpour, Wargocki, Velez, Dotter, Payne and Hemenway.

The plaintiffs canceled their Counts 1 and 2 arbitration hearing (under TA-9 dispute), just three days before they were scheduled to appear before arbitrator Bloch on May 26. That was their perfect forum to make their case. They got unrestricted access to appear before Bloch with no USAPA SBA members present. just them and the arbitrator. Bloch gave them until June 19th to reschedule or else he would dismiss their dispute with prejudice. (Plaintiffs will pay for the cancellation, not the Co. or USAPA) No doubt they were ordered to by Harper. But a no-show may be as bad as a loss.

Arbitrator Bloch ruled against us in the TA-9 dispute, furlough out of seniority and the new hire pilots last month. Remember that Judge Wake dismissed Counts 1 and 2 of the original lawsuit and sent them to Bloch. If arbitrator Bloch rules against the West, and it is highly likely he will given the stipulated facts stated in the Addington litigation, then the whole reason that the Addington litigation went forward was moot. No wonder Harper doesnt want this going forward. West can blame the bonehead pilot who originally filed that dispute. If Bloch rules against the West, its a negative on damages.

When this whole mess goes to appeal, the 9th will look at Judge Wake going against a federal court in NC over an issue that both parties have stipulated doesn’t exist in either the original or amended complaint, “bad faith bargaining.â€

• If bad faith bargaining doesn’t exist - the case isn’t ripe.
• If the arbitrator rules against the grievants in count two – there is an adjudication that no bad faith exists.
• Plaintiffs have already lost the new hire furlough arbitration TA-9

Summarizing, The Railway Labor Act gives the system board exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over contractual disputes, not the Federal Courts. Even Wake “got†that. The matter of furloughs and separate contracts and any remedy that may impinge on that purview of the system board is for the court to decide. Arbitrator Bloch still retains that jurisdiction. Wake “gets†that. In fact, Wake accepted BLoch has jurisdiction.

The RLA puts plaintiffs and judge Wake are in a rather interesting position. There are other legal entities with an input into this situation. Judge Neil Wake, Arbitrator Bloch, and Robert Conrad, United States Court Chief District Judge for the Federal Western District Court of North Carolina.

Judge Conrad threw the Breeger case out on ripeness. He noted that the only reason judge Wake was proceeding was because of a bad faith claim that the Breeger plaintiffs did not make. But plaintiffs in Addington have stipulated numerous times in open court, deposition and by plaintiffs’ counsel that no USAPA was not engaged in bad faith (delaying) negotiations.

Just one side of the story, Nic4, but its why we appeal. IMO, weve got a solid chance of winning the appeal, but we cant forget we were helped by 2 outside events, Breeger and your bonehead who filed the TA-9 grievance. Ive got lots of additional documentation on this, but it would take 3 times the bandwidth to post it all.

 

[traderjake]

When was I wrong before?....... Where do you come up with this stolen crap?

Do you talk so tough with your F/Os? I bet not.

You were wrong in thinking that DOH was ever a possibility under the ALPA merger policy.

When you put a Reserve First Officer on the seniority list ahead of a Captain you are stealing that Captain's job.

When you furlough a thousand West pilots before you furlough the bottom East pilot you are stealing a thousand jobs.

I'm a First Officer and I give my opinion to everybody I fly with when the subject comes up.

 

[700UW]

Snoop,

If a dispute under the RLA is found to be a major dispute it goes to the federal courts, and the major vs minor dispute is for CBA violations and changing of the status quo.

Seems to me your mixing up a contractual dispute and inner union politics, the RLA doesnt cover union politics.

When US outsourced the airbus overhaul, the IAM sued in Federal Court, Judge Robert Cindrich ruled it a major dispute and issued a TRO to stop the work.

On appeal the company got it remanded to arbitration and Arbiter Bloch ruled in the IAM's favor.

Seems to me your grasping at straws to prove your right and a jury of your peers all ready found usapa in violation of DFR.

 

[Metroyet]

I would like to thank the obviously west pilot who sat in our JS from CLT to BWI the other day...we had a tasty discussion about things..and he wound up as speechless as you all will.

Wow, more cryptic threats from an Eastie...there's a shocker. Lemme guess, Seham found the smoking gun/secret weapon that's going to blow the Lid off this whole injustice. It will be such a resounding East victory, we'll all be stunned speechless. Right. Keep on dreaming. Injunction in less than 3 weeks...Damages to follow. There's your daily dose of reality.

 

[prechilill]

Wow, more cryptic threats from an Eastie...there's a shocker. Lemme guess, Seham found the smoking gun/secret weapon that's going to blow the Lid off this whole injustice. It will be such a resounding East victory, we'll all be stunned speechless. Right. Keep on dreaming. Injunction in less than 3 weeks...Damages to follow. There's your daily dose of reality.

You can't debate against insanity... I'm not surprised a jumpseater may have been at a loss for words after a few hours with a person who believes an arbitrator "stole" his job.

 

[luvn737s]

Did the jumpseater dial 911 when he got on the ground, as he was advised to by USAPA? 😛

 

[john john]

On appeal the company got it remanded to arbitration and Arbiter Bloch ruled in the IAM's favor.

Well well we have an arbitration award that was issue by an Arbiter and has been upheld by the courts but is now invalid because of the majority of the union members voted
It out

 

[john john]

Every union on USAirways property has had arbitration awards handed down and the arbitration awards voted away by the majority of there members.

 

[700UW]

It was abrogated in bankruptcy court first before the members voted on the final offer from the company which changed the scope language.

Apples and oranges once again, the airbus was a contractual violation ALPA seniority arbitration is internal union politics.