US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/30-7/7 KEEP ON TOPIC-NO PERSONAL COMMENTS

[HPearlyretiree]

Yes. I can now see clearly where it'd take a "real man" to roll over on all his principles and beliefs in favor of an arbitrator's whim. Thanks for the "tough guy perspective" from the front lines of the 000th Armored Cubicle Regiment

It takes integrity to live up to a promise.
East doesn't have it.

You dodge all around Binding Arbitration, you must, because you can't try to rationalize USAPA's action, so you deflect.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Again, go back and look at my first response. Any strike would not absolve USAPA of complying with the injunction for the intra-union dispute.

I agree with all your comments except regarding the injunction. The injunction would be clearly to enforce the contractual agreement in the TA between ALPA and the company with the court requiring USAPA to assume ALPA's contractual obligations. There are no contracts between East and West pilots only agreements to follow union policies as a function of having been represented by ALPA. The proposed injunction arises from the contractual agreement between ALPA and the company to use ALPA merger policy for seniority integration.

When the contract including the TA expires at the initiation of self help there is no longer a contractual commitment to use the results of ALPA merger policy. USAPA can not be bound to use a prior CBA's policies without a contractual commitment to do so. USAPA has a right to use it's own policies but for a prior contractual obligation to use ALPA policy until the contractual agreement expires.

Contracts do not last forever and when they expire so do the contractual obligations leaving the parties free to walk away or negotiate a new agreement. Injunctions to enforce a contract would dissolve when the contract expires as there is no longer a contract to enforce.

The entire purpose of self help is to shed unacceptable contract agreements and provide both sides leverage to negotiate new acceptable agreements. This is done through the RLA by canceling the prior agreements and freeing the parties from legal constraints.

underpants

 

[ClueByFour]

I agree with all your comments except regarding the injunction. The injunction would be clearly to enforce the contractual agreement in the TA between ALPA and the company with the court requiring USAPA to assume ALPA's contractual obligations.

That's not what it says:

In accord with the foregoing, and the entire record in this action, it is hereby ordered that Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement with US Airways that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal unmodified, according to its terms. Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to support and defend the seniority rights provided by or arising from the Nicolau Award in negotiations with US Airways. Defendant USAPA shall not negotiate for separate collective bargaining agreements for the separate pilot groups, but shall rather negotiate for a single collective bargaining agreement that incorporates the Nicolau Award.


The Court retains jurisdiction to modify or dissolve this order upon motion of any party.

Now, if USAPA strikes to get rid of Nicolau, you will end up back in court where you will lose. Large.

Not that it matters. East does not have the stones to walk. And you assume that the West guys would follow suit. Even if one would to accept that merely striking voids Nicolau and the injunction (laughable), what is to stop the West guys from not only continuing to work, but being promoted by the company to say, fly East widebodies? The company won't give that back, and if the West guys had any sense, this is exactly the thing they'd threaten to do.

The angry FO club really needs to try thinking it all the way thru this time.

 

[Captain Underpants]

You're looking for the wrong thing. Instead of "unmodifiable" think about limits on the type of modification. It'll come to you...
Jim

Ok what exactly are the types of contract modifications that are specifically limited and where does it say that.

up

 

[hp_fa]

The injunction would be clearly to enforce the contractual agreement in the TA between ALPA and the company with the court requiring USAPA to assume ALPA's contractual obligations. There are no contracts between East and West pilots only agreements to follow union policies as a function of having been represented by ALPA. The proposed injunction arises from the contractual agreement between ALPA and the company to use ALPA merger policy for seniority integration.

Hi CU,

Not logical. Neither the company nor ALPA are parties in Addington. The Addington case, at this point, is strictly intra-union. Therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to enter an injunction against ALPA or the company. Accordingly, the injunction will be targeted solely at USAPA. USAPA cannot go on strike and void the injunction's applicability. I sure hope that isn't Seham's plan because it is a loser that is guaranteed to end up right back in Judge Wake's court.

USAPA was a successor to ALPA. As such it inherited all of ALPA's rights and responsibilities in conjunction with all obligations incurred while ALPA was the sole bargaining agent for East and West. As a successor it had certain duties to all its members. West claimed a breach of those very duties and that is what ended up in the DFR. USAPA has no way out of the injunction other than either living with it, getting the judge to modify or dissolve it, or come to some form of agreement with West (and even that will need the Court to accept the agreement and dissolve the injunction. The injunction does not become a nullity if USAPA decides to declare a strike.

John

 

[BoeingBoy]

Ok what exactly are the types of contract modifications that are specifically limited and where does it say that.

up

You need to stop looking at the draft remedy to find a way to do what you want and start looking at it form a "can this prevent what I want" perspective.

One last hint then it's up to you - 1 sentence from the draft remedy:

"Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to support and defend the seniority rights provided by or arising from the Nicolau Award in negotiations with US Airways."

Jim

 

[Captain Underpants]

Hi CU,

USAPA was a successor to ALPA. As such it inherited all of ALPA's rights and responsibilities in conjunction with all obligations incurred while ALPA was the sole bargaining agent for East and West. As a successor it had certain duties to all its members. West claimed a breach of those very duties and that is what ended up in the DFR.
John

Good argument but it has a fatal flaw. The DFR was a breach of contract not a breach of duty. A breach of ALPA's contract (TA) with the company to use the infamous results of ALPA merger policy. USAPA actions were only a breach of DFR because of ALPA's prior contractual commitment. Without ALPA USPA's actions would be perfectly legal. Look at the AFA's imposition of DOH on the F/A's.

Wake is on thin ice anyway with the appeal because it is quite unusual to have a DFR for breach of contract as Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over contract disputes. Lots of legal types are scratching their heads over that one. Contract interpretation is strictly a system board jurisdiction. We will have wait for the 9th circuit to rule on that one.

underpants

 

[Richard]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Reminder time--posting the letter is not permitted as we do not permit reproduction of articles, emails or materials not intended for public view, or published by other sources without WRITTEN permission of the author or publisher.

Please refrain from posting it again--we've already removed it twice.

Thank you

 

[hp_fa]

Good argument but it has a fatal flaw. The DFR was a breach of contract not a breach of duty.

No it wasn't. If this had been a straight breach of contract case the whole thing would have procedurally been much different. I will admit that the TA was part of the evidence, but under labor law USAPA inherited the Nicolau award as set in stone. Addington arose because USAPA failed to implement that decision, which is something ALPA was, slowly, headed towards when USAPA won the election.

Without ALPA USPA's actions would be perfectly legal. Look at the AFA's imposition of DOH on the F/A's.

USAPA's actions would have been perfectly legal but for ALPA, its merger policy, Nicolau and the fact that ALPA did deliver a final seniority list to the company. However, those things all occurred and USAPA stepped into the shoes of ALPA when they took over representation.

AFA had a different constitutuion. AFA 66 did try to get the CBL's changed, failed and then accepted AFA's DOH merger policy without any more dissent.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wake is on thin ice anyway with the appeal because it is quite unusual to have a DFR for breach of contract as Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over contract disputes.

underpants

Wrong - and one of the fallacies in your latest plan (you did mention "major dispute" I believe). Just ask the IAM...

Jim

PS: I thought so...

hp_fa,

It looks like we are headed for a major dispute under the RLA.

 

[Waketurbulence]

I have been lurking on this board as a guest for the better part of 6 months and have decided to post some of my thoughts.

Though no fan of Chip, I found his letter to have some good points. We have, time and time again, been promised and assured that we'd have a contract and Nicolau would be nothing more than a bad memory. We've given up a great deal of pay and continued to work under LOA 93 hoping that this "investment" would pay off for us in the long run. It seems though, that we've moved ever further away from the promises USAPA has made with no hope of improvement any time soon. I don't believe we'll see any of the promised pay snapbacks that USAPA thinks we're going to get. I watched those videos on youTube and now see our pilots sitting there with nothing more that poker faces knowing they're holding unsuited low cards. It's all been nothing but bluster and bluff.
So where does this leave us? Further away than from where we started and with NOTHING to show for our dues money.
And now I read of strike talks after each and every one of USAPA's strategies have been systematically disassemble by the west's attorneys. This talk of now striking the company proves how desperate things have gotten over here and how correct Chip may be in what he wrote.

I hate to admit it, but its over for me. I won't even call it a good fight because it wasn't. I see it now as nothing more that a transfer of our dues to Seham and his firm and nothing more. And I have also been told that our money situation is becoming critical as well.

This madness needs to stop and it has for me. I will not strike. I will not wear my badge-backer, and I will terminate my membership with USAPA.

They have done nothing for us and I don't see them doing anything more than harming the entire group for the benefit of a small group. When the next trial comes in Sept(?) for damages, I see nothing but more dues money going into Seham's pockets and to the west.

CLT

Flame away as this will be my only post. I don't have the think skin Chip has.

Snowskier

No flaming here. Let me be the first to welcome you to reality. The whole usapa experiment has been and will continue to be a complete failure. Yet, it seems that many on this board have no problem with being lied to by their union and promised things that will NEVER HAPPEN.

The reallity is, this group needs more people like you. Ones that are willing to admit to themselves that they felt they had to try but when faced with reality, their common sense kicks in.

The only solution is for usapa to abandon their present course, become a real Union that represents ALL US Airways Pilots, fire that scumbag lawyer sheeham and work towards a single contract that provides us with more money and a better lifestyle.

The Nic' will never go away and the sooner more folks like you realize that the sooner we can move on and put this mess behind us.

 

[Captain Underpants]

You need to stop looking at the draft remedy to find a way to do what you want and start looking at it form a "can this prevent what I want" perspective.

One last hint then it's up to you - 1 sentence from the draft remedy:

"Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to support and defend the seniority rights provided by or arising from the Nicolau Award in negotiations with US Airways."

Jim

Jim,
What are the seniority rights granted by the Nic award as a stand alone document and what are the seniority rights provided by or enabled by the contract. The Nic award is a very poorly written document and provides very few specific seniority rights. The bulk of specific seniority rights arise from the contract which is negotiable and subject to ratification.

Take the Nic award as written and unmodified and start with a blank contract and that is really all USAPA would have to support and defend. Nic probably intended more but we really don't know what was in Nic's mind if it wasn't included in the award or perhaps he left all those assumed seniority rights out of the award intentionally.

up

 

[hp_fa]

No it wasn't. If this had been a straight breach of contract case the whole thing would have procedurally been much different. I will admit that the TA was part of the evidence, but under labor law USAPA inherited the Nicolau award as set in stone. Addington arose because USAPA failed to implement that decision, which is something ALPA was, slowly, headed towards when USAPA won the election.

USAPA's actions would have been perfectly legal but for ALPA, its merger policy, Nicolau and the fact that ALPA did deliver a final seniority list to the company. However, those things all occurred and USAPA stepped into the shoes of ALPA when they took over representation.

AFA had a different constitutuion. AFA 66 did try to get the CBL's changed, failed and then accepted AFA's DOH merger policy without any more dissent.

Wake is on thin ice anyway with the appeal because it is quite unusual to have a DFR for breach of contract as Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over contract disputes. Lots of legal types are scratching their heads over that one. Contract interpretation is strictly a system board jurisdiction. We will have wait for the 9th circuit to rule on that one.

As I said this isn't contract law. I believe the judge to be correct on that but await the briefs. What has been clear to me all along is that Seham has been mis-applying a lot of law to this case, either in an effort to change the law or because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the case and how current law does apply to it. I know that many will say that they think that Seham has more education than me on this, but my response would be that Nicolau and a federal judge have seen the facts and law more the way I have viewed the dispute than the way Seham has viewed the dispute. Remember that Bradford had gone through some law firm interviews before hiring SSM&P.

 

[Waketurbulence]

Jim,
What are the seniority rights granted by the Nic award as a stand alone document and what are the seniority rights provided by or enabled by the contract. The Nic award is a very poorly written document and provides very few specific seniority rights. The bulk of specific seniority rights arise from the contract which is negotiable and subject to ratification.

Take the Nic award as written and unmodified and start with a blank contract and that is really all USAPA would have to support and defend. Nic probably intended more but we really don't know what was in Nic's mind if it wasn't included in the award or perhaps he left all those assumed seniority rights out of the award intentionally.

up

Keep reaching...

 

[Captain Underpants]

USAPA's actions would have been perfectly legal but for ALPA, its merger policy, Nicolau and the fact that ALPA did deliver a final seniority list to the company.

Agreed 100%.... Thank you

underpants