US Pilots' Labor Thread 9/4 to 9/17--STAY ON TOPIC

[hp_fa]

The second, at page 17.

 

[fodase]

The second, at page 17.

11
12
13
14
Federal courts have the power to award attorneys’ fees against a party
who litigates in bad faith.5 The Supreme Court explained as follows:
[A] court may assess attorneys’ fees . . . when the losing party has
‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive
reasons….’ These exceptions are unquestionably assertions of
inherent power in the courts to allow attorneys' fees in particular
situations . . . .

 

[traderjake]

A preview of things to come 1-1-10.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/business/india-business/Pilots-on-mass-leave-130-Jet-Airways-flights-cancelled/articleshow/4984594.cms

48% of all pilots are not in good standing with USAPA. How many would refuse to be part of an illegal USAPA job action.

If enough of you get yourselves fired we can take control of the union.

 

[Hawkhunter]

Yeah, I know. However, East pilots are East pilots...regardless what their name of the day is.

How many Wien air guys are still flying out there. No line crossers out East. West pilots are West pilots. How was Austrailia?

 

[700UW]

No line crossers out East.

Gee then who flew the planes that US flew during the IAM strike in 92?

Saw many pilots cross the picket lines and even saw plenty of pilots doing IAM covered work during the 30 day cooling off period.

 

[Megasnoop]

48% of all pilots are not in good standing with USAPA. How many would refuse to be part of an illegal USAPA job action.

Where did you get that statistic? BTW, I think all should refuse to be part of an "illegal" job action. A legal job action, that's a different matter.

If enough of you get yourselves fired we can take control of the union.

Incorrect. Even if you are fired, until the termination gets ruled on by an arbitrator, you still have all your voting privleges and MIGS. I've never heard anyone who wants to get back in so much.

 

[nic4us]

You are owed NOTHING. Your whining is getting OLD.

Personally, financially, so far my income has increased, despite the backward movement. I still hold a line, that lines monthly hours have increased due to less staffing. So I doubt I will collect much from usapa.

I am grateful to still have enployment during these hard economic times.

Let me ask you this. Who'e idea was perpetual seperate ops. I mean specifically, who first announced seperate ops would be the company's future. It took place at one of the ALPA, concensual solutions meetings. An individual east pilot declared we would remain in seperate ops as the solution to the east's disappointment in the Nic.

Then ask yourself, what is this former ALPA rep doing now. One answere according to the LM2 is collecting FPL from usapa.

So you may be correct. I may be owed nothing. My whining may be getting old. But it will be nowhere near as tiresome as cutting checks every month to pay those whose jobs you have taken.

 

[nic4us]

How many Wien air guys are still flying out there. No line crossers out East. West pilots are West pilots. How was Austrailia?

I believe all the Wein Air guys are retired. Still have quite a few Australia folks on property.

But consider this. As has been pointed out many times, the West is more familiar with those pilots who have questionable work ethics. Webster's has many definitions to describe those who you refer to, and the West probably has pilots fitting every one of those definitions. So from my more experienced point of view let me say this. It all boils down to if enough workers call you a name that name will stick. If your name is added to a list circulated amongst unions, that name will follow you around. The quickest way to get your name on that list is to cross a line.

The question is, how many east pilots crossed a line in their quest to steal West jobs? The answere is 2733.

Do not believe me. Go read the RICO complaint. The West is accused of conspiring with other airlines to deny jumpseats. All we were doing was asking other airlines not to confuse us with you. Go read the ALPA web board the day usapa won the election, it is full of comments of West support, and disdain for the east.

So go ahead and keep pointing out that there are west pilots who crossed a line, their name is on a list that just might grow by 2733.

 

[Megasnoop]

My point about how many “membersâ€￾ is that we have seen USAPA overstate, spin and yes outright lie about things. When I pointed out that the 5200 number is inaccurate it is. It has never been accurate. It USAPA can not be honest about how many people they represent, a simple fact how can I trust them to tell me the difficult truths? So according to the first LM-2 it was 5061 on June 30/2008. Before any furloughs. So USAPA has never represented that many pilots. What is the problem with being accurate?

What is USAPA?
The US Airline Pilots Association represents 5,200 Mainline US Airways pilots.

NOW: CHARLOTTE, N.C. – September 2, 2009 Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) represents more than 5,000 US Airways pilots in seven domiciles across the United States.

They need to change that 5200 number. Truth in advertising, you know. 139 too high. Not sure what a big deal, but I’ll file a report.

To recap, USAPA membership was rising before the Addington decision, not stagnant, as claimed. Since Addington, a huge increase, most from the West. The initial dues-paying membership was 2524, 10 weeks into USAPA representation. Now it’s 3218, 95% of East active pilots. Every other union uses the term "representing" to include all active pilots, furloughed, objectors, in their public relations releases. So does USAPA. LM-2s only report actual working pilots. Again, I hope that explains the difference. The increase in membership of 694, especially when considering furloughs of 270, is not membership stalling as previously said.

The numbers in 3-31-09 LM-2 were 3218/4753 (active). That's 68% membership on 5 month old data. On 3-31 West had about 1700 active pilots. About 12% were members. So East had about 2900 members of the 3100 east active or 95% of the East active pilots were members. The 737 East objector number is not correct. When the June 2008 LM-2 was filed there were applications awaiting BPR vote approval, not that anyone was ever turned down, but all the squares hadn’t been filled. With the influx of new west membership since Addington, Id say members will top 3800 with next BPR rubber-stamp approval. That's a guess based on latest snooping. It might be higher. Thats 80%.

Yes the list is legit. My question was for accuracy. A point was made that somehow Nicolau "learned" something during his deposition that was going to have a profound change in his attitude. I asked for details, either a copy of the transcript or at least a first hand account. So far I have gotten neither. I can only conclude that the deposition is far less important then first presented. So it really is not as important as it was first posted.

"Nicolau characterized MDA "a regional carrier," but, oddly, then acknowledged that it did not have a separate operating certificate."

I think it was more like, what did Nic learn and when did he learn it? If so, collateral damage, but with a legit list, no need to get worry. Its really not important, is it? As Hate2fly said, MDA holds things close to the vest,

 

[Barrister]

From the "I Told You So Department."

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND RELATED NON-TAXABLE EXPENSES, Pg 3-6. Document 613.



There is another goody in there, but I probably have quoted about as much as the moderators will allow. Let's see who finds it first.

But yet Wake refused to give the "bad faith" jury instruction. How interesting!!

 

[Metroyet]

You are owed NOTHING. Your whining is getting OLD.

This is exactly the attitude that landed you in Federal Court, slapped you with a permanent injunction, cost you millions of dollars, and will cost you millions more, has kept all of you in BK wages and work rules for years, and will continue to do so for years more, and costing your families unrecoverable amounts of money. All for what? So the East pilots can feel like respected tough guys again by twisting labor laws to steal from the innocent?

Nic. is etched in Granite. It's NEVER going to change.

Your whining is getting OLD as well. Moreover, you couldn't be more WRONG about the West being owed something.

Thank God the the Honorable Neil Wake, 9 clear headed jurors, and the best legal system in the world, (and Lee Seham too for making this Victory so freaking easy!)

 

[hp_fa]

But yet Wake refused to give the "bad faith" jury instruction. How interesting!!

It is true that Judge Wake did not give the instruction that USAPA sought. However, according to the following quoted material from the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order, he was well aware of what he perceived to be precedent under other holdings of the 9th Circuit and applied what he perceived to be those holdings in his instructions. It will be to the 9th Circuit to decide if he applied their rulings properly and, in the instances of no controlling 9th Circuit rulings, appropriate rulings from other circuits.

It is interesting that Judge Wake used the cases of Rakestraw and Barton Brands, cases which USAPA cited and claimed stood for other principles, in this portion of his decision.

USAPA also complained at the instruction stage that the jury was given no definition of “bad faith.†The Supreme Court has defined “bad faith†in this context as requiring a showing of “fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct,†or personal hostility. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 348, 350 (1964); accord Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d 909, 916 (9th Cir. 1995) (referring to “personal animus†as a basis for “bad faith†liability). At the same time, the Supreme Court has often resorted to the rule that a union’s discretion is subject to “good faith and honesty of purpose.†See Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 75-76 (1991); Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 707 (1983); United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 67 n.2 (1981); Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 564 (1976); Humphrey, 375 U.S. at 342; Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953).

In civil law, the forms of fraud range to the bounds of human imagination. 17 Am. Jur. Fraud § 1 (2009). “In fact, the fertility of people’s invention in devising new schemes of fraud is so great that courts have always declined to define the term, reserving to themselves the liberty to deal with fraud in whatever form it may present itself.†Id. (listing nineteen judicial definitions of fraud); see also Keith v. Murfreesboro Livestock Market, Inc., 780 S.W.2d 751, 754 & n.2 (Tenn. App. 1989) (citing Dante Alighieri’s personification of fraud as the demon Geryon, a reptile-scorpion-mongrel of a man, to illustrate why fraud is not subject to a “hidebound definitionâ€). The “fraud†or “bad faith†at issue here is an abuse of trust akin to a deliberate breach of fiduciary duties. “Just as a trustee must act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, a union, as the exclusive representative of the workers, must exercise its power to act on behalf of the employees in good faith.†Chauffeurs, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 567 (1990) (citation omitted); accord O’Neill, 499 U.S. at 75. The jury instructions omit the phrase “fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct†because those terms add nothing to the analysis. Instead, the jury was instructed on a union’s duty to represent with “good faith and honesty of purpose,†a phrase better suited to the situation here where the union is accused of brandishing a pretext to justify majority self-dealing at the expense of West Pilots. Much as a definition of fraud would add nothing to an adequate instruction on embezzlement, no further definition of “bad faith†was needed. The instructions predicate any liability on the specific facts of USAPA’s conduct.

Seniority dispute cases are conceived in terms of both “bad faith†and “discrimination.†Cases imposing liability cite both standards. See Bernard, 873 F.2d at 216 (holding that union may treat groups of employees differently “as long as such conduct is not arbitrary or taken in bad faithâ€); Barton Brands, 529 F.2d at 799 (prohibiting discrimination “on bad faith groundsâ€); Truck Drivers, 379 F.2d at 142 (faulting union for “renounc[ing] any good faith effort to reconcile†employee interests); Ramey, 378 F.3d at 276-77 (union has obligation to “exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honestyâ€) (quoting Vaca, 386 U.S. at 177); Teamsters Local Union No. 42, 825 F.2d at 611(same). In these cases, the distinction matters little. “Bad faith†and “discrimination†become two different labels for the same theory of liability. None of the applicable cases trouble over this issue of nomenclature, and perhaps rightly so. Cf. Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974) (rejecting, pre-O’Neill, the strict compartmentalization of fair representation claims and holding that varied labels only serve to emphasize the range of a union’s broad discretion). But see Rakestraw, 989 F.2d at 945-48 & n.2 (Ripple, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (criticizing panel decision for abandoning the tripartite “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith†standard, which O’Neill reaffirmed, in favor of a “crabbed interpretation of the duty of fair representationâ€). It may be that “bad faith†and “discrimination†merge into a single concept that describes the ills at work in this case. See Bernard, 873 F.2d at 216 (prohibiting bad-faith disparate treatment of workers); Williams v. Pac. Maritime Ass’n, 617 F.2d 1321, 1330 (9th Cir. 1980) (same); Ramey, 378 F.3d at 277 (same). The terminological difference does not affect its proof or defense.

 

[luvthe9]

Nic. is etched in Granite. It's NEVER going to change.

Huh? In your dreams maybe.

 

[cleardirect]

The jury instructions omit the phrase "fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct"￾ because those terms add nothing to the analysis. Instead, the jury was instructed on a union's duty to represent with "good faith and honesty of purpose," a phrase better suited to the situation here where the union is accused of brandishing a pretext to justify majority self-dealing at the expense of West Pilots. Much as a definition of fraud would add nothing to an adequate instruction on embezzlement, no further definition of "bad faith" was needed. The instructions predicate any liability on the specific facts of USAPA's conduct.

The judge was trying to help the east out here. He was putting a positive spin on the instructions by using good faith instead of bad faith. But I guess Seham would have objected if the judge had used bad faith instead of good faith because it would prejudice usapa.

The jury saw that usapa had neither.

USAPA, never satisfied always complaining.

 

[Dorf]

USAPA, never satisfied always complaining.

From the outside, sounds just like the west pilots are complaining just as much. West complaining someone (east) stole their jobs....(a pilot on the west property who was on the property 2 months is put ahead of a 18 yr., never furloughed pilot from the east) sounds like the west pilot stole the east pilots job to me. East complaining that the west is trying to cash a lottery ticket even though straight date of hire(which they wanted) with fences still would yield the west owning the top 1/3 of the seniority list in 7 - 10 years.

Let's face it, your 2 pilot groups will never agree to or on anything.

Unfortunately for you, mis-management is enjoying the show and using it against both of you.