HP_FA said: I generally stay away from pilot issues that deal with things I have no real knowledge of and no background understanding. That said I can say that what I have seen quoted from USAPA regarding the legal stuff, which I do have a background in and some knowledge of, could often be at best classified as wrong. At worst it could be classified as propaganda and disinformation that is very much akin to what was being fed to the pilots by the AAA MEC before and during Nicolau. Frankly, from my perspective, the legal interpretation coming from USAPA has been so biased that it virtually screamed for a response because of its wrong interpretation of what was actually occurring. Perhaps "unbiased" has and is somewhat more of a swing to the dead-center than the USAPA version of "fair and balanced". However, again from my view, the "unbiased" reaction to "fair and balanced" has not been to the degree of what MSNBC became to Fox News."
Selected U.S. District Court’s Finding of Facts written by Judge Wake that he submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts, and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the “contradiction or confusion . . . produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their environment.†Guaranty Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 106 (1945) (Frankfurter, J.).
• A jury has already found that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation with respect to the West Pilots. In short, USAPA violated the duty because it cast aside the result of an internal seniority arbitration solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots. USAPA failed to prove that any legitimate union objective motivated its acts.
• Mr. Bradford, who is beyond the subpoena power of this Court, missed an opportunity for persuasion when he declined to testify and be cross-examined at trial concerning motives and pretext in defense of the union he founded and governed.
• Before certification, USAPA repeatedly asserted that a contract was likely to be presented for ratification soon. [E.g., ex. 100 at 3, 7.]
• Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority. Air Wisconsin, 909 F.2d at 216. USAPA’s argument would allow a union to punish any disfavored minority by pointing to the majority preference in the union as long as that majority threatens to obstruct the collective bargaining process, in this case by hijacking contract ratification.
• In effect, USAPA claims that the East Pilots hold such strong objections to the Nicolau Award that they always will vote as a bloc against any new CBA with it, enjoying the self-denial of a single CBA with improved wages and working conditions into perpetuity. Even if this unbelievable story is believed, it only means that the East Pilots have the power of self-inflicted harm. It does not mean that the union’s duty of fair representation falls victim to self-hostage taking.
• Discrimination and bad faith would be permitted as long as a zealous majority of union members insisted.
• The union’s obligation to federal labor law includes an obligation to stand up to its membership.
• Before and after its election, USAPA has misled the majority about its power to improve their seniority prospects at the expense of the West Pilots. The will of the East Pilots springs from a mistaken understanding of the law and mismanaged expectations. If this is an impasse, it is one USAPA goaded on.
• USAPA “discriminated†when it adopted a seniority proposal for no reason other than to advantage the majority East Pilots at the minority West Pilots’ expense.
• USAPA has repeatedly suggested that only the “final product of the bargaining
process†is subject to fair representation claims, citing Air Line Pilots Association v.O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991). [E.g., doc. # 36 at 13.] This phrase, carefully plucked from its context, is too slender a reed to support such an elephantine proposition.
USAPA Update – July 31, 2009
“We are extremely confident in our position on appeal as supported by case law.â€
Former USAPA NAC Chairman and USAPA President Candidate Doug Mowery Campaign Letter Comment to the Pilot Group – February 2009
“I am concerned that the promised “transparency†of our union has not materialized to the extent I thought it would. I see an inordinate amount of obsessive behavior over security and leaks. Communications to you are, at times, misleading through a failure to tell the “whole storyâ€. Those on the inside know what I am talking about. Those of you on the outside, the line pilots, do not know what I am talking about because of the actions taken by some to withhold information from you. I will work to truly make this the transparent union I envisioned when I voted for USAPA. Strategy, and the like, should be confidential until the proper time, but I am hearing and seeing issues surrounding the administration of your union that are unnecessarily kept confidential.â€
Regards,
USA320Pilot
