USAirways pilots labor thread 7/23-7-29

[hp_fa]

The partial judgment that followed the jury trial on liability, as well as the injunction, are now before the Ninth Circuit, effectively divesting the District Court in Phoenix (Judge Wake) from any further jurisdiction on these orders we are appealing.

Wrong!

Judge Wake retains jurisdiction of the injunction in order to modify it, dissolve it or enforce it via any potential Order to Show Cause. Also, Judge Wake has retained jurisdiction of any application for attorney's fees for Class counsel.

The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce, modify, or dissolve the permanent injunction portion of this order. The Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the named Plaintiffs’ unadjudicated claims for damages and any claims for attorney fees.

Now let's warp at least a year from now and see how USAPA can reuse the last paragraph of the legal update from today...

By stepping away from Judge Wake's courtroom the Ninth Circuit into the higher highest federal appellate courts court, USAPA will continue to exercise our legal options to restore the rights of the union — fairly elected and acting on all members' behalf — to bargain freely within what the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have both has recognized is the "wide range of reasonableness [which] must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents.â€￾

 

[john john]

You are suggesting a "minority leader" representing maybe 200 tell a majority (3200) how to accept a paltry 3% raise, cede longevity and otherwise denigrate the pilot profession?

vs a 22%++ raise, keeping the lump sums to ourselves and rest on the principle that longevity leads to seniority?

Since you put it that way its sounds like a no brainier

 

[cleardirect]

Why are usapa's communications hard to trust? I know because within their own releases the contradict themselves.

So what is it boys? Does Judge Wake no longer have jurisdiction or does he?

USAPA Legal Update - July 29, 2009

The appeal process has begun!

On July 23, USAPA attorneys filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, Calif., regarding the Addington Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) trial and Judge Wake’s injunctive order.

The partial judgment that followed the jury trial on liability, as well as the injunction, are now before the Ninth Circuit, effectively divesting the District Court in Phoenix (Judge Wake) from any further jurisdiction on these orders we are appealing.

We have received a Time Schedule Order from the Ninth Circuit Court and are pleased by the promptness with which the Circuit Court is acting on our appeal. Our first written brief is due November 9, 2009. Notwithstanding the present schedule, we will file a motion to expedite the appeal, including adjusting the existing calendar consistent with USAPA's intent to prosecute the appeal as fast as the Court of Appeals will allow.

USAPA has also filed a motion to stay (suspend) the injunction — and all further proceedings at the District Court. If the stay is granted, enforcement of the injunction would be suspended pending resolution by the Ninth Circuit. If the stay is not granted at the District Court level, it may then be heard by the Court of Appeals.

We are extremely confident in our position on appeal as supported by case law. To provide you additional understanding of our legal position, we are introducing a new series this week called “What the Cases Really Say, in which we will cite examples of case law that substantiate the foundation of our appeal.

By stepping away from Judge Wake's courtroom into the higher federal appellate courts, USAPA will continue to exercise our legal options to restore the rights of the union — fairly elected and acting on all members' behalf — to bargain freely within what the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have both recognized is the "wide range of reasonableness [which] must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents.

 

[spike99]

Wrong!

Judge Wake retains jurisdiction of the injunction in order to modify it, dissolve it or enforce it via any potential Order to Show Cause. Also, Judge Wake has retained jurisdiction of any application for attorney's fees for Class counsel.



Now let's warp at least a year from now and see how USAPA can reuse the last paragraph of the legal update from today...

By stepping away from Judge Wake's courtroom the Ninth Circuit into the higher highest federal appellate courts court, USAPA will continue to exercise our legal options to restore the rights of the union — fairly elected and acting on all members' behalf — to bargain freely within what the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have both has recognized is the "wide range of reasonableness [which] must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents.â€￾

How does Judge Wake react if there is no CBA which is approved. In his own remedy, he states, "Every reasonable effort will be made to incorporate the Nic". So how many no votes before he decides there are no more reasonable efforts left? I'll bet it's a finite number, and he will be looking to impose other remedies once they fail. Of course that's predicated on the 9th not already getting involved. Wake is a home town boy, but he won't step on himself when push comes to shove. We'll just keep bidding our time until a decision is reached. As one of the previously furloughed, whom the West says doesn't matter, I'll take my 6 year LOS and fight until there is nothing left to fight for. The west seems to like to point out we voted for all of this ourselves, they fail to realize, those of us hired after 1998 have never been able to vote on anything, until USAPA was on the property. Let's buckle up and see who has more resolve.

 

[Schultz]

In the fall of 2007 I had two 5-hour one on one conversations with former USAPA president Stephen Bradford regarding his ideas on how a new union should proceed. Bradford is an intelligent individual that I do not hold in the same class as ALPA’s former RC4/5 or USAPA’s hardliners who have been in control of every major failure the East pilot group has sustained.

Bradford told me that USAPA members would pay dues about 25% less than ALPA, union leaders would be volunteers and not on the gravy train, USAPA would be democratic, there would be no “roll call†provision, there would be nobody associated with the RC4 as a USAPA leader, there would be a professional negotiating team, there would be no abuse of union dues, BPR meetings would use webcams for accountability, and of course he recited case law on why DOH could be the only method legally permitted to integrate two pilot groups.

I believed Bradford because I thought he was genuine, but during the election process two major events occurred that changed my support from USAPA to ALPA.

First, the RC4/5 MEC members and other hardliners stopped attending ALPA meetings and instead were attending USAPA organizing events. I believe it is wrong to hold an office of a union and then use union resources as a means to elect another union. Where is the integrity in that? Then I found out that PHL F/O Rep. Dave Ciabattoni was writing USAPA’s C&BL’s and Uniform Operating Manual (UOM), which is one of the reasons ALPA removed him from office. Ciabattoni pledged his allegiance to ALPA during the Representation Campaign, but behind the scenes was working to build USAPA. I new this was going to be trouble, big trouble, because of the hardliners past performance in ALPA.

Next, the ACPC was formed that provided information by people I respect that was anti-USAPA for valid reasons with the ACPC providing truthful, factual information. Then ALPA attorney Mike Abram wrote letters to the pilot on the pending legal problems USAPA would inherit if USAPA was successful in winning the election because the West pilots could bring a DFR lawsuit against the BPR and the West would be successful. Guess what? Abram was dead-on accurate again!

With this said, let me point out that I believe the Nicolau Award is wrong for two reasons. One, I believe in DOH as the bedrock of airline seniority. It is the merger policy of every other US Airways labor group and is how both the East and West pilot groups administer their contracts. And, Joe Monda, the lowest East seniority pilot at the date of the merger is now junior to Dave Odell. At the time of the merger Odell had 3 months seniority, was on probation with America West, and an ALPA apprentice member. On the other hand Joe had 17 years and 3 months uninterrupted US Airways service. Which pilot contributed more to the success of the combined business entity? Joe or Dave.

However, DOH did not exist in ALPA MeRger Policy and I believe it is wrong to renege on a promise to not accept a final and binding arbitration award the parties agree to.

Now back to the NMB’s election…During the Representation campaign when it became clear USAPA was going to be run by people I believe are dishonest who lack character (the old RC4/5 hardliner group) and with the ACPC’s/Mike Abram’s information I shifted my support back to ALPA. Why? I thought if the two MEC’s would remain in place there would eventually be a settlement between the East and West pilot groups that would mitigate the Nicolau Award, permit a new join Pilot and F/A contract, and permit all of US Airways’ stakeholders to constructively move forward.

However, the East pilots did not allow this to happen and the East instead voted for USAPA in an effort to have the majority impose their will on the minority, which I believe is wrong.

Now lets fast forward to today. USAPA has broken most of their campaign promises. USAPA members now pay more in dues and assessments than any airline union in the entire U.S., union leaders voted them self a huge pay raise without first informing the membership or permitting the membership to vote on this issue (which may be a violation of DOL labor), USAPA is not democratic (in fact just last week the BPR attempted to hide the fact that they leased new vehicles for union officials to use and the members did not vote on this abuse), the “roll call†provision was re-inserted back into the C&BLs following the election, the BPR and Key Committees are only made up of people loyal to the former RC4/5, outstanding former ALPA R&I officials who have done fantastic work on behalf of the pilots are not permitted to do union work even though pilots are suffering with R&I/LTD problems, there is not a real professional negotiating team (Seham and Peterson were fired by the American Airlines pilot union APA and they now represent USAP), there is abuse of union dues, there has not been one BPR meeting that used webcams for accountability, and now USAPA has been found guilty of DFR with virtually no chance of an appellate victory. During this time frame thousands of US Airways pilots are being damaged by the union in lost wages, no real chance of an appellate victory, and the company being hurt by USAPA by not being able to fully integrate.

If you click here, here, and here you can read 3 of many reasons on why I believe USAPA is harming all US Airways pilots, both from the East and the West; along with thousands of other US Airways employees and other stakeholders.

I made a mistake in initially supporting USAPA, but I learned from my mistake and I am moving forward. USAPA needs to be removed from the property and I strongly believe an effort to do that will occur in the not-too-distant future when permitted by federal law.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Donn, Is that you?

 

[700UW]

Guess a lot of you forgot once you get into Section 6 and go through the steps of the RLA, either you will reach an agreement, or go on strike and the company impose a CBA on you, so either way you cant put off the inevitable

 

[Elevation]

Let's buckle up and see who has more resolve.

Funny how USAPAIANS still think it's a simple tug-o-war of wills. After the injunction the west has tied there side of the rope to a Mack truck called "the law" with a big knot called "you lost". Keep pulling east...Keep pulling

 

[captainJack]

Guess a lot of you forgot once you get into Section 6 and go through the steps of the RLA, either you will reach an agreement, or go on strike and the company impose a CBA on you, so either way you cant put off the inevitable

Who went into section 6? The west had that opportunity and blew it.

I believe the east would be happy with the consummation of LOA 93 for quite a while. Up to a 44% pay raise, two major lump sum payments over two years, bid sheet and "personal days" that allows creative vacations.

What is not to like vs slight to severe downgrades, degradation of a profession and much less pay and benefits with a section 6 filing? The west has tried to use LOA 93 as a whip of shame. I say, throw me in that briar patch. I mean, why would anyone tolerate the last 5 years of bad parts, then throw away the good parts? That, indeed, would be the height of stupidity.

 

[hp_fa]

How does Judge Wake react if there is no CBA which is approved. In his own remedy, he states, "Every reasonable effort will be made to incorporate the Nic". So how many no votes before he decides there are no more reasonable efforts left?

Good questions.

In my view Judge Wake has done a couple of things with the substance and tenor of his injunction. First, he is giving USAPA ample room to comply with his Order, both in fact and in showing good faith on their part. However, and again in my view, based on the lawyerly arguments and the actual testimony that occurred in court the judge clearly doesn't put any faith in USAPA all of a sudden acting in good faith in conjunction with his Order.

Think of it this way, if a party is found to have committed a breach of the duty of fair representation after a federal trial, do you really expect them to change their views that got them into trouble in the first place? Remember, simply to get to the point that they now find themselves they had to scheme to disenfranchise a group to whom they had a duty, fail to settle or resolve the issue once the alleged breach of duty was made known to them, decided to spend (at least) hundreds of thousands of dollars to attempt to justify their alleged wrongdoing and then finally had a jury and court actually find that they violated the law. So, under those circumstances, do you really believe Judge Wake to be naive enough to really expect USAPA to change its behavior? He hoped for the best but planned for the worst.

To be more specific to the number of attempts, I would speculate that the minimum number would be three. However, that is a bare minimum and in getting to that point I would think that realistically USAPA would do something that would cause the filing of an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt.

I'll bet it's a finite number, and he will be looking to impose other remedies once they fail. Of course that's predicated on the 9th not already getting involved. Wake is a home town boy, but he won't step on himself when push comes to shove.

I have previously stated that my opinion is that Judge Wake went out of his way to give USAPA every chance in the world to cause him to not enter the injunction. They refused to do so and I put much of that blame on SSM&P because I view them as having tried to build themselves a kingdom. USAPA paid legal fees so that SSM&P could try and re-write labor law in order to obtain SSM&P future business because of their "expertise".

 

[700UW]

When is the East CBA amendable?

And you never know since the West is all ready amendable if they push the NMB they might force US and USAPA into negotiations under section 6.

 

[spike99]

Good questions.

In my view Judge Wake has done a couple of things with the substance and tenor of his injunction. First, he is giving USAPA ample room to comply with his Order, both in fact and in showing good faith on their part. However, and again in my view, based on the lawyerly arguments and the actual testimony that occurred in court the judge clearly doesn't put any faith in USAPA all of a sudden acting in good faith in conjunction with his Order.

Think of it this way, if a party is found to have committed a breach of the duty of fair representation after a federal trial, do you really expect them to change their views that got them into trouble in the first place? Remember, simply to get to the point that they now find themselves they had to scheme to disenfranchise a group to whom they had a duty, fail to settle or resolve the issue once the alleged breach of duty was made known to them, decided to spend (at least) hundreds of thousands of dollars to attempt to justify their alleged wrongdoing and then finally had a jury and court actually find that they violated the law. So, under those circumstances, do you really believe Judge Wake to be naive enough to really expect USAPA to change its behavior? He hoped for the best but planned for the worst.

To be more specific to the number of attempts, I would speculate that the minimum number would be three. However, that is a bare minimum and in getting to that point I would think that realistically USAPA would do something that would cause the filing of an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt.



I have previously stated that my opinion is that Judge Wake went out of his way to give USAPA every chance in the world to cause him to not enter the injunction. They refused to do so and I put much of that blame on SSM&P because I view them as having tried to build themselves a kingdom. USAPA paid legal fees so that SSM&P could try and re-write labor law in order to obtain SSM&P future business because of their "expertise".

If USAPA could get the company to actually negotiate, they could put out a tentative agreement tommorrow, and it still wouldn't pass a vote of the MIGS. USAPA doesn't have to put anything in the agreement and it still won't pass. You can speculate all you want on what USAPA might do to to bring a contempt charge, but I sumise, they won't have to do anything if the NIC is attached to bring a No vote. There currently aren't anywhere near enough AOL supporters who are MIGS to make it even close. You surely underestimate the negativity of this award, in the eyes of the East pilots. There will never be enough money from this inept management team to make a majority of the East pilots to once again throw the junior pilots under the bus. You have not factored in the fact that the last ALPA votes which did exactly that, barely passed. Since those votes, a large number have retired, or left the property. Like I said before, we can wait and see. The West hasn't gone through anything like the East, and they continue to underestimate our resolve.

 

[hp_fa]

More goodies from the USAPA legal team. In the very first sentence of a motion to expedite the appeal they say as follows:

II. BACKGROUND.
This appeal arises out of a lawsuit over substantive terms in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that has yet to be negotiated or ratified.

HUH?

The appeal is arising out of a lawsuit over a breach of the Duty of Fair Representation. It doesn't arise out of a CBA.

If you can't tell the truth in the first substantive sentence of the procedural history of the case to the Court of Appeals how on earth do you expect to convince them you have been wronged by the trial court?

 

[cleardirect]

How does Judge Wake react if there is no CBA which is approved. In his own remedy, he states, "Every reasonable effort will be made to incorporate the Nic". So how many no votes before he decides there are no more reasonable efforts left? I'll bet it's a finite number, and he will be looking to impose other remedies once they fail. Of course that's predicated on the 9th not already getting involved. Wake is a home town boy, but he won't step on himself when push comes to shove. We'll just keep bidding our time until a decision is reached. As one of the previously furloughed, whom the West says doesn't matter, I'll take my 6 year LOS and fight until there is nothing left to fight for. The west seems to like to point out we voted for all of this ourselves, they fail to realize, those of us hired after 1998 have never been able to vote on anything, until USAPA was on the property. Let's buckle up and see who has more resolve.

This is not a matter of resolve. It is a matter of law.

The west has the law on our side.

 

[700UW]

When USAPA hired Seham I explained how he has harmed labor by representing numerous airlines against unions, EL AL and Alitalia against the IAM when they were locked out.

Losing AMFA at NW which was his cash cow, a union he helped control along with Kevin McCormick, lost a major status quo case when he represented AMFA against ACA airlines. ACA was newly organized and he lost a case against the airline that even though they had no CBA and were in Section 6 negotiations the company didnt have to adhere to the status quo and he lost.

If Bradford did his research instead of shopping for what he wanted to hear, he would have seen the sham of a lawyer Seeham is.

Vote on anything?

Funny you voted on two rounds of concessions during Bankruptcy I and one round of concessions during Bankruptcy II, so dont try and get pity from the board when we all know you voted on concessions.

Last time I checked there hasnt been a vote on a CBA under USAPA yet, so why make things up?

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW,

The East contract is amendable on December 31, 2010 (about 5 months from now).

Regards,

USA320Pilot