USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread

[nic4us]

MY BAD. 2031. 2044 is your youngest gun (I got that right?). But you shouldnt ignore my point. Unless cooler heads prevail and you get control of your former MEC chairman and his ilk who continue to deny jumpseats, the hostilities will continue, at least until the UAL fragmentation. I will never understand the rather immature attacks that continue. This chat board being a microcosm, from my view, your crowd has it all over us in that regard.

Your correct. These will be the first to retire, starting in 2012, health issues aside. Almost all willing to vote against a NIC-contract. Heres some conjecture, one thing adding to their support is what some regard a windfall for them, an extra 5 years of CA pay. For me, that extra 5 year potential makes it easier for me to stay an IRO/FO for my entire career, so Im not upset on that. In fact, Im glad it happened when it did. Im not a "me-me-me - its all about me" kind of guy.

snoop,

I am not ignoring your point, and I understand bad blood can last a long time. I cannot control the West pilots, only myself. I can offer my opinions to fellow west pilots on my position about
jumpseat denial and a few other issues, but I am in no position of control.

I had not considered the effect of the change to age 60 in the way you mentioned. another aspect might be a slight guilt trip, if I had slipped in under the wire on that, I would probably feel I owed something to the folks junior to me, the minimum being my support in their arguement.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So, under that scenario the Merger Committee and the BPR could include whatever Section 22 it so desired, but it could be vetoed by a simple majority of West voters. Therefore, East would have plenty of motivation to negotiate with West regarding an acceptable Section 22.

Which would require more changes in the USAPA constitution - an independent West USAPA structure would have to be set up before there was anyone representing West for East to negotiate with.

The question of the effect of such a ruling on the use of binding arbitration is also interesting. What weight does the new federal law covering seniority integrations have if either party can just escape the result by changing representation? At the very least it could cause mergers under the RLA to be drawn out considerably - one need only to look at this merger to see the result. It's possible that full airline mergers would never happen again if every one faced the prospect of the US/HP merger legacy.

Jim

 

[ussnark]

Binding arbitration is exactaly what it says, BINDING.

You may find out that binding does not mean what you think it does.

 

[Barrister]

If the judge wants the trial to have been worth it's time, why would he not modify the TA to force the implementation of the Nic list immediately and unbundle it from the ratification of a joint contract? The merits of a joint contract can stand on their own and the arbitration award can be implemented in it's intended spirit.

The judge is smart enough to see the logjam ahead if he doesn't do this.

Because the very same documents he has used to reach his own conclusions DO NOT ALLOW the NIC until a TA has been approved. This is as clear as all of the other sections that the judge as stated is clear in his mind as to their meaning. My guess is even if he fashions a remedy that incluses Nic he still cannot force a vote and how wouldthe Nic be implemented now as he cannot force joint ops.

Barrister

 

[prechilill]

Which would require more changes in the USAPA constitution - an independent West USAPA structure would have to be set up before there was anyone representing West for East to negotiate with.

The question of the effect of such a ruling on the use of binding arbitration is also interesting. What weight does the new federal law covering seniority integrations have if either party can just escape the result by changing representation? At the very least it could cause mergers under the RLA to be drawn out considerably - one need only to look at this merger to see the result. It's possible that full airline mergers would never happen again if every one faced the prospect of the US/HP merger legacy.

Jim

Legal experience is a little different than legal theory, which is probably why HPFA's version of "remedy" is a little myopic and short on theory. The way I see it is Wake is used to dealing with cheats, tax evaders and big, bad criminals. He has the power to do quite a bit, especially to remedy log jams brought about by a noncompliant party in a contract. Evidence was presented which clearly showed USAPA intends to ignore the intent of the TA and block any progress combining the two airlines, therefore from the basic concept of contract law alone it would not be too difficult to see why USAPA's insolance toward Nicolau will probably be addressed in remedy.

 

[luvn737s]

Short of a win in both the RJ and illegal line reduction arbitrations, furloughed plaintiffs Wargocki and Iranpour are not coming back any time soon.

How much faith do you have in the mental midgets that gave away the west's Age 58 bypass and then were shocked when the company refused to recognize the new retirement age of 65 and extend medical benefits to those on LTD past age 60? How can the USAPA supporters continue to allow such clueless leadership? I would not put much hope in USAPA winning any grievances someone's job hinges upon.

BPR 08-08-01 West (Failure to Provide Medical Coverage for Pilots on LTD)


Union’s Position: It is the position of the Union that the Company is required to pay the employers share of all health and welfare benefits for pilots who are collecting disability benefits until they reach the federally-mandated retirement age of sixty-five (65) years of age. Specifically, it is the position of the Union that the Company must continue to treat those pilots who are receiving disability benefits in the same manner as all active pilots for the purpose of all health and welfare benefits.

Company’s Response: Denied the grievance, stating the Letter of Understanding entered into on December 30, 2003, between America West Airlines and the Air Line Pilots Association, International, clearly states that Pilots receiving disability benefits will continue to receive medical, dental and vision coverage on the same basis as active Pilots until they reach the age of sixty (60). The Company’s position is that the reference to the age sixty (60) is age specific and not tied to the mandatory retirement age; therefore, it does not believe that the provision should be extended to the mandatory retirement age for pilots (currently age 65).

 

[BoeingBoy]

Legal experience is a little different than legal theory, which is probably why HPFA's version of "remedy" is a little myopic and short on theory.

I respect HP-FA's legal expertise (certainly compared to mine which is nil) too much to say that, but what I see is that "do the least harm" by the judge is murky. "Doing the least harm" as far as this particular case and the facts it involves could mean potentially creating widely felt side effects while minimizing those adverse side effects could mean "doing more harm" in this specific case. HP-FA would certainly have a better feel for how much such potential side effects would enter into a judge's decision than I.

Jim

 

[EastUS]

Legal experience is a little different than legal theory, ....

It sure is, much like experience is within any other human endeavors I'd think....but, heck..enjoy your "theory" anyway.

 

[prechilill]

I respect HP-FA's legal expertise (certainly compared to mine which is nil) too much to say that, but what I see is that "do the least harm" by the judge is murky. "Doing the least harm" as far as this particular case and the facts it involves could mean potentially creating widely felt side effects while minimizing those adverse side effects could mean "doing more harm" in this specific case. HP-FA would certainly have a better feel for how much such potential side effects would enter into a judge's decision than I.

Jim

No disrespect intended, however an absence of case law makes this case unique and really one for the law schools to debate for years to come. Addington will impact labor law, probably in a way similar to the impact the T.J. Hooper case has in defining what "standard of care" is in medical malpractice. We are in uncharted territory and Wake is a brilliant man. The west couldn't have asked for a better person to hear our case. I understand enough to realize the law theory is beyond us all, paralegals notwithstanding.

 

[boeingplt]

If the judge wants the trial to have been worth it's time, why would he not modify the TA to force the implementation of the Nic list immediately and unbundle it from the ratification of a joint contract? The merits of a joint contract can stand on their own and the arbitration award can be implemented in it's intended spirit.

The judge is smart enough to see the logjam ahead if he doesn't do this.

The list is long as to why this won't work. The most notable item is how the pairings are constructed. The optimizer uses the duty rigs as the primary driver when constructing the pairings in an attempt to fly off as much rig as possible. You can't have two pilots with different work rules on the same pairing for that reason.

Furthermore, a list isn't a list until it is defined in a contract. The first sentence in section 22, yours and ours, defines the lists, respectively - "The system seniority list shall be the list contained in this agreement..." or words to that effect.

Sorry my friend. Any list must be part of a ratified contract to be any good to anyone. I bet Judge Wake understands that.

I would also suggest that anyone who claims to know how the jury or Wake will rule is getting a bit ahead of themselves in a fit of exuberance. We will all know soon enough then it is onward to SFO for the appeal, either way.

 

[boeingplt]

No, not in the way I think it most likely to be considered. What I thought Seham suggested and the way I would envision it would be that USAPA could negotiate any contract it wished and put that contract to a vote of its members. However, the contract would be required to win a majority of what is now known as West. So, under that scenario the Merger Committee and the BPR could include whatever Section 22 it so desired, but it could be vetoed by a simple majority of West voters. Therefore, East would have plenty of motivation to negotiate with West regarding an acceptable Section 22. Of course if I understand the USAPA constitution correctly this would also require an amendment in their constitution for at least this CBA that allows something other than DOH with conditions and restrictions to be acceptable.

Now of course the Judge could do something stricter, but I think his intent, as I read it, is to take the minimum amount of action that will keep the West from being disenfranchised by the full reaction by East to Nicolau that began on or about 5/3/07.

Was that a fairly clear explanation?

Define "west" under the Railway Labor Act.... or "east" for that matter.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Was that a fairly clear explanation?

Yes. Thanks.

 

[hp_fa]

Which would require more changes in the USAPA constitution - an independent West USAPA structure would have to be set up before there was anyone representing West for East to negotiate with.

It wouldn't require that, USAPA could guess what would be acceptable to West and put that in as Section 22 and pray it works. However, as a practical matter you would think some form of committee could/would be established to remove the "shot in the dark" factor from a serious negotiation for a CBA? (Of course it can be argued that the whole USAPA formation was a shot in the dark to kill Nicolau.)

The question of the effect of such a ruling on the use of binding arbitration is also interesting. What weight does the new federal law covering seniority integrations have if either party can just escape the result by changing representation? At the very least it could cause mergers under the RLA to be drawn out considerably - one need only to look at this merger to see the result. It's possible that full airline mergers would never happen again if every one faced the prospect of the US/HP merger legacy.

First off, since I did not follow the new law since the case's issues and allegations preceeded any new law, are we talking if Public Law 110-161 as being the new law enacted since this dispute arose? To give a new personal opinion of the law I need to know exactly what the law in question is, so can someone provide that please?

If it is Public Law 110-161, I have seen some internet materials that said that if both parties are represented by the same bargaining unit than that bargaining unit's policies trump Public Law 110-161, but I am neither sure that is the applicable law nor did I do much research except to try and frame my question above as to what new law we are discussing.

I will say that I have heard while at the courthouse that there is a great interest from many sectors of the labor law field in this litigation because of issues like those you raised. In essence the questions boil down to can a represented group of people decide to change a labor union under which they received an unfavorable ruling and nullify that ruling, which in this case was for the position of the minority in the workgroup, simply because the majority are unhappy with that result? This is the question that, if asked on appeal, would likely be of the most interest to any appellate court including, conceivably, the US Supreme Court.

My gut answer is no, primarilly because it arguably would no longer honor the results of arbitration under the guise of the rules of the whole union (in this case ALPA) and up until now there has been a legal deference to arbitration results that were rendered under the rules of the whole union. The courts do not want to be micro-managing disputes between parties to a dispute that are subject to arbitration. Public policy, as a whole, encourages dispute resolution short of court resolution of those issues and they will generally uphold the purpose of such arbitration as being in the public interest.

 

[hp_fa]

No disrespect intended, however an absence of case law makes this case unique and really one for the law schools to debate for years to come. Addington will impact labor law, probably in a way similar to the impact the T.J. Hooper case has in defining what "standard of care" is in medical malpractice. We are in uncharted territory and Wake is a brilliant man. The west couldn't have asked for a better person to hear our case. I understand enough to realize the law theory is beyond us all, paralegals notwithstanding.

I agree with this and did not take offense at the statement. I never was very involved in any labor law. My legal experience is more in terms of concepts of law as a whole, legal procedure and public policy as a whole.

I do agree that if this case does go on appeal, which is a near certainty, that this case will be referred to in legal texts, classrooms, seminars and legal briefs for many, many years to come. Perhaps, besides my prior employment in the legal field and at AWA, that is why I am so interested in attending this trial as being a bellweather for law for years to come. Hell my wife's boss, who is a real estate attorney, has been asking me about this case since he knows I have been attending it daily.

 

[hp_fa]

Define "west" under the Railway Labor Act.... or "east" for that matter.

I am discussing West and East, for the purpose of an internet discussion group, as the past ALPA represented individuals that worked for America West Airlines ("West") and those that worked for US Airways ("East') at all times relevant to this case. The Judge will make whatever distinctions he wishes to make in defining those terms, but I am simply using them in the context most of the posters here are also using those terms.