Obviously a lot of posting has gone one today. Rather than make a post with my impressions as in previous days, I am going to address some posts that have been posted since the verdict was received.
It has been a long journey to this point. But we now have a final resolution to our arbitrated seniority. We have come to the end of our disagreement.
------------------------
The arbitration award was released over two years ago. Even though some may feel that the west has won. The reality is no one has won anything. In fact we have all lost along the way. That is because we are right back to where we were two years ago. We must put the past behind us and move forward together. Together to get a leading contract. Together to fight management and get the improvements that we all deserve.
We ask you to continue to be the polite professionals that you have been throughout this process.
Xxxx Yyyyyyyy
PHX communications Chairman
Two thoughts. First, the resolution is not final. The forum simply changes to the 9th Circuit should the Defendant choose to appeal rather than let this go and move forward. Second, as stated you are in many ways back where you were, just poorer via dues and donations that paid for lawyers to fight each other rather than fight the Company.
Actually, the post by Aquagreen37 of the message from Leonidas, LLC struck the right message in my opinion.
(Quoting a USAPA communication)
The Addington case ended today with the jury deciding that USAPA failed in its duty to fairly represent all of its members. Today’s decision, while disappointing, was not unexpected. Since we were required to argue our case with limited time and evidence and were hamstrung by questionable rulings and incorrect instructions, USAPA, quite literally, fought this battle with both hands tied behind its back. Given the circumstances, we have a hard time accepting the idea that we encountered truly unbiased impartiality. Although this is a setback, we are very confident that the errors of law we encountered in this venue will be corrected.
Unfortunately, I expected this response. This has been the repeated response of all the folks who held positions of power when adverse rulings were received, whether they were ALPA or USAPA. First it was Nicolau, now it is Judge Wake and a bunch of home cooking from an Arizona jury. At what point does East become responsible for its own failure to agree with or otherwise accept anything other than DOH? Of course you can appeal. Your paid lawyers will be more than happy to accept more money to advance the East position because they both get paid and they get a chance to dig themselves out of the hole they have dug for themselves as far as being a going concern as a labor law firm to future clients.
Think about this a second in all seriousness. Jack Stephan and the East MEC interviewed and/or hired at least three different labor law firms as established by a Prater letter to Stephan. Steven Bradford interviewed at least three law firms seeking counsel for USAPA. Does anyone actually think they were looking for an objective opinion rather than a firm who told them what they wanted to hear? Or, contrary to the advice of all the others, or a firm that told them what they wanted to hear in exchange for considerable employment via being general counsel and litigation counsel.
Didn't USAPA run on a campaign of allowing everyone to vote? It is time for the membership to demand a vote on where you go from here.
Let's pretend, for a second, that USAPA appeals and wins. If USAPA gets a complete victory at the 9th Circuit the case will be Reversed and Remanded to the trial court to comply with the Opinion of the 9th Circuit. They will **not** instruct the case to be dismissed. The best possible result would be that they order a new trial so a significant part of the costs would have to be re-incurred. Also, if reversed and remanded, the Plaintiffs would get to call Steven Bradford as a witness, which did not happen this time and Bradford would not have helped USAPA's case at all. If you believe that he would have I have some nice swamp land for you to purchase.
(Quoting a USAPA communication)
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court, are the appropriate places for the law to be truly vetted. While USAPA would have, of course, preferred to prevail in the current setting (allowing the pilot group to come together and work towards an improved contract), we fully expected and planned for this contingency. Again, given the facts of law, we are very confident of our ability to prevail eventually, in proving the absolute right of a union to bargain over the complete terms of its members’ working agreement. Having so planned, our legal team is already working on an expedited appeal and stay of any proposed injunctive relief.
Yeah, right, OK. Let me get that swamp land ready for sale.
Many of you have written that I have attempted to be objective. Believe it or not I am still trying to be just as objective. I simply think that continuing on this path does not advance anyone's cause except the attorneys that held opinions that were out of the mainstream of prevailing labor law and found a client willing to pay for those opinions and services which, to this date, have never borne any fruit and simply hurt both groups and saved the company from paying wage increases to it's pilots.