USA320Pilot responds: AWA320, in the next couple of week's USAPA expects to file its NMB Form 1 or its application to begin the process of notifying the NMB that there is a representational dispute for all US Airways pilots. The work is being completed by USAPA's principal's with support from Scham, Scham, Meltz, and Petersen. Once USAPA is comfortable it has the amount of cards necessary to overwhelmingly create a representational dispute then the election for a bargaining agent will occur. This election will be for both the East and West pilots since it is my understanding the NMB will likely rule the two pilot groups are a "single class carrier".
Two distict problems, one is you can not fairly represent the pilots in PHX or LAS when they will not participate in your new faction DFR already, second and even more important you left out the company who most certainly will not allow you to send their costs thru the roof with this non sense. We mut have been reading two different letters by this attorney. The one I read stated that your attempts to overturn or otherwise set aside an already decided case would be fruitless any any law suit to do the same would be equally fruitless.
As far as a lawsuit any complaint filed by the AWA pilots would have no merit because it is a legal right of any group to file a NMB Form 1.
Time for you to call your attorney buddy again. You can and most certainly will be sued by the west pilot group. The merit you seem to have overlooked is this, you only sought to change unions in an attempt to get out of your obligations in an already decided arbitration. You have further left a paper tail of the many and different attampts. This is no different than an spouse who trys to hide funds or takes a lower paying job in an attempt to get out of their obligations of the court order. Now time to ask about the remedy when you lose!!! You most certainly will not have the money to pay this judgement so the only thig you will have left for yrs and yrs to come is your captain seats. Try not to be dumb in all you do!!!
USA320Pilot said: It's unclear whether or not the US Airways MEC's lawsuit has a legal basis or not, but when you read information on the Air Wisconsin - Mississippi Valley Airlines case you can understand why the US Airways MEC filed the suit. Regardless, the US Airways MEC's Councel Roland Wilder indicated he could tie up the Nicolau Award in court for 3 to 5 year's, which would create about 900 to 1,500 pilots attrtion and move the East pilots way up the list during the litigation.
Now you stepped into a whole new rhelm of denial!! Your attorney has already told you this man, were you listening?? Roland may have told you this but I sincerely doubt it!! The company will not let it go on that long in fact this nonsence will be over no later than November. You have drastically under estimated the west mec and I am certain that you and USAPA are just about to be dealt the blow of your lives!! Your moves are mad without any intellect at all but rather emotion. This is retuning to haunt you over and over.
However, this lawsuit might become irrelevant because of the probability that USAPA would become the new collective bargaining agent for the East and West pilots. The USAPA Officers have held a number of conversations with their Law Firm and they know exactly what to do with the minority pilot group during the new seniority list negotiations.
Really??? Ask him how you get out of the fact of why you choose to set up this new faction?? Ask him how you get out of your obliations of an already decided case. You gonna get sued man, trust me!!!
According to Lee Sahem, "Federal courts evaluate a union’s seniority-related bargaining objectives under the duty of fair representation (DFR) standard. It is notoriously difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in DFR litigation. The Supreme Court has held that the DFR standard requires the courts to be “highly deferential†to a labor union’s determinations. The final product of a bargaining process may constitute evidence of a DFR violation “only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’†ALPA v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991)."
Absolutly correct, it is and even more important is how the courts look at motive for actions. You again being fully advised decided to enter into negotiations via arbitration. You faild to get what you wanted and now seek to inflict harm on the other group by changing unions in an attempt to get out of your obligations. You will fail in your attempt. This case of your is a loser and you had better give serious thought to the remedy!!!
"In the O’Neill case, for example, the Supreme Court held that ALPA committed no DFR violation even if, in retrospect, the reinstatement agreement negotiated on behalf of striking Continental pilots left them in a worse position than if ALPA had simply surrendered and voluntarily terminated the strike. Id. at 79," Sahem noted.
Case totally off point!!!
Here is some more information from Sahem.
- Rakestraw decision referenced above is particularly instructive with respect to the application of DFR principles to seniority because it addresses both the impermanency of determinations related to contractual seniority as well as the right of a democratic majority to insist on dovetailing.
- The Rakestraw decision actually consolidated disputes at two different carriers: the first involving the TWA/Ozark merger and the second the modification of a “permanent†seniority agreement between UAL and ALPA in the aftermath of the disastrous strike of 1985.
- In the TWA case, Ozark pilots alleged that ALPA had caved in to the TWA pilots’ threat to secede from ALPA by collaborating in the implementation of a date of hire seniority integration instead of giving greater consideration to Ozark’s pre-merger status as the more dynamic, growing carrier. The court, however, found nothing wrong with ALPA’s acquiescence to the majority’s preference for a date of hire integration:
- A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger … serves the interests of labor as a whole. … The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union’s leaders took account of the fact that workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
