west pilot acceptable Dicta by convenience to their cause.
In the August 2014 west appeal brief they claim Judge Silver helped the East by providing dicta regarding a legitimate union purpose.
The west at the same time accepts dicta when it is pro their cause. The west, the company and apa can not stop quoting the judge's "by a slim margin" "arbitration is powerful evidence" etc etc, but anti dicta "will not be tolerated" by the west.
"4. The District Court ought not to have supplied purported legitimate reasons for USAPA actions.
The court should not have supplied purported legitimate reasons for
USAPA’s actions where USAPA was unwilling or incapable of doing so
itself. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 43, (1983) (holding that a court should not supply a “reasoned basis
for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given”). In other words,
a union such as USAPA cannot sit back and offer no justification for an
action that favors one group of workers at the expense of another and have
the court invent a reason for its actions. A court certainly cannot invent a
legitimate purpose on the union’s behalf after the trial has ended. That would
be particularly unfair because it leaves the wronged workers no opportunity
to dispute the legitimacy of a purported legitimate purpose. Surprisingly,
that is what happened here.
USAPA had the burden on its own to prove a legitimate purpose.
Consequently, it ought to have lost Claim One because it failed to provide
any admissible evidence of a legitimate purpose for putting paragraph 10(h)
into the MOU. USAPA escaped a ruling that it breached the duty of fair
representation only because the District Court invented purposes (overall
economic benefit and ensuring majority ratification) for USAPA in its posttrial
order— rationales that USAPA neither suggested, nor pursued, at trial.
That was error.
For obvious reasons of fairness, courts do not address an argument that was not raised at trial (here it was first raised by the court in its post-trial
order). Cf. Duggan v. Hobbs, 99 F.3d 307, 313 (9th Cir. 1996) (refusing to
address an “alter ego issue [that] was not tried in the district court even by
implication”). It was particularly unfair here for the District Court to supply reasons for USAPA’s actions after the trial, when USAPA refused to do so during the trial.
"
Read it and weep. (sarcasm)
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ/D13-1_West_Pilots_First_Cross_Appeal_Brief.pdf