Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 259 Filed 10/31/13 (Boo!)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW........................................................................................................... 1
II. OBLIGATION TO USE THE NICOLAU AWARD............................................. 1
III. USAPA PRIMARILY EXISTS TO PREVENT IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE NICOLAU AWARD. .............................................................................. 2
A. USAPA was formed to avoid implementation of the Nicolau
Award. ...................................................................................................... 2
B. USAPAs constitution precludes implementation of the
Nicolau Award.......................................................................................... 2
C. The East Pilot majority can prevent implementation of the
Nicolau Award.......................................................................................... 3
D. USAPAs officers are elected based upon their commitment
to prevent implementation of the Nicolau Award. ................................... 4
E. To ensure East Pilot support, USAPA consistently misinforms
its members that it has a sound legal basis to prevent
implementation of an unmodified Nicolau Award................................... 5
F. USAPA rejected a contract that would have used the Nicolau
award. ....................................................................................................... 7
IV. NEGOTIATION OF MOU #2 ............................................................................... 7
A. In August 2012, USAPA expected that this Court would
decide, in the declaratory judgment action, whether it had to
implement the Nicolau Award in the merger with American. ................. 7
B. When MOU negotiations resumed on December 10, 2012,
USAPA sought to include language that would nullify the
seniority integration procedures in the 2005 TA...................................... 8
C. USAPA asserts that ¶ 10.h of MOU #2 nullifies § VI.A of the
2005 TA, which requires implementation of the Nicolau
Award. ...................................................................................................... 8
D. USAPA did not negotiate additional benefit from the other
parties to MOU #2 for including ¶ 10.h. .................................................. 9
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 259 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 19
iii
V. USAPA SERIOUSLY MISLED WEST PILOTS IN REGARD TO
MOU #2. ............................................................................................................... 10
VI. INTEGRATION WITH AMERICAN PILOTS................................................... 12
A. Absent intervention from this Court, USAPA will negotiate
and/or arbitrate an integration with the American pilots that
puts the East and West Pilots in USAPAs date-of-hire order. .............. 12
B. The current US Airways pilot roster yields substantially
different seniority rights when ordered according to the
Nicolau Award than when ordered by date-of-hire................................ 13
VII. LEGITIMATE UNION PURPOSE ..................................................................... 13
VIII. USAPA IS FIRMLY LOYAL TO EAST PILOT SENIORITY
INTERESTS. ........................................................................................................ 14
IX. USAPA WITNESSES WERE EVASIVE AND LACKED
CREDIBILITY. .................................................................................................... 15
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 259 Filed 10/31/13