Phoenix Domicile Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

snapthis

Veteran
Dec 23, 2009
4,236
6,907
Your Phoenix Domicile Representatives wish to inform you of a specific event that took place at the end of the final day of USAPA’s First Quarter BPR Meeting held on April 18, 2013.
The Pension Investigation Committee (PIC) reported the findings of its investigation so far and updated the BPR about the ongoing litigation related to the termination of some East pilots defined benefit pension plan. Unfortunately, the PIC also reported that it has unexpectedly exceeded its funding, which was collected through the PIC Assessment. The PIC has thus far exceeded the amount collected by approximately $190,000.00.
You might ask what this has to do with our PHX-based pilots when we were neither subject to the assessment, nor can we ever expect to benefit from the Pension Investigation? Well, a bill for legal services rendered was presented to USAPA, and on advice of USAPA legal counsel, we had to pay the bill. Since no funds remained in the PIC Assessment account, the bill was paid out of USAPA's General funds without prior notification of the BPR. This means that many pilots not formerly subject to the PIC assessment (East and West) have now been forced to fund the PIC through the expenditure of General funds. According to an estimate given by the legal counsel representing the over 2500 pilots who may benefit from the PIC, they will be able to complete the litigation (including appeals) for another $250,000.00. This, plus other expenditures, means we are looking at a total of only an additional half of a MILLION DOLLARS beyond the amount originally assessed.
Immediately following its presentation, the PIC had a resolution already written, which the BPR immediately adopted by majority vote (8-3, with PHX voting against). That resolution authorized (retroactively, of course) the payment of the $190,000.00, PLUS any additional funds (up to a cap of $300,000.00 promised by the law firm representing the PIC investigation) WITHOUT any ADDITIONAL ASSESSEMENT REFERENDUM VOTE of the affected pilots.
Your PHX Representatives spoke vigorously against the resolution and were careful to ensure that the other BPR members, as well as the PIC, understood that our opposition to the resolution was neither motivated by personal animus, nor by a perception that this was an East versus West item. Nonetheless, the PIC and the other reps on the BPR took the position of, we don’t care if you are vested in this or not, everybody is going to pay for this thing. While only about half of all US Airways pilots ever had a now long-terminated pension, all US Airways pilots will pay to discover what exactly happened to it and why the plan defaulted. As such, we are puzzled as to how the PIC and East BPR seemed offended when we argued that only those originally subject to the assessment should be assessed again to finish the work of the PIC. After all, funding the PIC originally required a referendum and vote of the pilot group. Now, all pilots will pay whether they want to or not. We see this as a distinct change in the management of your dues dollars. Someone went so far as to say, “I don't understand why I am getting such a XXX XXX from the PHX Reps; after all, we just recently funded your ACARS grievance.” We were taken aback that someone would characterize USAPA's duty to represent the West pilots as required by law as some sort of favor to be exchanged in return for the financial support of a committee. PHX has always supported the PIC on basis that, had we lost thousands and thousands of dollars, then we too would be willing to spend a few thousand to find out what happened. That, and it has seemed as though the majority of East pilots we have had contact with have supported the PIC in the past. All US Airways pilots must understand that the original assessment yielded approximately 3.9 million dollars and it has now been spent -- and then some. Before just throwing more money at the committee, we believe the affected pilots have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to continue to invest in this project and that the rest of us have the right not to. Nonetheless, the resolution predictably passed (again, by a vote of 8-3) late that afternoon. No surprise there. This is yet another fine example of how, when given the choice to do the right thing, another opportunity has yet again been wasted by the majority of the BPR. All pilots are footing this bill, this time without a referendum or assessment whether vested in the plan or not.
Merger Committee Interviews
Merger Committee interviews were conducted, and we were presented with six candidates from a list of 19 potential candidates. The BPR Reps had no input (at least no PHX Rep) into who would interview for the opening positions. The following candidates gave a brief introduction followed by a few questions from the BPR: William (Clay) Absher, Kevin Barry, Bob Davison, Tom Kubik, Ken Stravers and Philip Osterhus. USAPA had requested any applicant to submit a resume for the openings a few months ago. USAPA President Gary Hummel is responsible for naming volunteers to committees, followed by BPR approval. We were neither informed of any other candidate interviews nor have any idea of whom Gary may place in the remaining MC positions. In any case, the BPR will have FINAL APPROVAL of each position, so you can guess how much influence the three PHX Rep votes may have. At this point you know about as much as we do as to who may be selected for the MC.
USAPA Stipend for Union Volunteers
We spent a good portion of the morning in session with PHL Rep Paul DiOrio’s resolution eliminating a stipend that is paid to union volunteers on full-time flight pay loss (FPL). This $1000-1500 per month stipend is to compensate for moneys lost due to union work. Paul DiOrio seemed to think this was an abuse of union funds and that volunteers were compensated adequately without the stipend. Two points here; point one, the AWA West contract still governs how our volunteers are paid and making a blanket change to USAPA volunteers would negatively impact the West volunteers on FPL. After much debate and several hours of time, a compromise was made to just make changes to East USAPA FPL volunteers.
“Therefore be it resolved that the effective immediately the BPR has determined that the stipend shall be eliminated for those pilots who are compensated under LOA 95.​
Be it further resolved that if during any bid month, a pilot is classified as being on AFB status*, shall continue to be paid on the equipment in which he/she can hold** times the monthly pay cap hours in the position he held at the time he was moved to AFB Status.”​
Point two; as we commend Paul DiOrio for his concern to save the union money from the abuses of union volunteers, we are perplexed as to the approval of General funds use in covering PIC expenses as pointed out in the first part of this update.
Litigation Flow Chart (courtesy of John Owens, USAPA Business Intelligence):
litigation%20flow%20chart%20042613.png


John, Roger & Dave
Note - Phoenix Update edited by USAPA Communications




 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #2
Anybody else having problems logging on to the US Airways pilot thread?

This message appears:
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
I could not fit this one on the pilot forum either :lol:


Communications Committee

April 27, 2013


USAPA Update on Addington II

It has been a busy week on the litigation front for USAPA. On Monday, April 22, your union filed a motion to dismiss the most recent action brought by certain West pilots in the Phoenix court (Addington II). A motion to dismiss is designed to terminate litigation where the plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would support for legitimate legal claim. In determining whether a motion to dismiss succeeds, the court may look only at the law and is generally required to assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are true. USAPA made the motion because our attorneys believe there is no legal merit to the claims made in the most recent complaint.

In the first instance, USAPA’s attorneys argue that the case must be dismissed because the action brought by the Addington plaintiffs is merely a repeat of the two previous actions that were dismissed by the Ninth Circuit and the Phoenix court. It is a well established legal principle that once decided, a claim cannot be re-litigated. Our attorneys have asserted that nothing has changed since the court decided the previous Declaratory Judgment case that would make the DFR claim, asserted by the Addington plaintiffs, ripe for adjudication. Additionally, the court previously held “there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish.” As a matter of law, the plaintiffs should not be getting a third bite at the apple.

Our attorneys have also argued that the plaintiffs’ action rests on an interpretation of the MOU and is thus, a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which can only be decided by the System Board of Adjustment. In this respect, the plaintiffs are claiming that under the 2005 Transition Agreement, the ratification of the MOU requires implementation of the Nicolau Award. There are several problems with this claim, chief among them is the fact that the parties to the MOU specifically agreed that the MOU would not have that effect. It is clear that any claim for a violation of the 2005 Transition Agreement, or any similar Railway Labor Act Agreement, can only be heard through the System Board of Adjustment.

Further, our attorneys have also argued that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against USAPA for breach of the duty of fair representation. There are no allegations in the complaint that the negotiation of the MOU was arbitrary and discriminatory, or in bad faith, which is the requirement for a duty of fair representation breach. This is especially true since 97.69% of the Phoenix pilots voted for the MOU, understanding full well that it did not provide for the implementation of the Nicolau award.

USAPA’s attorneys have also argued that any references to the lower court decision in the first Addington case should be stricken, as USAPA won the case on appeal and the Ninth Circuit rendered the lower court decision a complete nullity.

Finally, our attorneys made a motion to strike plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs were dismissed in their previous two attempts and there is no question that they were prevailing parties in either litigation. Our attorneys have argued that having been dismissed in the previous two cases, there is no rational construction that would allow them to have attorneys’ fees to be awarded.

USAPA Communications

Recent Addington II filings; now available in the Legal Library:
Doc 45, Motion for Admission PHV attorney Duffield (representing American Airlines)
Doc 46, Order granting Motion 45
Doc 47, Plaintiffs Opposition to US Airways Motion to Dismiss
Doc 48, USAPA Opposition to Pltffs Mtn for Preliminary Injunction
Doc 48-1, Declaration of John Owens in Support of 48
Doc 48-2, Exhibit A to 48-1
Doc 48-3, Declaration of Jess Pauley in Support of 48
Doc 48-4, Exhibit B to 48-3
Doc 48-5, Declaration of Gary Hummel in Support of 48
Doc 49, US Airways Response to Pltffs Mtn for PI
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top