US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/28- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Piedmont1984]

The process detailed for seniority integration most certainly was completed. Punctuated by the company's "acceptance" of the Nic. Section 22 was done, finished, completed, signed, sealed, delivered, and the company paid each MEC $300,000 as stipulated in the TA.

There will be no future arguing in court over whether the Nic is "fair" or DOH is "unfair".

Uh.....I think you left out the most important word in your list - ratified.

As to your prediction. I'm going to save it and remind you of it later.

 

[luvn737s]

Judge Wake would not allow the fairness argument into the proceedings. I can't help but wonder what impact the 9th ruling will have on that issue. Also, since the 9th did crack open the door on other methods of seniority integration (and the probable consequences), won't a ratified contract be required to show harm? Two judges said NO, but they both got overruled.


Driver B)

The issue at hand was whether or not setting aside the Nicoalu award was a DFR, not the motive behind the set aside. Just like there is apparently (?) no consequence for "intent to DFR", there is no such thing as "justifyable DFR".

Unions have to be held accountable, especially ones that choose sides on a particular issue and unfairly discriminate against the minority.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Judge Wake would not allow the fairness argument into the proceedings. I can't help but wonder what impact the 9th ruling will have on that issue. Also, since the 9th did crack open the door on other methods of seniority integration (and the probable consequences), won't a ratified contract be required to show harm? Two judges said NO, but they both got overruled.


Driver B)

I interpret Tashima and Graber “opening the door” in their opinion to be a judicial preference to not see this case again. In a sense they were saying to USAPA – “abandon DOH and find a seniority system that won’t land you back in federal court for violating your DFR;” and to the Addington class, they were in effect saying, “wait until you see what the final seniority list looks like before you bring another DFR claim.” IMO this just shows that while they (or their staffers) may have a general understanding of labor law and DFR claims, they never took the time to understand the specifics of this particular case. At any rate, their judicial preference for both sides to come to an out-of-court agreement in no way dismisses the NIC and it does not shield USAPA from a future DFR judgment when they follow their same old course of illegal action towards the West.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Fair enough Callaway. Then I go back to what I said some time ago. USAPA has been given enough slack to craft a section 22 which will withstand any future challenge - or enough rope to hang themselves with.

 

[cynic]

Fair enough Callaway. Then I go back to what I said some time ago. USAPA has been given enough slack to craft a section 22 which will withstand any future challenge - or enough rope to hang themselves with.

That's a very accurate summation. The problem USAPA is having right now is that the company doesn't want to hang with them.

 

[Metroyet]

The process which was agreed to by the parties ....was.....never.....completed.

When USAPA submits a list which is not the Nic, the west will file a lawsuit claiming it is not fair - rather than it is not the Nic. Because of the 9th Circuit language, the door has been opened for USAPA to submit a non-Nicolau list. The Nic list, specifically, has been rendered irrelevant. This will be reinforced if the company is granted immunity in their request for declaratory judgement.

The west will argue that the new list is unfair and discriminatory. The east will argue otherwise. In order to for each side to make a full and thorough argument, the fairness question, fairness of the Nic as compared to other acceptable forms of integration - will also...finally ...become "ripe".

Which Part.....was.....never......completed? When "USAPA" submits a list? Sorry. Remember When USAPA flatly stated that everywhere it said "ALPA" in the contract it now says "USAPA"? I recall that. Well the process was completed, and THE COMPANY ACCEPTED the List from ALPA the legal CBA at the time. There is no other list for "USAPA" to submit. They've tried. They were convicted in DC, are still living under an Injunction, being sued by the Company, and are now staring down the barrel of rule 60b. Which may be a checkmate moment. Nothing in the last 3 years should embolden any East pilot into thinking that they can simply change the list as easily as they can negotiate a "crewmeal" as Seham so nonchalantly claimed with a dismissive swipe of the hand. He lied to you.

You're dealing in hopeful speculation when you suggest that "other acceptable forms of integration" even exist. The West has rights. The West WILL NOT allow the East and the company to simply ignore them. Those Rights have carried a lot of weight in the court room so far. Nothing suggests that will change.

 

[cleardirect]

Uh.....I think you left out the most important word in your list - ratified.

As to your prediction. I'm going to save it and remind you of it later.

Incorrect.

The process of completing a seniority list is finished. We neg/med/arb. We got an opinion and award. The company accepted that seniority list. The company wrote a check to both sides for $300,000.00.

The seniority process is complete.

What is not complete is the joint contract that IMPLEMENTS that seniority list.

But as long as you guys care to delay the contract process the Nicolau list is complete and waiting to be inserted into the contract.

 

[cleardirect]

What about the pilots who were not in good standing under ALPA? What about those who were still on furlough and did not have a say or were not party to the process? I would think they have a valid DFR claim if USAPA violates it's own C&BL's.

Do you think that usapa C&BL can override federal law?


Let’s say that there was a possible way for the west and east to negotiate. We would go in under the new McCaskell Bond law. That means A/M arbitration. Usapa stands on their DOH policy but the arbitrator comes back with a relative seniority list.

Has usapa violated their C&BL’s? Because the list is not DOH can an east pilot sue and win a DFR?

Just because it is in the C&BL does not mean it is above the law. Go back and listen to Seham answer to judge Graber about placing men senior to women. He said that a union can ignore parts of it’s own C&BL.

Quick question. You guys all scream that you want an outcome based seniority system that you can look at and know where you will end up. The flight attendants have that. But the usapa C&BL do not provide for that. If you could manage to get DOH in the next merger. The little provision about conditions and restriction could essentially make DOH a moot point and turn it into relative seniority.

We merge with DAL. It says C&R to maintain unmerged career expectations. You guys never had the career expectation to have 130 WB and able to fly to other destination. So it goes DOH but places a lifetime fence on all of the WB DAL brought. C&R then lock the east into CLT, PHL and DCA. ATL and CLT are next to each other. CLT shrinks or goes away. Those conditions override your DOH in CLT. Now you are bidding junior to most “real” DAL pilots.

Did you get the result you wanted? What would you do then? You are not the majority anymore.

 

[nic4us]

As to your prediction. I'm going to save it and remind you of it later.

Well, my most recent prediction to come true was, after the 9th ruled, I predicted that the West would not have a meltdown and throw some kind of post Nic east like hissy fit. Not only were operations not disrupted by the 9ths ruling, everyone in the company recieved the triple play bonus. Not saying that the bonus is the result of West ops, just saying it is proof the West pilots did not have some kind of operational meltdown.

Another recent prediction I have made is that my post total will not reach 1800 post, and that it is not likely to get much above 1500.

You are welcome to save that one and remind me of it also.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Which Part.....was.....never......completed? When "USAPA" submits a list? Sorry. Remember When USAPA flatly stated that everywhere it said "ALPA" in the contract it now says "USAPA"? I recall that. Well the process was completed, and THE COMPANY ACCEPTED the List from ALPA the legal CBA at the time. There is no other list for "USAPA" to submit. They've tried. They were convicted in DC, are still living under an Injunction, being sued by the Company, and are now staring down the barrel of rule 60b. Which may be a checkmate moment. Nothing in the last 3 years should embolden any East pilot into thinking that they can simply change the list as easily as they can negotiate a "crewmeal" as Seham so nonchalantly claimed with a dismissive swipe of the hand. He lied to you.

You're dealing in hopeful speculation when you suggest that "other acceptable forms of integration" even exist. The West has rights. The West WILL NOT allow the East and the company to simply ignore them. Those Rights have carried a lot of weight in the court room so far. Nothing suggests that will change.

The list, minus ratification, minus implementation = process interruptus.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Another recent prediction I have made is that my post total will not reach 1800 post, and that it is not likely to get much above 1500.

You are welcome to save that one and remind me of it also.

Well, on second thought, what's the point - since you won't be here when I try.

 

[767jetz]

USAPA has been given enough slack to craft a section 22 which will withstand any future challenge - or enough rope to hang themselves with.

I agree with that statement 100%. Provided they actually get that far. Seems to me, until the company get's their clarification from the court, we don't even know if they will be able to negotiate a section 22 other than Nic.

 

[Metroyet]

The list, minus ratification, minus implementation = process interruptus.

The company cut two 300k checks. In America, when money changes hands, whatever transaction precipitated the payout, is considered fully closed. It's like accepting a settlement and then trying to re-sue. Doesn't happen.

 

[767jetz]

The list, minus ratification, minus implementation = process interruptus.

Yup. And process interruptus = LOA 93 indefinitely

Furthermore, intentional process interruptus to take from the west = failure of USAPA's DFR.

That rope is starting top look more and more like a noose.

 

[nic4us]

Well, on second thought, what's the point - since you won't be here when I try.

I will still lurk,

might even come up with a new screen name, as Nic4Us will be so passe once it is NicAtUs.