traderjake
Veteran
Or the USAPA case, KEEP THOSE EXTORTION CHECKS coming or you'll get a Section 29 letter.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Or the USAPA case, KEEP THOSE EXTORTION CHECKS coming or you'll get a Section 29 letter.
The people that do not do what is a requirement of employment get S29 letters. I wonder, has anyone actually been fired? Was it not the same with ALPA?
This should get some conversation moving, From the Iron Compass:
ALPA Agrees with USAPA on Non-Nicolau Seniority Option
As many of you may recall, litigation brought by a group of East pilots who previously flew for MidAtlantic is currently pending against ALPA before a federal court in the Eastern District of New York. In that matter, referred to as the Naugler case, the plaintiffs have alleged that ALPA knew of, and stipulated to, the introduction of an erroneous seniority list during the Nicolau arbitration proceedings.
Interestingly enough, ALPA has moved for summary judgment, and its current leading argument is that the case is not ripe for adjudication. ALPA, in furtherance of its ripeness argument, cites the Ninth Circuit’s Addington decision to support its assertion that "implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR." The importance of this admission cannot be overlooked. ALPA, the Union whose internal merger policy created the Nicolau Award, has now recognized in a federal court filing that not only is USAPA free to bargain towards a single CBA without Nicolau, but the non-inclusion of Nicolau in any future CBA does not automatically constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation.
This comment can be found in ALPA’s reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment (Docket 118 in the Naugler litigation, found in USAPA's Legal Library on the website).
B)
That AOL pamphlet is still staring me in the face............
ALPA Agrees with USAPA on Non-Nicolau Seniority Option
As many of you may recall, litigation brought by a group of East pilots who previously flew for MidAtlantic is currently pending against ALPA before a federal court in the Eastern District of New York. In that matter, referred to as the Naugler case, the plaintiffs have alleged that ALPA knew of, and stipulated to, the introduction of an erroneous seniority list during the Nicolau arbitration proceedings.
Interestingly enough, ALPA has moved for summary judgment, and its current leading argument is that the case is not ripe for adjudication. ALPA, in furtherance of its ripeness argument, cites the Ninth Circuit’s Addington decision to support its assertion that "implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR." The importance of this admission cannot be overlooked. ALPA, the Union whose internal merger policy created the Nicolau Award, has now recognized in a federal court filing that not only is USAPA free to bargain towards a single CBA without Nicolau, but the non-inclusion of Nicolau in any future CBA does not automatically constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation.
This comment can be found in ALPA’s reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment (Docket 118 in the Naugler litigation, found in USAPA's Legal Library on the website).
B)
That AOL pamphlet is still staring me in the face............
Yes, he's a great guy, has done a lot for the west pilot group and for alpa. He's just a spectator now so what's your point?
Fortunately we do. Good news in the Leonidas meeting today, finances are good. I also got the impression from the attorneys that they are in this for the long haul, regardless. You guys can keep urinating into the wind. I'll just stand upwind to avoid the spray.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Interesting. Using ALPA as a legal authority. Especially when the 9th didn't say what it's claimed that ALPA said it did.
Jim
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
???
Perhaps you could explain to all of us the relevance of your post to USAPA's precarious legal position.
If not, maybe the moderators will consider moving this post to the UA forum where it belongs, so it may be discussed further without hijacking this thread.
Ah the master spinmeister himself has spoken. It's called dicta oh
wise one which means the courts reasons and logic behind its holding.
Not an exercise in typing skills by the judges's clerks to fill in an otherwise
boring day, but their actual thought process!!
Of all of the people who post here I predict you will fall hard when the courts finally speaks!!
us Easties....IF... we loose will simply vote NO and go on about our business. I also ask you
sir, why are most rulings not 2 sentences long....or in this case 2 words long....NOT RIPE.
I'm sure any other Judge or Court reading the 9ths ruling will simply turn to the back page....
look for those 2 words and then make up their own mnd......yea that's how they play in
the big leagues. But as someone wrote earlier about the 9ths ruling...."it's just their opinion"...
....well yea!!! Good catch!!.
NICDOA
NPJB
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Got any other info that I already know. Now, show me where the ninth said "implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR." I'll wait while you search for those words in the dicta...
The ruling:
"For the foregoing reasons, we hold that plaintiff's DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED. No costs to either side."
I think you'll find that to be 2 sentences, with one dealing with costs. Hard to get all that - plaintiff's DFR claim, not ripe, remanded, district court, directions, action be dismissed, n costs, either side - into 2 words.
The original question remains unanswered, though attempted to be deflected - if ALPA is such a terrible union and rotten to the core, why believe what they say now? Perhaps because they said what the East wanted to hear (or at least are claimed to have said)?
Jim
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
I spoke to my Rep yesterday. It appears that there is strong evidence that the names and addresses on this LEONIDAS mailing came from data in CATCREW. Some East pilots have multiple addresses or other details that are known only to the company. A classmate of mine, an international A330 F/O, had to make a formal change on his data in CATCREW to make the company data match his id exactly. His CATCREW entry had a common simplification of his given birthname. In Europe this common US was not common and did not match the name on his ID. It was causing problems when they checked his ID against the compnay data-base. To aleviate any more problems he had his CATCREW entry changed to match his ID.
Another person stated that the mailing address where he received his Leonidas pamphlet was only known to the company. It is not an address he uses with the FAA or any other entity. He is recently divorced and has changed addresses. This new address is temporary and only the company was notified of this new temporary address.
There are many more instances of this coming forward and the only apparant common theme is CATCREW. If it is deterined that CATCREW was violated and used to find addresses of East pilots then LEONIDAS had a real problem on its hands. This is an indication of illegal use of company electronic communications, resources and and Security related data.
Read it again reeeeeaaaaalllllll slow....it's not
what ALPA wrote......it's what the 9th wrote
oh...yea....I forgot......NOT RIPE.....
disregard all the other words they wrote.
NICDOA
NPJB
I suppose if the Declaratory Judgement complaint makes it to discovery, maybe some interesting details will come to light.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
