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............
It appears that some think this is just propaganda. Here it is.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------ x
Case No. 05-CV-4751 (NG)(VVP)
SETH NAUGLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
- v. -
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
INTERNATIONAL, et ano.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------ x
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
James L. Linsey
Joshua J. Ellison
COHEN,WEISS AND SIMON LLP
330 West 42nd Street, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 563-4100
Facsimile: (212) 695-5436
Clay Warner
Air Line Pilots Association, International
Legal Department
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070-1169
Telephone: (703) 689-4393
Facsimile: (703) 481-2478
Attorneys for Defendants Air Line Pilots
Association, International, and Duane E.
Woerth
From Page (8)
Case 1:05-cv-04751-NG -VVP Document 118 Filed 06/25/10 Page 13 of 37
Here, the Plaintiffs’ claims are even weaker than the claims of the America West pilots that the Ninth Circuit held were unripe. While USAPA’s refusal to negotiate a CBA incorporating the merged seniority list resulted in actual furloughs of some America West pilots that would not otherwise have occurred, here, the Plaintiffs may be injured only if (i) USAPA agrees to violate its constitution by implementing the Arbitration Board’s merged seniority list as part of a new comprehensive collective bargaining agreement, (ii) the US Airways pilots agree
by majority vote to ratify that new collective bargaining agreement,10 and (iii) the list ism implemented without any conditions to alleviate or eliminate the perceived negative effect on the
9 See USAPA Constitution and Bylaws, Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of James L. Linsey (“Supp.
Linsey Decl.”), at 8, § 8.D and 25, § 5.A.3.
10 The court in Addington noted that “[a]dditionally, USAPA's final proposal may yet be one that does not work
the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award,” and thus the implementation of a
CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR.2010 WL 2220058 at *5.
Plaintiffs. Indeed, such an action by USAPA and the US Airways pilots would be a superseding cause breaking any chain of causation emanating from ALPA’s alleged DFR breach. See Ramey v. Dist. 141, IAM, 473 F.Supp.2d 365, 368 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (dismissing DFR claim because unforeseen events broke chain of causation). Thus, even more so than in Addington, there are “contingencies that could prevent effectuation of [the Opinion and Award] and the accompanying injury,” and Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed as unripe. Addington, 2010 WL 2220058, at *4.
Yes, the highlighted area above is ALPA agreeing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that: The implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR.
So Says ALPA.
