The All or Nothing Approach. Have We Seen This Strategy Before? Is the Risk Worth the Reward?
I continue to strategically think about how we can get our self out of our ISL conundrum. In my opinion, each USAPA move further isolates the union and hurts the majority of East pilot’s objective of eliminating or mitigating the Nicolau Award. And now, a huge new problem exists because of Judge Silver, AAG, and APA’s opinion that after SCC USAPA must stop all seniority integration representation per the MOU. In my opinion, even though this thought violates the intent of the M-B federal statute, it’s probably correct because after SCC federal law requires the previous collective bargaining agent to stop all representation.
Meanwhile, USAPA is currently involved in five legal SLI actions with the union’s M-B complaint filed in District Court, APA/AAG’s Counterclaim, probably an Addington II DFR petition filed in Appellate Court within 29 days, SCC, and USAPA seeking a single arbitrator M-B arbitration allegedly in violation of the MOU.
USAPA is certainly fighting AAG, APA, AOL, and Judge Silver, but is USAPA’s fight delivering any tangible results? And, has USAPA’s strategy placed us at even a greater risk of an even worse SLI Opinion and Award for the East pilots than the NIC?
Met thinks so…
Why?
In my opinion, the union’s UELs have once again chosen an all or nothing approach. By not agreeing to a 3-way arbitration in the Addington II DFR trial and the now defunct Protocol Agreement talks, as offered by both AAG and APA, the Company and APA are now seeking for APA to take total control of the SLI process after SCC per Judge Silver’s order.
In response USAPA filed yet another lawsuit against AAG and APA seeking a seat at the M-B ISL table and also seeking a single arbitrator arbitration authorized by the NMB before SCC. Why? Because the union wants to lock out the West pilots from having a say in our next ISL. But, what happens if USAPA’s lawsuit in District Court is thrown out and the NMB rules against USAPA’s request for a single arbitrator arbitration, which the Company and APA says violates the MOU?
The Company told the D.C. Court that “by its Complaint in this action and by unilaterally seeking a list of arbitrators from the NMB in furtherance of its scheme to expedite the arbitration hearing before a single arbitrator, USAPA has definitively expressed its intention not to be bound by the terms of the MOU Seniority-Integration Process as an ‘alternative method for dispute settlement’ under Section 13( B) of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs. By filing the instant factually and legally meritless Complaint, in which it seeks to repudiate the MOU Seniority-Integration Process in its entirety, USAPA has violated its duty under Section 2, First, of the RLA to ‘exert every reasonable effort to make andmaintain agreements’ (emphasis added), in particular, MOU Paragraph 10. US Airways has already been harmed by USAPA’s disregard and repudiation of the MOU Seniority-Integration Process arbitrator-selection procedure, and will be further and substantially injured if USAPA is permitted to repudiate its other contractual obligations under the MOU Seniority-Integration Process.”
Therefore, would it be better for USAPA to withdraw all of its lawsuits and ISL filings and agree to AAG and APA’s desire for a 3-way arbitration? By agreeing to a 3-way arbitration USAPA would guarantee it would have a seat at the M-B arbitration table and avoid the very real risk of watching APA decide our ISL for us if the Court rules again that USAPA must cease all SLI work after SCC. If the Court and NMB rule against USAPA with its current all or nothing do we want our 2.45% dues to provide us nothing more than the Merger Committee (MC) filling out an application at Dominos Pizza so the MC can serve Pepperoni and Sausage Pizza along with Diet Coke to the APA MC in hopes of seeing our union’s ISL notes (along with lining USAPA's attorneys with a lot of dough, again)?
By agreeing to a 3-way arbitration USAPA would agree that a West MC could introduce the Nicolau Award, but I believe that risk still exists for USAPA with a 2-way arbitration per the MOU. Why? The MOU, paragraph 10. F. states, “The company(ies) will be parties to the arbitration, if any, in accordance with McCaskill-Bond. The company(ies) shall provide information requested by the merger representatives for use in the arbitration, if any, in accordance with requirements of McCaskill-Bond, provided that the information is relevant to the issues involved in the arbitration, and the requests are reasonable and do not impose undue burden or expense, and so long as the merger representatives agree to appropriate confidentiality terms.”
Furthermore, a 3-way arbitration provides USAPA a Nic Do Over. Isn't that what the majority of East pilots desire? USAPA can argue why the Nic is unfair and the value of tenure using the CAL-DAL Award as an exhibit. In addition, I believe USAPA has won much of the Nicolau Award fight. During the past decade East pilots have seen all of the growth, all of our furloughees have returned and now bring an active job to this merger, and all of the hiring is on the east side of the operation. So why is USAPA still objecting to a 3-way ISL arbitration where the West pilots could represent them self and be able to argue their own seniority without prejudice since the Nic has not been implemented?
So my question is this. Is it better for USAPA to seek an All or Nothing Approach and hope the court and/or NMB rules in the union’s favor or seek to resume Protocol Agreement discussions and agree with APA and AAG’s desire for a 3-way arbitration where USAPA and the West pilots would be guaranteed their own seat at the M-B ISL arbitration table?
