Merger Committee Update
February 3, 2009
The Merger Committee was in PHX this week with attorney Lee Seham for the purpose of deposing the six named plaintiffs in the Addington Federal Court Case. Deposed were Don Addington, John Bostic, Mark Burman, Afshin Iranpour, Steve Wargocki and Roger Velez.
Some of the key developments:
The troubling inability of the plaintiffs to clearly identify their fiduciary responsibility to the class they are seeking to represent;
For the judge to grant class certification, he must be convinced the plaintiffs understand their duties to the class. If they don’t, then we have to wonder about their pre-deposition preparation.
Their collective inability to coherently describe the federal complaint filed on their behalf, with several of the deponents unable to even identify the number of counts therein;
One despondent thought there were 5 counts, others could not name the actual three counts. Didn’t anyone do their homework?
The admission by plaintiffs that ALPA National was pressuring the West MEC to modify the Nicolau list;
If the ALPA process was final and binding why was there a Rice committee, a blue ribbon panel and Wye River? But then, our own Merger attorney made it clear in a court filing back in July 2007 that “the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept.”
Notwithstanding ALPA National’s posture, the plaintiffs still refuse to consider any settlement that modifies this list;
None of the plaintiffs could cogently describe USAPA’s seniority proposal, and most of them had not even read it;
A Leonidas LLC “control group” composed of non-plaintiffs exercising substantial control of litigation strategy;
This violates the fiduciary standard. We have to ask: Who is controlling the class? Who is pulling the strings? And do they fairly represent the class?
One of the four Leonidas LLC directors is apparently now employed as an American Airlines pilot;\
Having Kevin Horner associated in any way with this DFR only hurts the effort. How can he adequately meet the fiduciary requirements to fairly represent the class? Our sources have told us that Kevin Horner’s current union, the APA, is furious with him for his participation in a DFR suit against another union.
Several of the deponents were ignorant of the fact that their attorneys had declined USAPA’s invitation to participate in the TA-9 arbitration hearing, which effectively left in USAPA’s hands the defense of the West pilots’ asserted right not to be furloughed until the prior furloughing of all pilots on the New Hire seniority list. The plaintiffs did concede that they “had heard” ! that USAPA had done a good job defending the West pilots’ interests in that case.
Count one, improper furloughs from the third list also known as TA-9 was handled without any input from the plaintiffs attorneys. They no-showed the event, despite being requested to participate.
It is our view that this week’s depositions further highlight the underlying strength of our defense and the increasingly difficult circumstances in which the plaintiffs find themselves. The Merger Committee remains firmly committed to represent all US Airways pilots’ seniority interests in a fair and equitable manner. There were strong indications throughout the depositions that the plaintiffs in the Addington federal court case are not representative of the former America West pilots as a whole. All pilots are reminded of the importance of understanding USAPA’s seniority proposal. If you have not yet had the opportunity to watch the 10-minute video containing the description of the Conditions and Restrictions, please take the time to do so. Thank you.
USAPA Merger Committee
Again, U-Turn is willing to publish any and all comments, especially from “The Army.”
Expanded quote from Jeff Freund in Stephen Vs McIlvenna, filed 7/24/2007:
Thus, the “arbitration award” Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate” is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list”). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating” and “arbitration,” the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate” an “arbitration award” that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.
