Claxon said:
They will not touch that subject. The reason being: WEST PILOTS SENIORITY PROPOSAL PUTS ALL FURLOUGHED LEGACY AMERICAN PILOTS BELOW EVERY WEST PILOT SAVE FOR A FEW NEW HIRES.
Has Mike Cleary changed his position and opinion of George Nicolau since 2002? Judge Silver made note of it. The changing of positions and inconsistencies.
US AIRWAVES January/February/March 2002
Mike Cleary (BOS)
Todd Cardoza (PHL)
Randy Mowrey (PIT)
Merger Committee
In light of recent furlough announcements,
many US Airways pilots have expressed concerns
about the seniority integration rights
of furloughees.
Beyond that, the absence of current employment
and uncertainties about future prospects are
among the equities likely to affect a furloughees
seniority placement. No pilot, regardless of furlough status, can be
guaranteed any particular placement on a merged
list. The only certainty in seniority integration is
that the outcome is never certain until the merger
representatives reach an agreement or, failing a
negotiated solution, the arbitrator issues an award.
Each case presents its own facts and equities, and
each requires a resolution tailor-made to the
situation presented.
US Airways-US Airways Shuttle. The most
recent seniority integration involving US Airways
pilots resulted from US Airways purchase
in November 1997 of the US Airways
Shuttle. In a decision authored by Arbitrator
George Nicolau, the arbitration panel constructed
a consolidated seniority list comprised
of seven segments, plus a few conditions and
restrictions.
Judge Silver:
"USAPAs Position is Unwise
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU,
in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration
proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt thatas is USAPAs consistent practiceUSAPA will
change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority.
That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should
participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it
will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be
allowed to participate. The Courts patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified
representative."
The APA noticed:
"To be blunt, USAPA's version of events is fiction. USAPA leadership specifically and directly solicited this latest protocol proposal from the Seniority Integration Committee. USAPA's merger counsel was also briefed on the likely content of the protocol document several days before receipt. USAPA's abject failure to communicate these facts erodes the very foundation of trust necessary for any further negotiations. It is now apparent to us, just as it was to Judge Silver in the Addington v. USAPA DFR decision, that USAPA is using these tactics, including reneging on its bargain under the MOU and litigating the McCaskill-Bond process in court, with the express goal of delaying the NMB single-carrier finding."
There's a common theme. Usapians are seen as shifty, conniving assiciation of malcontents by others.
