AAA ALPA Thread 9-7 to 9-13

[Richard]

I will start this one for you all....keep on topic and no personal attacks please.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

usa320:
An AWA MEC DFR Lawsuit against USAPA? Would it have merit?

I did some research and I wanted to set the record straight regarding the DFR lawsuit threat by the West pilots. USAPA's law firm is well aware of the issue and prepared for any DFR lawsuit brought from the West pilots regarding USAPA. One must realize however that the DFR basis is quite limited and very narrow, as is challenging an arbitrators award. I a way the legal height that a challenger must overcome to prevail in a DFR lawsuit is almost as high as the requirement to prevail in overturning an arbitrators award.

A brief on the nature limits and scope of DFR lawsuits is as follows:

The duty of fair representation is the obligation, incumbent upon U.S. labor unions (click here) that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group, to represent all those employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. Originally recognized by the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases in the mid-1940s involving racial discrimination by railway workers' unions covered by the Railway Labor Act, the duty of fair representation also applies to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act and, depending on the terms of the statute, to public sector workers covered by state and local laws regulating labor relations.

The duty applies to virtually every action that a union might take in dealing with an employer as the representative of employees, from its negotiation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, to its handling of grievances arising under that agreement, as well as its operation of an exclusive hiring hall and its enforcement of the union security provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. The duty does not ordinarily apply, on the other hand, to rights that a worker can enforce independently; put another way, the union has no duty to assist the employees it represents in filing claims under a workers' compensation statute or other laws.

The duty likewise does not apply for the most part to unions' internal affairs, such as their right to discipline employees for violation of the union's own rules or union officers' handling of union funds, which are regulated instead by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The courts have, on the other hand, applied the same principles that govern the duty of fair representation to union members' suits to enforce union constitutions.

The courts have, on the whole, taken a deferential approach to reviewing unions' decisions challenged as a breach of their duty of fair representation. Recognizing that the collective bargaining process typically requires compromises, which may favor some workers at the expense of others, the courts have held that a union only breaches its duty if it acts arbitrarily, in bad faith or discriminatorily. Practical considerations have also led the courts to refuse to second-guess unions' decisions: if a court or jury could substitute its judgment as to whether a particular grievance had merit, then unions could not function, since their decisions would rarely be final in any practical sense. Accordingly, the courts have refused to overturn union decisions as arbitrary so long as they were based on a reasoned decision by the union, even if the court might believe that this decision was wrong. {Please note here DOH, is not considered arbitrary}

In recent years the courts and the National Labor Relations Board have applied the duty of fair representation to regulate the manner in which unions enforce the union security provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. Unlike the standard applied to unions' decisions concerning grievance handling and collective bargaining negotiations, the courts and the Board have regulated this area very extensively, specifying the types of expenses that a union can include in the fees that it charges employees who choose not to join the union but are required to pay dues under an agency shop or union shop clause, the accounting procedures used to calculate those amounts, the procedures which the union and employees must follow in the event that an individual worker objects to paying the full amount of dues charged to members or challenges the union's calculation of the lesser amount that non-members can be required to pay and the procedures that the union must follow before it can force the employer to fire an employee for non-payment of dues. Even stricter standards are applied to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act and to unions of governmental employees, but on constitutional, rather than fair representation, grounds.

The NLRB applies a similarly strict standard in reviewing unions' enforcement of exclusive hiring halls, i.e., those in which the employer is bound, by contract, to hire only employees referred to it by the union. The NLRB requires unions to establish clear procedures and to follow those procedures in order to minimize the likelihood that the union would use a hiring hall procedure to exclude non-members or those in disfavor with the union from the workplace. On the other hand, the NLRB applies the more deferential standard applied to union decisions generally in the case of non-exclusive hiring halls, i.e., those in which the union has the power to refer applicants for employment but the employer may also hire employees "off the street"; in those cases the union is barred from acting arbitrarily, in bad faith or discriminatorily.

The NLRB recognizes a breach of the duty of fair representation as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Because the duty of fair representation was originally created by judicial interpretation, however, rather than as an express statutory prohibition, employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act may sue their unions directly, without being required to first exhaust any administrative procedures provided under the National Labor Relations Board. The same is true for workers covered by the Railway Labor Act, which does not provide any administrative procedure for pursuing claims against a union. Employees' claims under either Act are governed by a six-month statute of limitations.

The NLRB and the courts provide different remedies against unions that breached their duty of fair representation. Because the Board usually does not have the jurisdiction to enforce the collective bargaining agreement or to issue a remedial order against an employer that has violated it, the NLRB often cannot award complete relief to employees. A court, on the other hand, may order an employer to reinstate or pay back pay to an employee if it finds that the employer violated the collective bargaining agreement and may, in some instances, order the union to pay attorneys' fees to a successful plaintiff. These distinctions do not apply to workers covered by the Railway Labor Act since, as noted above, they have no administrative procedures to enforce their rights.

A union may, in some limited circumstances, require employees to exhaust any internal appeals procedures provided under the union's constitution before filing suit. Unions and employers may also generally require employees to exhaust their rights under the grievance arbitration procedures provided for under the collective bargaining agreement before suing the employer for breach of contract. Employees usually do not, on the other hand, have to exhaust such procedures if they are suing only the union, since very few collective bargaining agreements even allow for the filing of a grievance against the union by covered employees. To the extent that an employee might have a breach of contract claim against a union arising out of its performance of its duty to represent that employee, the courts will apply the same deferential standards and procedural requirements that they would employ if the worker sued the union on a breach of the duty of fair representation theory.

Finally, Lee Seham, and many other law firms, say that a DOH integration is the gold standard in labor law. The IAM is DOH, AFA is DOH and many other craft and class trade unions in and out of NMB are based on DOH merger standards. It is very much the standard in the NLRB for many types of unions. Because of this, a group calming DFR charges against a union that uses DOH as the basis of it's merger policy faces an uphill battle.

Regards,

 

[AAA73Pilot]

ClueByFour wrote in a previous thread:


You guys really don't get it--that opens up the possibility for any MEC officer to DFR the USAPA very, very easily.

We really do get it. I think that is what you don't understand. So the next best best thing is file a DFR suit? They will always be fairly represented by USAPA. They can even participate, just not hold office for a year. That is the proposal anyway. It may change as we get closer to implementation of the new Constitution and ByLaws. So it is currently dynamic. Really? Do you honestly believe these things are not going to be thought out?

 

[AWA320]

We really do get it. I think that is what you don't understand. So the next best best thing is file a DFR suit? They will always be fairly represented by USAPA. They can even participate, just not hold office for a year. That is the proposal anyway. It may change as we get closer to implementation of the new Constitution and ByLaws. So it is currently dynamic. Really? Do you honestly believe these things are not going to be thought out?

You're living in a dream world AAA73!! You don't have the votes and never did!! Why you and a VERY SMALL minority of east pilots wish to waste more time and money is beyond belief. I for one can say no you haven't thought things out and that's seems to be an ever growing problem in the east. You don't think you just act.

 

[ClueByFour]

We really do get it. I think that is what you don't understand. So the next best best thing is file a DFR suit? They will always be fairly represented by USAPA. They can even participate, just not hold office for a year.

Oh, just not for a year? Only a year of disenfranchisement. I'm sure that'll hold water.

Do you honestly believe these things are not going to be thought out?

Based on what I've seen? Not a chance.

Cutting people arbitrarily out of elected union leadership positions? Clamoring on about being able to cramdown (or, "impose" if you are 320pilot blustering at the West)? It's not going to happen (here is a hint: before the DFR lawsuit happens, you would have to pass a different CBA--which cannot be done without the independent ratification of the West group--and any subsequent union inherits the CBA/LOA/TA in which this is codified).

So no, I don't think it's been thought out. I think it's desperate and angry people who are trying to get what they could not get in front of an arbitrator, or voting in their own existing union.

 

[prechilill]

So no, I don't think it's been thought out. I think it's desperate and angry people who are trying to get what they could not get in front of an arbitrator, or voting in their own existing union.

You nailed it. All of this bouncing around the chicken coop a few of these easties are doing is simply more for venting their own anger, they just don't see it because they are overgrown with complete rage over an issue which ALPA national had really no say in (the arbitrator made the decision- not Prater or the EC). If you look at the objectives of USAPA it has nothing to do with sound union principles but instead is nothing more than a jihad against 40% of the pilots at LCC. How they feel their USAPA plan is a solution to anything we are facing as a collective pilot group, let alone their personal issues stemming from their stagnant airline careers, is beyond me.

 

[Junebug172]

They can even participate, just not hold office for a year.

Wow, discriminating against a dues paying member in good standing just because he held an office at another union.

Ya, that's going to fly!

 

[AAA73Pilot]

You're living in a dream world AAA73!! You don't have the votes and never did!! Why you and a VERY SMALL minority of east pilots wish to waste more time and money is beyond belief. I for one can say no you haven't thought things out and that's seems to be an ever growing problem in the east. You don't think you just act.

Wish it was a dream world. Because ALPA would not be part of it. Small Minority? Approx. 2400 is not exactly small. Please do not confuse USAPA and ALPA leadership as one and the same. It's a wasted effort to do so. I am glad you are so in touch with the USAPA leadership team. All you know is what USA320 claims to be the gospel. Which it isn't. Keep believing him. He's doing a great job keeping you busy.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Oh, just not for a year? Only a year of disenfranchisement. I'm sure that'll hold water.
Based on what I've seen? Not a chance.

Cutting people arbitrarily out of elected union leadership positions? Clamoring on about being able to cramdown (or, "impose" if you are 320pilot blustering at the West)? It's not going to happen (here is a hint: before the DFR lawsuit happens, you would have to pass a different CBA--which cannot be done without the independent ratification of the West group--and any subsequent union inherits the CBA/LOA/TA in which this is codified).

So no, I don't think it's been thought out. I think it's desperate and angry people who are trying to get what they could not get in front of an arbitrator, or voting in their own existing union.

Why disenfranchised? It guarantees the new leadership a chance to take over since the elected ALPA people would have no clue. They are supposedly sworn to keep ALPA on the property. So why would we allow current ALPA officers to hold office immediately upon change in bargaining agents? Look what their "experience" has brought us so far. Once again, don't confuse ALPA past practices as the way business will be conducted in the future. And thankfully so. However, the new Constitution and ByLaws will have to be approved BY YOU to take affect. Want to change the details? You will be given every opportunity to do so. All you have to do is participate by using your right to vote.

Please don't confuse the leaderships of the two groups. USAPA is in no way connected to the current ALPA leadership. In another post, USA320 is doing a great job keeping you busy. You should reread the post above on DFR lawsuits. What makes you think there won't be a mechanism in the Constitution and ByLaws that can address these grievances between member and union? It's a new world coming devoid of ALPA's failings.

Believe me, it has been and still being thought out by very capable people, who like me have become fed up with ALPA. USAPA is coming, with or without Nicolau.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

You nailed it. All of this bouncing around the chicken coop a few of these easties are doing is simply more for venting their own anger, they just don't see it because they are overgrown with complete rage over an issue which ALPA national had really no say in (the arbitrator made the decision- not Prater or the EC). If you look at the objectives of USAPA it has nothing to do with sound union principles but instead is nothing more than a jihad against 40% of the pilots at LCC. How they feel their USAPA plan is a solution to anything we are facing as a collective pilot group, let alone their personal issues stemming from their stagnant airline careers, is beyond me.

Few easties? Approx. 2400 is not exactly a few. Plus there are west pilots submitting cards for their own reasons. And we're not bouncing. Many USAPA supporters like me have been waiting many years for this moment in time, this right event in history to bring about the removal of ALPA. A lot of us have many reasons for wanting to do so. I really don't care what the reasons are, so long as ALPA is voted out! How much more bouncing do you need to understand my reasons?

The objectives of USAPA are based on representing the pilots at USAirways. No one else! How much more sound can that be to suit you? At least USAPA has to only answer to this pilot group and not a collective intent on putting each other out of business for their own gain. Besides, how do you know the objectives of USAPA? From a few posts and the website? Or have you been to the website yet? You really should check it out. http://www.usairlinepilots.org/

You can think what you want of the east pilots and our careers. Whatever I say is not going to change your opinion. Nor whatever you say is going to change mine. You work to keep ALPA and I'll work to replace ALPA. In the end we'll see what happens. Look back, and wonder if we made the right decisions. Til then, this is what we have.

 

[AWA320]

Wish it was a dream world. Because ALPA would not be part of it. Small Minority? Approx. 2400 is not exactly small. Please do not confuse USAPA and ALPA leadership as one and the same. It's a wasted effort to do so. I am glad you are so in touch with the USAPA leadership team. All you know is what USA320 claims to be the gospel. Which it isn't. Keep believing him. He's doing a great job keeping you busy.

I hate to break this to you but I look at him like I look at the uturn crowd, usless and uninformed! I saw the wilson pole results AAA and they are nothing like what you two are preaching. You guys are so fractured that there is really no telling what's what but I didn't see this 2400 strong we need a new union crap either...

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Wow, discriminating against a dues paying member in good standing just because he held an office at another union.

Ya, that's going to fly!

If you don't like the proposal you will be free to change it. Til then you have to start somewhere. If you had taken the time to READ my post/s, all of them, the one year exemption is a proposal. One that I agree with, but a proposal.

Every member will be given the opportunity to vote on it. I for one am looking forward to that right, because it will be fundamental to the way USAPA operates. And please don't get mired in ALPA policies and procedures. USAPA is bringing a new way of conducting business.

There are many proposals that you won't like. A lot of them address the past ills associated with ALPA leaders selling out the membership for personal gain.

 

[USA320Pilot]

It has come to my attention that USAPA now has enough votes to file the NMB Form 1 to have the NMB order an representational election.

This week's event where USAPA officials rented the CLT Business Center in the center core to btain more signed cards was successful. USAPA is seeking about 100 more cards to ensure they can have an election ordered in case some cards are invalid.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

AWA MEC Secret Negotiations?

Just as U-Turn was about to complete the final editing on our second representation article, that effort was overcome by new events. What you are about to read is accurate. It is documented and it is proof that your MEC is withholding information from every West pilot.

Have you read over the recent MEC “Communications†releases from the last few days? There was Council 062’s meeting announcement, then there was the MEC Chairman’s State of our Union Labor Day Message. And we must not forget the latest Myth Vs “Fact.†Of course who could forget the latest MEC Hotine on August 31st, with all the news that the MEC thought you could handle.

The Secret Arbitration

Absent from all that “communication†was the fact that the COMPANY filed the seventh arbitration dispute of the TA against us! Funny, but the East told its pilots about this crucial arbitration, but our MEC failed to tell us. But don’t believe U-Turn, here’s a copy of the actual letter that the company sent to Herndon. And check out the CC’s at the bottom. Our MEC knew about this, but has refused to tell you. And if you don’t think this arbitration is critical to stopping a combined Herndon/Company cram-down…you don’t know ALPA like we know ALPA:


US AIRWAYS

August 30, 2007

Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Bruce York
Director, Representation
Air Line Pilots Association…
RE: Dispute Under the Transition Agreement

Dear Mr. York:

Based on information the Company learned on August 27, a dispute exists under the Letter of Agreement between America West Holdings Corporation, America West Airlines, Inc., US Airways Group, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. (collectively, the "Airline Parties") and the pilots in the service of America West Airlines, inc. and US AIRWAYS, Inc., as represented by Air Line Pilots Association dated September 22005 (the "Transition Agreement").

In accordance with Section X of the Transition Agreement, the Airline Parties seek resolution of this dispute and, in the attached Notice, identify and submit the specific issue to you. Due to the urgency and time-sensitive nature of the dispute, the Airline Parties are prepared to meet with Association representatives at any time within the next week as cal led for by Section X. Please provide us with proposed dates and the names of the Association personnel with whom we will meet. In the event that the dispute is not resolved at that meeting, the Airline Parties are prepared to submit the dispute to the Board of Adjustment specified in Section X of the Transition Agreement on an expedited basis.

I am the Airline Parties' designated representative for receipt of notice of issues under Section X of the Transition Agreement, so please direct all communication to me.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Beth Holdren
Managing Director, Labor Relations-Flight

Enclosure

cc: Al Hemenway (w / encl.)
Captain John Mcllvenna (w/encl.)
Captain Jack Stephan (w/encl.)

NOTICE OF DISPUTE

UNDER THE TRANSITION AGREEMENT
between
AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AMERICA WEST
AIRLINES, INC., US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC. AND US AIRWAYS, INC.
and the
PILOTS
in the service of
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC. AND US AIRWAYS, INC.
as represented b
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION

BACKGROUND:

On August 27, 2007, the Airline Parties became aware of two U5 Airways MEC resolutions passed on May 2, 2007 and August 1, 2007, contending that implementation of a single FAA operating certificate for America West Airlines, Inc. ('"America West") and US Airways, Inc, ("US Airways") would violate the Transition Agreement and calling for the filing of a Section X dispute under the Transition Agreement.

As has been widely known for months, the Airline Parties intend to move to a single FAA operating certificate on September 25, 2007- Scores of persons, including numerous FAA representatives, have been working on this integration for two years since the September 27, 2005, merger and numerous procedural steps have been taken and processes changed as part of the transition to a single operating certificate without objection from the Air Line Pilots Association, International the "Association").

APPLICABLE LANGUAGE;

Section II.B.5.of the Transition Agreement provides that "During Separate Operations- -The Airline Parties intend to consolidate operations under the US Airways operating certificate."

The Transition Agreement provides that "No later than the Operational Pilot Integration, as defined in Section VIA below, America West and US Airways will operate as a single carrier with a single FAA air carrier operating certificate."

Section VI.A. of the Transition Agreement provides that the airline operations of America West and US Airways, with respect to pilots, shall be merged no later than twelve (12) months following the later of (i) completion of the integrated pilot seniority list and (ii) negotiation of the Single Agreement provided that if by that date a single FAA operating certificate has not been issued, the airline operations, with respect to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30) days after the issuance of such certificate. The Airline Parties will make every reasonable effort in good faith to secure a single FAA operating certificate for America West and US Airways as promptly as practicable."

POSITION OF THE AIRLINE PARTIES:

The Transition Agreement expressly contemplates that the Airline Parties will consolidate operations under the US Airways operating certificate during the period of Separate Operations. The Transition Agreement not only permits the issuance of a single FAA operating certificate during the period of Separate Operations, it compels the Airline Parties to make ever- reasonable effort in good faith to secure such a single certificate as promptly as practicable.

REMEDY REQUESTED:

The Airline Parties request that the Association agree, or the Board of Adjustment rule, that implementation of a single FAA operating certificate for America West and US Airways would not violate the Transition Agreement. In light of the fact that only 26 days remain before the surrender of the America West operating certificate to the FAA and in order to resolve this dispute prior to that time, the Airline Parties are willing to submit this dispute to the Board of Adjustment under Section X in whatever expedited fashion the Association deems reasonable, whether through letter briefs, telephonic: argument, oral argument only without witness testimony, bench ruling, etc. Arbitrator Bloch has indicated he is available to hear this case on an expedited basis on September 18, 2007. Accordingly, the Airline Parties propose condensing the hearing on US Airways MEC Grievance No. 05-07-01 currently scheduled for September 18-20 to September 19-20 to permit resolution of this dispute on September '18.

In the next U-Turn: What is really going on here? How could this dispute affect the “Nic†and why is our MEC not leveling with us that this is going on? Truth is, there’s a whole lot of negotiating going on and the rank and file is being left out in the dark.

The Mighty U-Turn, purveyor of truth, justice and the American Way !

 

[USA320Pilot]

AWA MEC Flip-Flop on Single Carrier Arbitration

[For the past few weeks, CA Rep CJ Szmal has been the chief facilitator in the MEC spin that cross-Mississippi flying didn’t violate the Transition Agreement. Obviously ol’ CJ didn’t pay much attention to the language in ALPA’s attempt to get an emergency TRO against the company last March…two months BEFORE the Nicolau Award was handed down.]

But you don’t have to believe U-Turn. Just read the actual language in the JOINT MEC complaint, as filed by ALPA National in Federal Court on February 28, 2007. Keep in mind that this was the complaint that MEC Chairman McIlvenna and the MEC declared was a slam-dunk win for us.

From paragraph 17 of the complaint: “The elimination of the HP code will in effect, permit US Airways Group to shift flying between pilot groups, contrary to the terms of the Transition Agreement.â€

The law suit went on to say: “This substitution is not permitted under the Transition Agreement, and the Companies’ unilateral action to circumvent their obligation to maintain the existence of the independent designator codes let them have the economic benefits of marketing a single airline before it bargains a single collective bargaining agreement for the two pilot groups.â€

As U-Turn has observed in previous articles: it’s that giant sucking sound of flights headed back East to the “cheap seats.â€

While the lawsuit was dismissed, the judge did state that he would be willing to revisit the case under a very limited set of circumstances: “And in the future, if you want to -- if you find that these things are not proceeding the way you want them to and you think there's a bad faith bargaining going on under the Railway Labor Act, you can feel free to file a Complaint and mark it related to this and it would come back to me. All right.â€

And lest anyone think that our MEC wasn’t on board with this ALPA lawsuit that was designed to protect both sides of the Mississippi from shifting flying between pilot groups, here is what the two MEC Chairman told Mr. Parker on February 28, 2007:

“ALPA hereby demands that the Companies immediately cease and desist from eliminating the HP flight designator code over the next weekend and that the Companies maintain the mandatory status quo under the Railway Labor Act and the Transition Agreement.â€

But our MEC bravado and “hairy-chested resolutions†were short-lived. They ratcheted up the rhetoric last winter:

January 19: East Metal on West Routes: We have received several questions from pilots regarding East airplanes operating on West routes. The East / West operations are being closely monitored by both MECs, as whipsawing remains a common hot-button issue for both pilot groups. Look for a more thorough, detailed communication about this issue next week.

On March 1st, the two MECs jointly announced: Your MEC Chairmen, together, would like to address the actions taken by your union yesterday, involving ALPA’s decision to file a formal complaint in Federal Court against US Airways…This code elimination is a blatant violation of the Transition Agreement negotiated with the two pilot groups that requires that US Airways and America West will remain separate until a single pilot collective bargaining agreement is reached. In addition, we believe that the elimination of the HP code violates both the East and West contract scope protections.

Management has not lived up to their obligations under the RLA to maintain their agreements, and as we have all seen, they are not willing to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with ALPA in accordance with the Transition Agreement…This is in direct violation of their obligations to make agreements under the RLA.

The East and West MECs agreed that we needed to take immediate action and put an end to management’s attempts to circumnavigate our agreements and capture all the synergies of this merger without completing negotiations. Your MECs have had enough, and therefore, ALPA filed a lawsuit yesterday against US Airways in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia . The next step will be for the court to act on the lawsuit, and we will keep you updated on the events during the process. A hearing for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for tomorrow, March 2, at 1:00 p.m. EST.

(BTW, U-Turn predicted the lawsuit was DOA and a waste of money. But it did give us all a warm and fuzzy for a couple of weeks last winter.)

Now we are down to the bottom of the ninth inning, so to speak. The single certificate is ready to be launched by the company in less than three weeks.

But just when our leverage could and should be at its highest, our MEC has done a complete 180 from their position last March. Our MEC has caved in to the company.

They are no longer demanding that the company hold the line on operating a single certificate before the other two pieces are in place, namely demanding a single contract and a single seniority list. The former is still to be negotiated and the latter has yet to be presented to the company.

In an effort to clear the air and move forward with the single certificate, the company has filed its own dispute to be heard by Arbitrator Bloch the week of September 17th. But will it actually be heard by Mr. Bloch or will ALPA take a pass on it, giving it away to the company?

The answer lies with the Executive Council…and our MEC.

From what information we have assembled, Captain Prater sent a letter to both MECs (through their Chairmen) yesterday outlining the two MEC’s differing positions on the operational “single certificate.†This is what we learned:

The East MEC believes that the company is violating the Transition Agreement by proceeding with a single certificate prior to the single contract being ratified and prior to the seniority list being presented. They have made their position clear to their rank and file.

Our MEC disagrees, believing that the use of a single certificate under the present conditions (no contract and no list) is NOT a violation of the TA. Our MEC, however, has NOT made “our†position clear, preferring to keep us all in the dark.

The decision on what happens next belongs to the Executive Council. They are going to decide at their upcoming meeting whether it takes both MECs agreeing that a dispute exists for there to even be a dispute under Section X of the TA. If the EC finds in favor of the East that a dispute actually exists, the EC will then decide if ALPA National is going to pursue a dispute in front of Arbitrator Bloch.

One would have to assume that if the EC finds that it takes “two to tango,†then the company will have no union opposition to its single operating certificate. There will be no ALPA Section X dispute filed and the company’s pre-emptive dispute becomes moot. The company’s dispute goes away and the company is cleared for single certificate take-off (by ALPA, anyway). We understand that both MECs will be allowed to make presentations of their individual cases.

U-Turn has also been told that ALPA Director of Representation Bruce York has informed the company that the fate of ALPA’s side of this Section X dispute will be decided by the Executive Council prior to the scheduled arbitration.

But as we often say at U-Turn, don’t take our word for it. Ask your Reps. And since we know that our Reps monitor U-Turn, just a word of caution: it’s not nice to fool “Mother U-Turn.†Nor is it a good idea to lie to those you claim to represent. If the MEC isn’t up front with us, if we have to present further proof, we will.

The Mighty U-Turn, unbiased and unafraid