Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
This case (case is a misnomer as East has no case) has nothing to do with RLA Arbitration procedures.
ALPA RULING OUT
- Thread starter luvthe9
- Start date
This case (case is a misnomer as East has no case) has nothing to do with RLA Arbitration procedures.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
What is wrong with you guys? Read your Merger Policy. The APLA Merger policies guidelines were written for the Merger Comm to follow when trying to reach an agreement. Nowhere I repeat NOWHERE in the policy does it say that the arbitrator is required to follow those or any guidelines and if you think he didn't that you had any procedure to overturn the award.
If you insist the arbitrator was bound by guidelines please paste the language from Merger Policy that relates directly to what the arbitrator is required to follow and do and where it says the award can be overturned if you think he didn't follow those guidelines.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
Just who are you trying to convince? Personally, i'm just gonna wait and see what happens here. Clearly Piney was correct about finality. Also, if the case can be proven (and what I read seems rather convincing) that the "conditions" for binding arbitration weren't properly adhered to, then this award WILL NOT stand, as in it legally can't.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
Prove it isn't correct. Give us some links and caselaw that show awards were overturned and I think it would be safe say for each one you find a hundreds that courts refused to hear.
"Once the opinion is handed down by the arbitrator, it generally is binding on all sides. The case law throughout the country is very clear that mandatory, binding arbitration will rarely be overruled by the courts. Courts will only overturn the arbitrator if he or she was arbitrary or capricious in rendering a decision".
You seem to like to argue just a couple hours ago you said binding was binding LOL
I am trying to get posters like you to convince me otherwise. Why even respond when you can't even paste what I ask for? The complete Merger Policy is online why can't you paste the sections I ask for? We know why. Because the sections you all are trying to convince us exists only exist in you head and dreams.
What conditions? Paste them AND where it says those apply to the Arbitrator AND where it says if you feel you don't think he followed those so called "conditions" that you can throw out his award. You are making things up.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
"You can never get all the facts from just one newspaper, and unless you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgements about what is going on."
Harry S. Truman
Harry S. Truman
TheLarkAscending
Veteran
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
Bob it may say generally but it also says only in certain circumstances and RARELY at that.
It doesn't natter what ALPA wants. In direct contrast to what people THINK the Merger Policy says regarding what the arbitrator is REQUIRED to follow in making his award the Merger Policy is very clear that the National WILL defend the award.
No you wrongly assume I said that the judicial process was the only path. I was only addressing the judicial or I should say the lack of any judicial path for the EAST Pilots to use.
As far as any other paths for the Pilots as history suggests they will rollover. Which actually is the moral and right thing to do this time as they already selected the path of binding arbtration and they should be men enough to live up to their word.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
If ALPA is using the American Arbitration Association rules maybe there is a case and binding isn't binding.
Section 9. Award of arbitrators; confirmation; jurisdiction; procedure
If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made. Notice of the application shall be served upon the adverse party, and thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of such party as though he had appeared generally in the proceeding. If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident, then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court.
Section 10. Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing
In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration:
Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.
Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 590 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 582 of title 5.
Section 11. Same; modification or correction; grounds; order
In either of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration --
a. Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award.
b. Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matter submitted.
c. Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.
The order may modify and correct the award, so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties.
Section 12. Notice of motions to vacate or modify; service; stay of proceedings
Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered. If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court. For the purposes of the motion any judge who might make an order to stay the proceedings in an action brought in the same court may make an order, to be served with the notice of motion, staying the proceedings of the adverse party to enforce the award.
Section 9. Award of arbitrators; confirmation; jurisdiction; procedure
If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made. Notice of the application shall be served upon the adverse party, and thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of such party as though he had appeared generally in the proceeding. If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident, then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court.
Section 10. Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing
In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration:
Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.
Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 590 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 582 of title 5.
Section 11. Same; modification or correction; grounds; order
In either of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration --
a. Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award.
b. Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matter submitted.
c. Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.
The order may modify and correct the award, so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties.
Section 12. Notice of motions to vacate or modify; service; stay of proceedings
Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered. If the adverse party is a resident of the district within which the award was made, such service shall be made upon the adverse party or his attorney as prescribed by law for service of notice of motion in an action in the same court. If the adverse party shall be a nonresident then the notice of the application shall be served by the marshal of any district within which the adverse party may be found in like manner as other process of the court. For the purposes of the motion any judge who might make an order to stay the proceedings in an action brought in the same court may make an order, to be served with the notice of motion, staying the proceedings of the adverse party to enforce the award.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Was there an agreement between the parties that a court judgment "shall be entered upon the award"?
Jim
L
luvn737s
Guest
How much ba*** does it take to behave irrationally and screw yourselves out of a 15%+ raise? Please, Bob these guys don't need more stoking. They need to rationally assess reality and move forward with the west and abandon this circus atmosphere that only amuses management.
Prater knows that that cooler heads will prevail and that a vote to bolt from ALPA would be somewhat embarassing, but fall far short of the votes necessary. Time is on his side, but he needs to show leadership and break the bad news decisively.
Management also needs to step up and tell both sides that they are closely monitoring pilot behavior and will not hesitate to bring strong and swift disciplinary action against anyone on either side who behaves in an unprofessional manner. They have a moral obligation to the travelling public and the other 28000 employees to cull the bad apples.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
E
EastUS
Guest
In your first paragraph: You're dreaming..and you've an established tendancy here to fantasize that you are utterly reasonable, that yours is the only thought process possible...and that you magically know what's inside the minds of all others. Get a grip.
As per calling down the wrath of management and "closely monitoring"..."cull the bad apples"/etc...You've simply proved yourself to be an insignificant little toady that's got koolaide stains, nay koolaide tattoos on your lips, and likely a well worn set of kneepads. You also fully demonstrate yourself to be no one of strong character that any respectable pilot should EVER want to fly with. If your spine's that amazingly flexible, one must seriously question how well it would hold up under any actual life-threatening emergency. Adverse weather, engine fires, and far more severe emergencies hardly respect the "Hall Monitor" mentality, nor anyone who's "thinking" requires magic intervention from above, in this case via some management/"parental" sort.
If you truly wish to start to "cull the bad apples"...Either grow up fast..or: Resign immediately.
L
luvn737s
Guest
Nah, you're right. Let the section 19's fall where they may. Whose entitled to attrition from the middle?
Bob Loblaw
Member
Luv'n
I do believe the east is reading - as they always do - much more into the EC resolution than is there. Basically it is just a resolution to say let's nobody do anything, have a 30 day cooling off period and then we'll uphold the premise of ALPA merger policy.
Whichever way it goes one side or the other will stop paying dues and work to free themselves of ALPA. If the East is placated I will stop my dues checkoff and stop paying dues because ALPA refused to uphold their policy.
Our contract does say that if you don't pay your dues you will be fired. However ALPA policy does say that someone in such a position has to be given a hearing and a judgement and an avenue to regain good standing. Having dealt with these situations before all that is required of a non dues paying member is to set up a repayment schedule with ALPA in an "attempt" to regain standing. And that effort only requires a repayment schedule of a few dollars every few months in order to prevent termination. Hmm...10-50 in dues payment per year versus a couple hundred a month for ALPA not doing their job? No one on the west side who is a non dues paying member has ever been fired as long as they pony up a one every now and then.
Bob
I do believe the east is reading - as they always do - much more into the EC resolution than is there. Basically it is just a resolution to say let's nobody do anything, have a 30 day cooling off period and then we'll uphold the premise of ALPA merger policy.
Whichever way it goes one side or the other will stop paying dues and work to free themselves of ALPA. If the East is placated I will stop my dues checkoff and stop paying dues because ALPA refused to uphold their policy.
Our contract does say that if you don't pay your dues you will be fired. However ALPA policy does say that someone in such a position has to be given a hearing and a judgement and an avenue to regain good standing. Having dealt with these situations before all that is required of a non dues paying member is to set up a repayment schedule with ALPA in an "attempt" to regain standing. And that effort only requires a repayment schedule of a few dollars every few months in order to prevent termination. Hmm...10-50 in dues payment per year versus a couple hundred a month for ALPA not doing their job? No one on the west side who is a non dues paying member has ever been fired as long as they pony up a one every now and then.
Bob
