ALPA Thread 1/18-1/25 ALL ALPA Discussed Here

[luvn737s]

ALPA/NIC (or "ALLPanic" in ALPA terms)

OK I'll give you a point on that one.

 

[nostradamus]

Our Founding Fathers were well aware that people are subject to fits of irrationality.

Our founding fathers were responsible for a revolution that overcame tyranny.

 

[luvn737s]

Our Founding Fathers were well aware

Shhh! These guys have some image of themselves as true patriots rising up against a tyrannical ALPA. But wait, they're going to use their superior numbers and their blatant disregard for honoring their committments to subjugate the west pilots. Who are the redcoats now?

See?

 

[b737fo]

Our founding fathers were responsible for a revolution that overcame tyranny.

The Confederates were responsible for trying to break up this great nation.

The historical references that can be stretched into fitting arguments for both sides of this mess are endless.

How about you EastUS? Do you think there is any negotiable movement regarding the Nic list?

 

[EastUS]

OK I'll give you a point on that one.

I'd prefer cash 😉..No checks!! 😉

 

[aquagreen73s]

Shhh! These guys have some image of themselves as true patriots rising up against a tyrannical ALPA. But wait, they're going to use their superior numbers and their blatant disregard for honoring their committments to subjugate the west pilots. Who are the redcoats now?

See?

At times the system has really been out of whack and needed change. That time arrives when the weight of moral authority crests and comes crashing down and wipes clean that which is not right. MLK is a perfect example, and his moral authority ultimately prevailed against a very corrupt South. But here, the East has no moral authority - none, zero, zip, nada. They're little more than a band of renegade pilots whose own greed manifested itself long before AWA got involved. Just ask ANY United pilot - they'll tell you about East greed!

 

[EastUS]

The Confederates were responsible for trying to break up this great nation.

The historical references that can be stretched into fitting arguments for both sides of this mess are endless.

How about you EastUS? Do you think there is any negotiable movement regarding the Nic list?

It's my earnest personal hope that we will be able to massage this mess around eventually. As incredible as it may seem to many..I'm not any personal fan of "screwing" anyone on either side. I completely doubt that anything's usefully possible untill ALPA's removed though. They've their precious little "Don't sue us!!//Please!!".."Nic's our baby!!..Don't hurt it/us!"agenda to maintain, and they're painted into a corner of their own brush strokes. I believe that any potential for gaining a good CBA, and advancing our collective lot's got to come from some degree of compromise afterwards, or we'll have little chance at ever working together at any level. A flight deck's no place to be "at war" in..unless directed at external enemies.

 

[EastUS]

But here, the East has no moral authority - none, zero, zip, nada.

According to you, whom, one must assume, is the world's proper judge for such According to "the corrupt south"..neither did Dr King have such initially :blink:

Ah well...in your own words....aquagreen73: "....whatever, I guess. I have no problem with them hoodwinking their own kind." Moral greatness on an admirable level sir 😉 AWA Truth and Virtue triumphant 😉

Ah well..When I find it time to pull out zillions of emoticons...It's a sure sign that actual conversation's momentarilly extinct here. Have a good one All.

 

[end_of_alpa]

What's pointless is believing that anger, emotion and resolve somehow translates into a robust legal claim. To date, there is not a single example in the history of jurisprudence that has allowed an entity to accomplish what usapa says is possible. Heck, they're not just calling it possible, but selling the goods as if they're a lock by any court in the nation! [snicker]

SORRY YOU ARE WRONG....HERE IS ONE...A BIG ONE, I MIGHT ADD!!!

Here is the fact pattern from Trailmobile v. Whirls, an NLRB controlling case before the Supreme Court of the US where seniority WAS reordered to what the majority in the union wanted. Whirls tried to back door it under the Selective Service Act but was stonewalled by the Supreme Court.

Two companies were essentially merged. Both unions were represented by the AFL. Their ultimate authority, AFL national committee (same as ALPA arbitration Board) found that the MINORITY from the smaller merged company should receive their "date of hire" or dovetailed, for the merger. The MAJORITY of the larger merged company disagreed with that finding.

The MAJORITY had a representational election and elected the CIO as the collective bargaining agent. The CIO negotiated with the newly merged company (Trailmobile was the name of the larger company, the smaller company, Highland, was actually absorbed and dissolved) and BOTH parties agreed to a collective bargaining agreement that "stapled" or entailed the MINORITY from the smaller merged company.

The minority in a class action DFR suit sued the Company and the CIO for an unlawful discrimination claim in the Ohio courts. The contract was affirmed VALID in that action finding for the company and the CIO.

The Supreme Court of the US explains:

"The theory of the class suit was that, although the plaintiffs were not then members of the C.I.O., the collective bargaining agent was the representative of all employees in the unit and hence could not legally deprive a minority of the employees which it represented of their accrued seniority and other rights by any collective agreement with the company. The petition alleged that the collective agreement arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived the plaintiffs of their 'vested individual rights' and asked mandatory injunctive relief restoring each to seniority status as of the date of his employment by Highland. The company and the collective agent stood upon the terms of the collective agreement and the agent's authority as certified representative to make it as justifying the action taken under it.

The Ohio courts held against the plaintiffs (Whirls was one of them) in the action, sustaining the position of the company and the union. They held in effect that the seniority rights in issue arose exclusively from contract, making no reference whatever to 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act or any question relating to it; that the company and the collective representative were lawfully empowered to enter into the contract fixing those rights as of January 1, 1944; that the trial court was not authorized, in its own language, 'to contract for the plaintiff(s) or make a new contract,' since that power 'exists only in the collective bargaining agent under the provisions of the National Labor Relation's Act ( 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq.), so long as that agent acts within the law.'

Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The record here does not disclose the date of the trial court's judgment. But its decision was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals before October 2, 1945, when the union's answer was filed in the present cause; and the case had been finally determined against the plaintiff's claims by the Supreme Court of Ohio prior to October 15, 1945."

Whirls was in the smaller affected group and filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court for a violation of the Selective Service Act. The Selective Service Act protects the seniority of workers who go into military service for a period of one year after their return to the company they were employed with. Whirls had returned to the company for a period of approx. 9 months when the "merger" occured. The suit was quite possibly moot for issues not pertinent here but the gist was the Supreme Court ruled on the facts of the issue for MOOTNESS most likely to help the lower court decide.

The Supreme Court did not find for Whirls (minority) and reversed the lower court decision stating:

"Whirls was treated exactly as were other employees in his group having the same seniority and status as he had on the date of his reemployment. There was no discrimination against him as a veteran or otherwise than as a member of that group. Both groups, the former Trailmobile employees and the former Highland employees, who composed his group, contained veterans and nonveterans in large numbers. Both contained veterans in active service and reemployed veterans when the collective agreement was made. Whirls was treated exactly as all other members of his group, the ex-Highland employees, veterans and nonveterans alike. Whether or not the collective agreement was valid, or infringed rights of Whirls and other members of that group apart from rights given by 8(c ), is not before us, for reasons we have stated. The only question here and the only one we decide is that 8©, although giving the reemployed veteran a special statutory standing in relation to 'other rights,' as defined in the Fishgold case, during the statutory year, and creating to that extent a preference for him over nonveterans, did not extend that preference for a longer time."

"Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...31&invol=40

You may wish to read the dissenting opinion. It's VERY revealing!!

 

[EastUS]

Our Founding Fathers were well aware that people are subject to fits of irrationality. The irrationality might originate in the form of individual emotion and greed, but they were also aware that these raw, individual wants can coalesce into a group emotion which can then threaten the entire republic. Therefore, they set up a system which establishes the rule of law above all else. Their wisdom is clear: without the rule of law, we're on an inevitable course back to where we all came from - that course being where the state holds all power and the people have nothing. Our short history has already witnessed repeated attempts at working around the system and fortunately for all of us, the system survived. The system is by no means perfect, but it's the best we have and the best that the world has seen to date. It's brilliance is in the fact that we are all guaranteed a fair process, but not necessarily our desired result. I really like living in a republic and I hope we can keep it.

While you're glowing over what YOU think the Founding Fathers' thoughts supposedly were, and heartilly exulting in "the rule of law"....here's but a few bits from Thomas Jefferson:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Yup..he at least, was clearly a huge fan of "the rule of law" 😉

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Ya' need more of how the Founding Fathers hardly mirrored your rather parochial views?..or will Mr Jeffferson suffice? 😉 A huge fan of "the system"...he wasn't. Few revolutionary sorts ever are:
""Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence ... too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment."

The Founding Fathers were actually a group of pretty radical men, to say the very least.

Your last is quite correct: "we are all guaranteed a fair process, but not necessarily our desired result" If, as seems to be the developing case, you don't get your "desired result"...due process will be followed regardless...Such doesn't have to stop when wished for by your whims at any particular phase, but rather when it's played out in full.

 

[aquagreen73s]

You gloss over one important sentence, the final paragraph of Part I:

"We turn therefore to consideration of the sole question presented on the merits, namely, whether under 8 the veteran's right to statutory seniority extends indefinitely beyond the expiration of the first year of his reemployment, being unaffected by that event as long as the employment itself continues."


Midway through Part II there is this:

"The only question here and the only one we decide is that 8©, although giving the reemployed veteran a special statutory standing in relation to 'other rights,' as defined in the Fishgold case, during the statutory year, and creating to that extent a preference for him over nonveterans, did not extend that preference for a longer time."

Nobody here intends to litigate a veteran's right to statutory seniority. The Ohio Supreme Court is referenced in the case history section and I'd agree that seniority is a creature of contract. But, I can guarantee that the parties in the original Ohio case never agreed to determine the seniority contract provision through a binding arbitration process, like you have. If you think that is a trivial point, well....whatever. Look, the whole problem for usapa is that your effort conflicts with the glaring policy concerns addressed by the US Supreme Court in O'Neill and by the 7th Ciruit in Rakestraw. Refer to Mike Abrams letter; it's quite good.

 

[luvn737s]

How would the AFL National committee be the equivalent of a neutral arbitration board (Nicolau wasn't an ALPA member)?

 

[end_of_alpa]

You gloss over one important sentence, the final paragraph of Part I:

"We turn therefore to consideration of the sole question presented on the merits, namely, whether under 8 the veteran's right to statutory seniority extends indefinitely beyond the expiration of the first year of his reemployment, being unaffected by that event as long as the employment itself continues."


Midway through Part II there is this:

"The only question here and the only one we decide is that 8©, although giving the reemployed veteran a special statutory standing in relation to 'other rights,' as defined in the Fishgold case, during the statutory year, and creating to that extent a preference for him over nonveterans, did not extend that preference for a longer time."

Nobody here intends to litigate a veteran's right to statutory seniority. The Ohio Supreme Court is referenced in the case history section and I'd agree that seniority is a creature of contract. But, I can guarantee that the parties in the original Ohio case never agreed to determine the seniority contract provision through a binding arbitration process, like you have. If you think that is a trivial point, well....whatever. Look, the whole problem for usapa is that your effort conflicts with the glaring policy concerns addressed by the US Supreme Court in O'Neill and by the 7th Ciruit in Rakestraw. Refer to Mike Abrams letter; it's quite good.

Just because ALPA uses the "method" of arbitration and even calls it such, doesn't make it the "binding" arbitration you call it if we don't vote for it. The AFL uses a "binding" committee, if you will, that issues a FINAL decision as far as the National union is concerned. So does the CIO. Now both are combined. Whether you call the "judicial" descision, if you will, within a union a binding committee or a binding arbitration, the purpose is the same REGARDLESS of what you call it.

You'll find this out when you sue USAPA. It really won't amount to much more than a fart in the wind.

However, you said "seniority is a creature of contract". Having said that, if the East is a party to the contract and our majority doesn't vote for it how can you impliment the award? You severely UNDERESTIMATE the understanding the East pilots have of unionism. Again, you are about to find out.

Besides, you said "To date, there is not a single example in the history of jurisprudence that has allowed an entity to accomplish what usapa says is possible." This case PROVES exactly that there IS a case out there where the SUPREME decisions made by the agent CAN be reversed with a change in that agent. I'm looking forward to the promise of lost MILLIONS USAPA will pay when you sue us. In fact, I'll give you $200 to sue us. If you win, keep it. If you lose, pay me back $500. Such a sure bet, HUH?

No matter how many cases I come up with you'll STILL argue with me. Same point with you is a broken record.

 

[prechilill]

USAPA's law firm:

Through a series of articles in the coming weeks, the ACPC will introduce you to Seham, Seham, Meltz, & Petersen, LLP, the law firm that USAPA has hired for legal advice and counsel. This series will outline the firm's track record to help you make an informed business decision as to whether its selection as counsel is a reason to choose USAPA as your collective bargaining agent. We'll lay it out for you—from the firm's areas of expertise to its experience representing both management and independent unions—so that you can decide.

USAPA Legal Representation

On its USAPA Legal Representation web page, USAPA asserts:

"We have selected the law firm of Seham, Seham, Meltz and Petersen to represent us. This is the same firm that represented the American pilots in their successful bid to break away from ALPA and form their own independent union, the APA."

The web page also lists the résumé of Lee Seham, the lead attorney for USAPA, and his deceased father, Martin Seham, to further establish the firm's credibility.

While it is true that Martin "Marty" Seham represented the American pilots when they established the Allied Pilots Association (APA) back in 1963, and Lee Seham later served as general counsel, neither the Sehams nor their firm has represented APA since Nov. 11, 1992. Quite the opposite: The Seham firm is now counsel to a group of pilots who, like USAPA, are attempting to displace the APA as the collective bargaining representative of their carrier's pilots.

Over 15 years ago, then APA President Richard LaVoy sent a letter to his membership detailing the many factors that went into replacing the Seham firm as general counsel.

In that letter, LaVoy wrote:

"Most importantly, I have a moral, philosophical and practical disagreement in the manner in which the Seham firm has chosen to conduct it's [its] law practice. From my point of view, it is unwise and not in the best interest of APA's pilots to continue it's [its] relationship with a law firm that has amassed such a record."

The letter went on to say that the Seham firm usually represents management in disputes between employers and employees and has a long history of what can only be considered anti-union and anti-employee activities.

"It is just common sense that Ralph Nader will not work for General Motors and Frank Lorenzo will not work for unions," LaVoy wrote. "While management and pilots both want a strong, secure and prosperous company, they can differ on how those goals should be achieved."

As if that weren't enough, the letter went on to state:

"The lawyer's standard permitted Seham to represent management in proceedings which attempted to dismantle the union representing El Al's U.S. employees, and permitted him to represent SAS when it went to court to stop Eastern's unions from picketing the airline in an attempt to get SAS to stop sending tens of millions in aid to Frank Lorenzo during the strike. At the same time our General Counsel was assisting Lorenzo's financial backers, APA's pilots were contributing over $200,000 to Eastern's pilots to help stave off Lorenzo. These are not hypothetical examples, but actual cases where Seham represented management against unionized employees!"

In an attachment that supports his letter, APA described in further detail how Seham represented both management and scabs in numerous legal proceedings in the federal courts and in administrative proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board.

As bad as this short overview may sound, it is just the beginning. The ACPC will explore the wrongs listed in LaVoy's letter and pose similar questions over the next few weeks, because we believe that the best business decisions are made when all the facts are on the table. Stay tuned for more information on Seham, Seham, Meltz, & Petersen, LLP. You can also read the entire series, as it rolls out, on the ACPC website.

 

[Phoenix]

.......the ACPC will introduce you to ....You can also read the entire series, as it rolls out, on the ACPC website.

Tsk, tsk. You know that the letter head of ALPA and the ACPC has ALPA = Nicolau on top.