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

[end_of_alpa]

I think the "negotiable" part was tried for a couple of years. Unfortunately, East refused to budge from an unrealistic position, so the agreed-upon solution to the impasse was the Nicolau arbitration.

So now the next "solution" is an election. "Unrealistic" is in the strength of the union. Strength lies in unity and unity lies in majority.

Going back to "final and binding" I see!

You say "final and binding", we say majority.

We're having an election and we're going to find out! Isn't this exciting?

 

[prechilill]

This has nothing to do with the "Shuttle" pilots. Where talking US Airways/AWA at the snapshot time of their merger.

Period. They will NOT be affected with what they CURRENTLY HAVE!

The snapshot you reference was made in part by your current CBA, ALPA AAA. The Nicolau seniority list is final in the same sense the shuttle seniority list is complete- both unions and the company have agreed to the results. Again, both unions have participated in the seniority integration process voluntariliy and the company has accepted the final seniority list from our arbitration. With the seniority list completed, what remains is a combined CBA with both pilot groups and it is this technicality where you (plural) are stating the current list is irrelevant. TI recognize this technicality is solely for the purpose of protecting the Shuttle pilots, but I disagree with your thought the courts will consider our arbitrated seniority integration process incomplete. I find it interesting you recognize the seniority integration process by ALPA at one point, yet you do not recognize the legitimate outcome of this process simply because you disagree with it.
In essence, your (plural) case argument rests with the right of a particular union to selectively rearrange seniority with a majority vote. The case you referenced (Whirls) did not involve a claim against a seniority integration process and the findings by the superior court referenced their reversal decision in the narrow context of the Selective Service Act rights of an employee.
One last thought, as aquagreen pointed out (endlessly), courts do not interfere with arbitrated decisions for an obvious reason- it subverts the authority of that process and the courts will not arbitrate their decisions unless there is malfeasance.

 

[AWA320]

So less information about the people behind the union you support is better? OK. Can any assessment of USAPA stand on its own, or must it always be compared to ALPA?

You've driven the ALPA-mobile for many years, and for many years it gave you dependable service. Then, due to neglect, it broke down and left you stranded. Now you're standing by the side of the road kicking it for letting you down. So you decide to take any replacement vehicle that comes along, without bothering to research it, inspect it or test drive it. Folks have told you that you can fix the ALPA-mobile, but you'd rather have something new. The folks pushing you into this new YUGO-SAPA are promising breathtaking performance and economy, if they can get it started. Many folks with no vested interest in either vehicle have tried to warn you of the cheap parts inside or the lack of support after the sale. But you are tired of the ALPA-mobile and you have nothing left to lose since you've begun ripping parts out of the old ALPA-mobile and quietly give them to the YUGO-SAPA people to help them get their prototype running and validate your faith in them. But they're more idea men than mechanics, so they've screwed that up too.

Need a lift?

WOW

 

[Pi brat]

I thought I would check in on my old friends here and see what's been going on the last few months. Looks like the same old thing.......carry on. 🙄

 

[Retired1]

Welcome back USA320Pilot

 

[end_of_alpa]

The snapshot you reference was made in part by your current CBA, ALPA AAA. The Nicolau seniority list is final in the same sense the shuttle seniority list is complete- both unions and the company have agreed to the results. Again, both unions have participated in the seniority integration process voluntariliy and the company has accepted the final seniority list from our arbitration. With the seniority list completed, what remains is a combined CBA with both pilot groups and it is this technicality where you (plural) are stating the current list is irrelevant. TI recognize this technicality is solely for the purpose of protecting the Shuttle pilots, but I disagree with your thought the courts will consider our arbitrated seniority integration process incomplete. I find it interesting you recognize the seniority integration process by ALPA at one point, yet you do not recognize the legitimate outcome of this process simply because you disagree with it.
In essence, your (plural) case argument rests with the right of a particular union to selectively rearrange seniority with a majority vote. The case you referenced (Whirls) did not involve a claim against a seniority integration process and the findings by the superior court referenced their reversal decision in the narrow context of the Selective Service Act rights of an employee.
One last thought, as aquagreen pointed out (endlessly), courts do not interfere with arbitrated decisions for an obvious reason- it subverts the authority of that process and the courts will not arbitrate their decisions unless there is malfeasance.

Quoting Reagan,...."There you go again..."

If you DON"T vote for it, you DON'T get it. Let's see if the COMPANY gets it:

"The process was we have binding arbitration but it has to get ratified through the joint negotiation process. So what I would say to you is you say binding arbitration that was the first half of the agreement...the second half was it has to get ratified through joint negotiations." Scott Kirby, 07 Oct 2007, Tempe AZ Pilot Meeting

 

[BoeingBoy]

If Whirls had succeeded in the Supreme Court, they couldn't just apply "super seniority" to Whirls and not to the other "non-military" employees in the same affected minority class. They would have had to overturn the Ohio Supreme Court ruling and "rejigger" the list back to the way the minority wanted it to be before the union change. That is why the dissenting opinion is so revealing.

To broad once again.....

"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©, is not before us, for reasons we have stated."

The majority opinion went to some lengths to clarify that the whole question of how seniority was handled in the merger and whether Whirls was discriminated against in an unlawful manner was not before the court (other than under the provisions of the SSA). However, they likewise made it clear that their opinion was not in any way to influence future cases pertaining to those questions.

You'll have a hard time finding a case that better matches the present circumstances than the one resulting from the Air Wisconsin/Mississippi Valley merger - the facts are nearly identical except that one of those MEC's was publicly involved in the attempt to change bargaining agents. However, there is another case that revolves around a union's attempt to harm the minority for the benefit of the majority. The union lost.

Jim

 

[end_of_alpa]

To broad once again.....

"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©, is not before us, for reasons we have stated."

The majority opinion went to some lengths to clarify that the whole question of how seniority was handled in the merger and whether Whirls was discriminated against in an unlawful manner was not before the court (other than under the provisions of the SSA). However, they likewise made it clear that their opinion was not in any way to influence future cases pertaining to those questions.

You'll have a hard time finding a case that better matches the present circumstances than the one resulting from the Air Wisconsin/Mississippi Valley merger - the facts are nearly identical except that one of those MEC's was publicly involved in the attempt to change bargaining agents. However, there is another case that revolves around a union's attempt to harm the minority for the benefit of the majority. The union lost.

Jim

Jim, this case (Whirls) came out in 1947, approx. twenty years BEFORE Vaca v. Sipes where the definition of a unions duty of fair representation was defined and a breach thereof. As I said, the purpose of the Whirls case at issue was SSA. And I also agree with you that "they likewise made it clear that their opinion was not in any way to influence future cases pertaining to those questions." This is where Vaca v. Sipes comes in, to fill the gap, so to speak. You will find NO mention of Fishgold OR Whirls in the Vaca case. Whirls is kind of a "case without a case" so to speak. The fact pattern is the focus, not the ruling...as I said.

In short, Whirls seniority remained where it was when the new union negotiated an agreement with Trailmobile....ENTAILED. The court DID NOT rule on that issue and it was not before the court.

As I mentioned before, Whirls was UNSUCCESSFUL in "back dooring" the Ohio court ruling. The Ohio court simply supported the majority decision. That is all. The KEY case now in determining what was then called unlawful discrimination is now incorporated into a "Duty of Fair Representation" claim.

I agree with you about the Air Wisc case. Posner is an EXTREMELY well respected jurist in both the 7th circ. and Nationally.

You said: "However, there is another case that revolves around a union's attempt to harm the minority for the benefit of the majority. The union lost."

I don't follow you here with this statement. Please explain.

P.S. I noticed you quote Oscar Wilde...how about this one? "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't follow you here. Please explain.

Following a merger, the existing union at the larger company represented the majority of the combined class/craft and negotiated a change in the contract language so as to harm the minority. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the minority.

"While the majority of the craft chooses the bargaining representative, when chosen it represents, as the Act by its terms makes plain, the craft or class, and not the majority. The fair interpretation of the statutory language is that the organization chosen to represent a craft is to represent all its members, the majority as well as the minority, and it is to act for, and not against, those whom it represents."

In other words, acting to harm the minority is a sure DFR suit.

Jim

 

[end_of_alpa]

Following a merger, the existing union at the larger company represented the majority of the combined class/craft and negotiated a change in the contract language so as to harm the minority. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the minority.

"While the majority of the craft chooses the bargaining representative, when chosen it represents, as the Act by its terms makes plain, the craft or class, and not the majority. The fair interpretation of the statutory language is that the organization chosen to represent a craft is to represent all its members, the majority as well as the minority, and it is to act for, and not against, those whom it represents."

In other words, acting to harm the minority is a sure DFR suit.

Jim

Again, I agree with you here. What Posner RECOGNIZED, however, is that the "supposed" majority had twice FAILED to vote out ALPA and replace it with an agent, of THEIR choosing, that would HONOR their position. It is quite conceivable that if the majority here were to vote in, say, the Teamsters, and their policy was "endtailing" it could be possible that the MAJORITY could be endtailed below the MINORITY! So the MAJORITY better be educated on whom they vote for.

Again, we backtrack. If the MAJORITY won't vote for a CB agreement, what good is ANY section of the contract...including seniority?

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

The downloadable cards were considerably larger so when they were put in the box alphabetically they got mixed in with the pre-printed cards which made them difficult for sorting.

THE CARDS WERE LEGITIMATE, THEY SIMPLY HAD SOME OF THE STATEMENT TRIMMED OFF THE TOP. AN UNFORTUNATE CLERICAL ERROR WITH NO ILL INTENT OR MALICE. THAT IS ALL.

A review of the last several months activities, or lack there-of, reveals the following:

1) The JNC East refuses to negotiate for a joint CBA after having agreed to in the interim bargaining agreement with the company and the West pilot group.

2) The East MEC/Merger Committee agrees to final and binding seniority arbitration, but then refuses to acknowledge the award and even sues the West because of it.

3) A splinter group of disgruntled pilots from the East extorts (Gee, Bob, how come you haven't sent your card in yet - I spotted your name on the list!!) the majority into filling out representation cards, and then in a silly act of pomposity, voids the validity of many those cards. And now they are pleading with the government to overlook the rules - "It was just a clerical error."

Does anybody spot a trend here? The East consistently refuses to or is incapable of following the rules!! The track record out there is proven. How far does this nonsense have to go before the majority of the East pilot group realizes the damage they have caused themselves? I won't even mention the harm they have inflicted upon certain pilots on the West.

What will the next act of desperation be?

 

[Bear96]

The fact pattern is the focus, not the ruling...as I said.

Very interesting approach to legal analysis. So as long as the fact pattern in Case A is broadly similar to the fact pattern in Case B, the court's reasoning in reaching the ruling in Case A irrelevant to predicting the outcome of Case B? As long as there are some similarities in both fact patterns, the ultimate result will be the same, even if some details are materially different and the court in Case A was careful to limit its holding based on something specific in that case which doesn't exist in Case B?

 

[luvn737s]

Why doesn't the NMB get it? USAPA makes their own rules. Didn't they get the memo?

 

[hp_fa]

Again, I agree with you here. What Posner RECOGNIZED, however, is that the "supposed" majority had twice FAILED to vote out ALPA and replace it with an agent, of THEIR choosing, that would HONOR their position. It is quite conceivable that if the majority here were to vote in, say, the Teamsters, and their policy was "endtailing" it could be possible that the MAJORITY could be endtailed below the MINORITY! So the MAJORITY better be educated on whom they vote for.

The problem with that logic is that prior to Nicolau, East pilots had never made any serious effort to oust ALPA. A fact record from a trial would likely show, as facts, that East pilots had long been members of ALPA, had used ALPA and its Constitution and By-Laws previously and members of East only seriously entertained the thought of changing unions after losing an arbitration hearing post-merger. So, assuming a clean transcript from the trial court, any appellate court would be looking at any appeal from the trial court with those facts established and any presumptions would be in favor of those facts in the instant record. The appellate court would solely look at matters-of-law with the trial court having determined the facts.

Now, if my presumptions of what the trial record would show are incorrect, please feel free to educate me where I am wrong. I admit to not knowing the full union history of the East pilot group.

 

[prechilill]

Quoting Reagan,...."There you go again..."

If you DON"T vote for it, you DON'T get it. Let's see if the COMPANY gets it:

"The process was we have binding arbitration but it has to get ratified through the joint negotiation process. So what I would say to you is you say binding arbitration that was the first half of the agreement...the second half was it has to get ratified through joint negotiations." Scott Kirby, 07 Oct 2007, Tempe AZ Pilot Meeting

That is fine if you wish to validate your argument on a person with no legal experience like Kirby. I personally have very little respect for any of the senior managers of LCC so anything they say has very little value to me. Perhaps Kirby was speaking to assuage emotions, but what really is notable regarding Kirby (since you bring him up) is the senior management of our company endorsed the list, they did not stand in the way of it nor do I believe they would. But what LCC managers personally believe about Nicolau has little bearing on the validity of the seniority integration process- this case has everything to do with jurisprudence and the law. So far I have only seen a misinterpretation of two previous cases by your hired counsel as your evidence to invoke a new seniority list based on "majority rule". Forgive my skepticism, but the core challenge of overturning an arbitrated decision has not been addressed. None of the case law your counsel provides deals with overtunring selected arbitrated decisions. As I stated before, you are relying on a perceived technicality to disqualify Nicolau, a technicality due to the East's refusal to comply with an agreement they are party to. The courts will decide the merits of this, assuming USAPA is even elected which seems to be questionable due to this recent card fiasco.