Let's assume its ripe for hypothetical purposes, because it eventually will be.
What will be the standard to determine if USAPA has breached its DFR, and what fact(s) will be compared to that standard? That is to say, lets clarify what terms must be employed by the courts when it is ripe in order to judge if USAPA, or any successor union, has indeed breached its DFR. I'll even spot you an important fact.... USAPA will never agree to anything that uses the NIC.
Now, which standard will the court stipulate for use:
1) Will the standard be a LUP, with the alleged motives of USAPA being compared to the LUP standard (whatever that nebulous, so-called "standard" is)? First off, even if one wins such a lawsuit, how does one determine actual damages based on some subjective thing like a union's "purpose was naughty", rather than on something concrete like the union's representational product was demonstrably unfair?
2) Will the standard be strict compliance of all contractual requirements in force at the time of ripeness, as compared to USAPA's fulfillment of those contractual requirements, irrespective of the end product of negotiations? (i.e. Does the outcome of negotiations matter at all, or is it only the compliance with contracts in force that matter?) It is worth noting that the West premise to their allegation of ripeness is based solely on USAPA's supposed non-compliance with the TA (a minor dispute), and no court has found USAPA to be in non-compliance with any contract.
OR... 3) Will the standard be a "wide range of reasonableness" for the end product, with the end product of negotiations being compared to that explicit standard as rendered by the SCOTUS?
What is the measure of fairness... and is fairness revealed (and judged) according to one's purpose or by one's product?