Thank you Judge Silver. You guys got destroyed. Man up and admit it. The Nic is not the list, not anymore.
AUG/SEPT 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
Thank you Judge Silver. You guys got destroyed. Man up and admit it. The Nic is not the list, not anymore.
LCC is free to negotiate with the scabs and get the living daylights sued out of it...as they said in court today, "we already know from Addington that a non-NIc is a DFR".
Now lets see, the scabs could try and pass the DFR ball to the APA, who ain't going to touch it.....but who can LCC pass the massive lawsuit to...um...the surviving company maybe.....yeah. like that is going to happen.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
For clarification I doubt Silver promised to indemnify LCC, ie I doubt she promised to compensate DUI for any future monetary responsibility/cost he could possibly incur for a future Nic suit...
Did she say they would have immunity from a lawsuit with regard to the Nic?
He is listening alright. That is why the scab union is parked and under a federal injunction you idiot.
Get back to me when the CEO of LCC is ready to go along with the scab plan and lose his company.
"Yesterday, we slaughtered them and we will continue to slaughter them."
That was classic material indeed! I didn't see it at the time, but I understand there was actually a video showing an Abrams poking it's nose in, just around the street corner! 😉 Oh well...one couldn't blame a desperate enemy for propaganda and unintentional comic relief....and most, at the time, were just hoping for a "stray" bomb to hit Peter Arnett anyway. 😉
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Subject: Fwd: Silver Court
Now here's a damn good piece of news!
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gary Hummel" <ghummel@usairlinepilots.org>
Date: October 2, 2012, 6:48:13
Subject: Silver Court
Today Judge Silver held oral argument on the motions for summary judgements by USAPA, US Airways and the West Pilots. She handed out a proposed order which is subject to revision. The proposed order granted USAPA's motion for summary judgement and denied the West Pilots motion.
USAPA is free to propose any seniority integration and is not bound by the NIC.
Regards,
Gary
Sent from my iPhone
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
Never mind, I got the answer.
Silver asked USAPA to write a proposed order that grants usapa their motion for summary judgment, denies USAPA motion for discovery and denies the Addington class their motion for summary judgment and dissolves Addington class.
Prediction:
AOL appeals (appeal by right, as they should and maybe joined by company)
AOL asks appeals court for temporary stay of the order (denied)
AOL asks appeals court for oral argument (denied)
AOL looses appeal.
AOL asks appeals court for En Banc ruling (denied)
AOL applies for certiorari to the SCOTUS (cert. denied)
Closure? That's yet to be seen but extremely LONG LONG ODDS when suing US Airways and USAPA/APA. Good luck.
We will have to wait to read the transcripts, but it went something like "because of the all knowing 9th, I have to say that usapa is free to negotiate".
The company does not like the opinion because she punted.
Good God.... now all the scabs are really going to be disappointed.
Punted, then USAPA ran it into the end zone, again.
Aw, I feel so sorry for the company. B.S. They knew what they were doing all the time.
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
She can't indemnify the company. If a JCBA is ever reached then AOL has to sue at least one of the parties (either USAPA/APA or LCC, but usually both) BUT must prove both: LCC breeched the contract AND USAPA/APA failed in their DFR. That's why its called a "Hybrid 301/ DFR claim.
http://www.berrymoor...ybrid-secti.php
"The employee may, if he chooses, sue one defendant and not the other; but the case he must prove is the same whether he sues one, the other, or both. The suit is thus not a straightforward breach of contract suit under § 301, as was Hoosier, but a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim, amounting to "a direct challenge to the private settlement of disputes under [the collective bargaining agreement].'" Mitchell, supra, at 451 U. S. 66 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment), quoting Hoosier, 383 U.S. at 383 U. S. 702. Also unlike the claim in Hoosier, it has no close analogy in ordinary state law. The analogies suggested in Mitchell both suffer from flaws not only of legal substance, but, more important, of practical application in view of the policies of federal labor law and the practicalities of hybrid § 301/fair representation litigation."
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/151/case.html
Even A LOT LESS likely then ADDINGTON I that they'll prevail the next time for DFR II.
I hope they appeal (for closure and because its a cheap date at this point) so we can move on to more important things than name calling and insults.
See you at the CLT meeting tomorrow.
From ADDINGTON? Better read the transcripts, the minute that "WAKES" order was vacated that case ceases to exist, you are back to square one, get out your checkbooks, your going to have to find another judge that needs a hobby case like "WAKE DID! MM!
Debacle? You mean the Addington case that the West got usapa pinned to the ground on?
Hey moron...my bet now is that the company will appeal Silver's ruling....and the east gets to stay parked on LOA93.
Doug says thanks for financing his next merger, and the APA boys say thanks for funding their retirements.
- Status
Similar threads
