Filed in Federal Court TODAY ... . . . Just the start of Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ART

Guest
Filed today in US Federal court and so HOT it hasnt made the front page..
Round Two (2) of the salvo.
Wake up John before it''s too late. Now lets talk 1 for 2 instead of 1 for 3.
Good luck, hide the APFA assets, the next filing might remove your fillings.
Hope nobody at AMR was in bed with these one sided derisive actions. Mayby the Cart was hoodwinked?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI


CYNTHIA JONES and SHERRY L. COOPER, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Filed Oct 16 2002
)
v. ) Cause No. 4:02CV01566DDN
)
THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL )
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND AMERICAN )
AIRLINES, INC. )
)
Defendants. )


COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

As and for their complaint against The Association of Professional Flight Attendants and American Airlines, Inc., Plaintiffs state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In the course of the negotiations leading up to the well-publicized acquisition of TWA by Defendant American Airlines, Defendant Association of Professional Flight Attendants (?APFA?), the certified bargaining representative for the American Airlines flight attendants, fought vigorously to protect the interests of the existing American Airline flight attendants vis a vis the TWA flight attendants who would soon be integrated into that company?s employ.
2. In addition, however, in conjunction with the acquisition of TWA, Inc. by American Airlines, the APFA, urged, requested, and ultimately on December 7, 2001, demanded that it be recognized as the sole bargaining representative for all flight attendants including the former TWA flight attendants

3. As a result, Defendant APFA became, and is, the recognized certified bargaining agent for all American Airline flight attendants, including those St. Louis-based, former TWA flight attendants.
4. Nonetheless, from the very beginning of the integration, the APFA has continually failed to comply with its duty to fairly represent all its members and has treated the St. Louis based TWA flight attendants, and New York based former TWA flight attendants, as second class citizens, causing them continued difficulties in the work place. Where a union is supposed to protect its workers, the APFA has continually been a source of problems for the St Louis and other flight attendants who used to work for TWA, whom the Defendant APFA is supposed to represent and champion.
5. The APFA has failed and refused to properly represent the St. Louis based former TWA flight attendant members in that it has refused to consider, approve or take actions which would benefit those members. Such action, if properly taken would protect St. Louis based flight attendants without causing any hardship or effect on any American Airlines flight attendants.
6. As a result of the actions, inactions, and courses of conduct of the APFA described more fully below, and the actions of American Airlines described more fully below, over two hundred and twenty (220) jobs of St Louis and other flight attendants have been, or will be lost, during a time when the nation?s and area?s economy makes job loss an especially devastating burden.
7. This action is brought by two former TWA flight attendant members of the APFA who have been damaged by the APFA?s failure to fairly represent them and others, as more detailed below, and who have been damaged by American Airline?s failure to abide by the integration agreements reached in conjunction with the acquisition of TWA by American.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Plaintiff Cynthia Jones is employed as a flight attendant by Defendant American Airlines through its wholly owned subsidiary, TWA, LLC, and is based in St. Louis, Missouri, Ms. Jones works in and out of St Louis and the Eastern District of Missouri. She is a sixteen year employee who will be furloughed effective November 1, 2002.
9. Plaintiff Sherry Cooper is employed as a flight attendant by Defendant American Airlines through its wholly owned subsidiary, TWA, LLC, and is based in St. Louis, Missouri and works in and out of St. Louis and the Eastern District of Missouri, She is a 27 year employee who has taken ?overage leave? as offered by Defendant American Airlines through TWA, LLC, its wholly owned subsidiary.
10. Defendant APFA, is, pursuant to the Railway Labor Act 45 U.S.C. §151-188, the certified bargaining representative for all American Airlines flight attendants, including Plaintiffs and the other St. Louis based flight attendants which work for Defendant American Airlines through TWA, LLC.
11. Defendant American Airlines and its wholly owned subsidiary, TWA, LLC are a ?single carrier? pursuant to federal law.
12. APFA has duly authorized officers in St. Louis, Missouri who are engaged in the representing and acting on behalf of the employee members of the APFA in St Louis and the Eastern District of Missouri.
13. Defendant American Airlines, Inc. (?American?) is a corporation and air carrier maintaining its business headquarters at 4333 Amon Carter Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76155. American established its wholly owned subsidiary TWA, LLC, as the vehicle through which American would (and does) carry on the operations of the former airline TWA until such time as operations are fully merged into American?s principal operations. TWA, LLC maintains its principal operations in St. Louis, Missouri and conducts business within this district.
14. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for breach of contract and breach of duty of fair representation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §185.
15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1231 and 1337 because it arises under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act 45 U.S.C. §151-188 and the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §141 et seq.
16. Venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Defendants are subject to personal service in this judicial circuit, operate their businesses within this district, a substantial part of Plaintiffs? claim arise within this district and a substantial number of APFA represented flight attendants working for Defendant American Airlines through TWA, LLC in this judicial district will be adversely affected by Defendant?s actions set forth herein.
COUNT I
Comes now Plaintiffs and for their cause of action against Defendant APFA state as follows:
17. On or about January 9, 2001 American Airlines entered into an agreement to purchase all of the assets of TWA, Inc.
18. American Airlines then formed TWA, LLC for the purposes of operating and owning TWA, Inc.?s assets. The purchase agreement was finalized on April 10, 2001 and at that time all of TWA, Inc.?s employees including its flight attendants became employees of American, through TWA, LLC.
19. On December 17, 2001, American Airlines and APFA entered into an ?Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters between American Airlines, Inc. and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants? (attached as Exhibit A) hereinafter ?Agreement?).
20. Under the terms of the Agreement St. Louis based TWA,LLC flight attendants would retain their ?relative? seniority as to each other while based in St. Louis for purposes of bidding and transfer rights.
21. Under the terms of the Agreement, American Airlines flight attendants who formerly worked for TWA and now work for American through TWA, LLC (Hereafter the St. Louis Flight Attendants) can only transfer/ bid for flights not based in St. Louis if the opening has already been bid by those American Airlines flight attendants who do not now work for American Airlines through TWA, LLC (hereafter the non-St. Louis Flight Attendants) and there are no non-St Louis Flight Attendants on furlough status. Section VIII(B) reads in full:
B. A flight attendant who is able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority date as set forth in paragraph VI may transfer/proffer to fill a vacancy in and fly trips assigned to an AA base at a location other than at St. Louis in accordance with the provisions for transfer/proffer provided in the CBA, utilizing the flight attendant?s AA occupational seniority as provided under paragraph III of this Agreement, in the event the opening has been offered for bidding by all [Non-St. Louis Flight Attendants] and there are no [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] on furlough status.

1. Following transfer by a [St Louis Flight Attendant] from a St. Louis base to an AA base at a location other than at St. Louis in accordance with paragraph VIII.B., the [St. Louis Flight Attendant?s] AA occupational seniority, as provided under paragraph III of this Agreement, shall be applicable for all purposes for which occupational seniority applies under the AA-APFA collective bargaining agreement, except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.2.

2. The following terms will apply to a [St. Louis Flight Attendant] who transfers during the existence of TWA-LLC operations to an AA base at a location other than St. Louis and who thereafter during the existence of TWA-LLC operations transfers/proffers to fill a vacancy in and fly trips at a St. Louis base.

a. If the first such transfer/proffer back from an AA base to St. Louis has an effective date that is within two years following the effective date of the initial transfer from St. Louis to the AA base, the flight attendant will be able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority date for such transfer/proffer and at the St. Louis base for bidding purposes determined by occupational seniority as long as the flight attendant thereafter remains based at St. Louis, provided that this exception to paragraphs VIII.A. and VIII.B. and B.1. shall not apply during any period of time in which any [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] are on furlough status.

b. If the first transfer back to a St. Louis base does not have an effective date that is within two years following the effective date of the initial transfer from St. Louis to the AA base, the flight attendant will not be able to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority rights for any purposes, including for transfer/proffer to a St. Louis base or for bidding purposes at a St. Louis base.

c. If, by application of paragraph VIII.B.2., the flight attendant is able to again use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority following an initial transfer back to a St. Louis bas, the flight attendant will only be able to continue to use her/his TWA-LLC occupational seniority so long as she/he continues to be based at St. Louis.

22. The APFA became the certified representative of all American Airlines Flight Attendants, including the TWA, LLC flight attendants, on or about May 2002 following its demand, and a national mediation board determination, that TWA, LLC and American be considered a ?single carrier? as defined under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.
23. Under its Constitution, the APFA is charged with protecting the individual and collective rights of the APFA?s members and the members are entitled to due process and equal representation. The governing body of the APFA is its Board of Directors.
24. On or about August 13, 2002, Defendant American Airlines announced that effective October 1, 2002 flights from St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui and effective November1, 2002 flights from St. Louis to London Gatwick which are TWA, LLC flights based out of St. Louis would be worked by Non-St Louis Flight Attendants.
25. At the same time, American Airlines announced that it would have to furlough 950 St. Louis Flight Attendants due to insufficient St Louis based flights.
26. Notwithstanding the announced furlough, American Airlines acknowledged that 220 of those St Louis Flight Attendants who would otherwise be furloughed could escape furlough if they were trained and/or transferred to fill positions on the?International? flights from St Louis to Gatwick, St Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui.
27. In order for those 220 positions to be made available to such St Louis Flight Attendants so that they would not have to be furloughed, American Airlines requested that the APFA remove from Section VIII(B) of the Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters the term ?and there are no [Non-St Louis Flight Attendants] on furlough status? (hereinafter referred to as ?the Section VIII(B) clause?).
28. Pursuant to the APFA Constitution, the removal of the aforementioned Section VIII(B) clause could be authorized by a majority vote of the board of directors of the APFA.
29. The elimination of the Section VIII(B) clause would allow 150 St. Louis Flight Attendants to transfer to New York, thereby reducing the number of furloughed St. Louis Flight Attendants by the same number. Those 150 flight attendants would be the most senior St. Louis Flight Attendants thereby improving Plaintiff Cooper?s and other St Louis Flight Attendants? relative seniority.
30. Plaintiff Cooper is a member of the Board of Directors of the APFA and has offered a resolution which would authorize the removal of the VIII(B) clause.
31. The APFA, however, has refused to consider the resolution, to vote on the resolution, or to consider the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause in any other resolution, vote, manner or fashion.
32. The APFA has not articulated, and has refused to articulate, its reason for its failure to act on the clause to Plaintiffs or any other St. Louis Flight Attendant
33. The non-action by the APFA regarding the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause is arbitrary, discriminates against the St Louis Flight Attendants who are members of the APFA and is in bad faith.
34. APFA?s failure to remove the transfer restriction discriminates against St. Louis based Flight Attendants in that senior St. Louis based Flight Attendants will be denied the opportunity to transfer to other locations while junior (furloughed) St. Louis based Flight Attendants will be forced to either relocate to bases other than St. Louis or give up all employment rights at American Airlines.
35. No additional American Airlines attendants (whether St Louis or Non-St Louis Flight Attendants) will be furloughed as a result of the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause and no American Airlines flight attendants currently on furlough status (whether St Louis or Non-St Louis Flight Attendants) will be harmed in that American Airlines flight attendants currently on furlough status are junior in seniority to the St. Louis Flight Attendants currently on furlough status and, pursuant to the integration agreement, cannot be recalled until such time as all St. Louis Flight Attendants are recalled.
36. Accordingly, removing the Section VIII(B) clause would benefit the St Louis Flight Attendant members of the APFA, including Plaintiffs, and would not harm or cause any detriment to any other member of the APFA.
37. There is thus no rational basis for the APFA?s refusal to consider or authorize the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause.
38. The failure and refusal of Defendant APFA to remove the SectionVIII(B) clause is a discriminatory practice against current St. Louis Flight Attendants.
39. The APFA has failed to take any action to challenge American Airlines decision to use Non-St. Louis flight attendants on the St. Louis to Honolulu, St. Louis to Maui and St. Louis to London (Gatwick) flights despite the fact that the use of Non-St. Louis flight attendants on those flights is a violation of the aforementioned ?Agreement?. In addition the APFA?s failure to demand that American Airlines train St. Louis Flight Attendants for the international flights is a breach of its duty to duty to represent the St. Louis Flight Attendants.
40. By reason of Defendant APFA?s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer extreme hardship and actual and impending irreparable damage in that Plaintiffs will be unable to bid for or work the ?international? flights referenced above.
41. Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law for the above-mentioned conduct of the Defendant APFA for reason that American Airlines has announced that the 220 positions will be filled by Non-St Louis Flight attendants unless an agreement is reached on the removal of the Section VIII(B) clause and American Airlines has begun to fill the international flights with Non-St. Louis based flight attendants.
42. Plaintiffs have exhausted all internal remedies available to them under the APFA Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 ordering Defendant APFA to vote to approve the removal of the ?Section VIII(B) clause? from the ?Agreement?; to take whatever action is necessary to allow St. Louis Flight Attendants to bid for/work the TWA, LLC flights from St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui; issue a permanent injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining Defendant APFA from preventing the TWA, LLC flight attendants from working the flights from St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui; award Plaintiff its costs and attorney?s fees and for any further relief the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II
Comes now Plaintiffs and for their cause of action against American Airlines, states as follows:
43. That Plaintiffs restate and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 21 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
44. Pursuant to the Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters, all international and domestic flights based out of St. Louis, Missouri must be flown and/or offered for bid to St. Louis Flight Attendants based out of St. Louis.
45. On or about August 13, 2002, Defendant American Airlines announced that effective October 1, 2002 flights from St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui and effective November1, 2002 flights from St. Louis to London Gatwick which are TWA, LLC flights based out of St. Louis would be worked by Non-St Louis Flight Attendants based outside of St. Louis.
46. That the use of Non-St Louis Flight Attendants on the aforementioned TWA, LLC flights based out of St. Louis is a violation of the Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters.
47. Plaintiffs and the other St Louis Flight Attendants are intended beneficiaries of the Agreement on Seniority Integration and Related Matters.
48. Although American Airlines claims that its assignment of Non-St Louis Flight Attendants to the aforementioned ?International? flights is ?temporary?, American Airlines has taken no action to train, or otherwise make these positions available to current St, Louis Flight Attendants.
49. By reason of Defendant?s actions, Plaintiffs will suffer extreme hardship and actual and impending irreparable damage in that they will lose their positions and/or the ability to bid for a position on the St. Louis flights to Gatwick, Honolulu and Maui and/or will be furloughed and/or will be deprived of the ability to transfer to a base outside St. Louis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 ordering Defendant American Airlines to refrain immediately and pending the final hearing and determination of this action from operating the St. Louis to Gatwick, St. Louis to Honolulu and St. Louis to Maui flights with American Airline flight attendants; issue a permanent injunction perpetually enjoining and restraining Defendant American Airlines from operating the St. Louis based flights to Gatwick, Honolulu and Maui International Airport with American Airlines flight attendants; award Plaintiffs their costs and attorney?s fees in this matter and any further relief the Court deems appropriate.
 
OP
A

ART

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/16/2002 9:45:09 PM WXGuesser wrote:

Can we get them some cheese?


Peace!


----------------
[/blockquote]
What's Love Got To Do With It.
This Friday on the Today Show - In Semi Concert- Faith Hill
Performing at least 2 numbers, maybe more.

I'll take Monterey Jalepeno Jack, thanks just a random piece.
 

WingNaPrayer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,742
0
EYW
Visit site
This is the most poorly written complaint I've ever seen. It totally fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A well timed motion for summary judgment will probably take care of this one in short order.
 
OP
B

bagsmasher

Guest
WingNa,
I haven't addressed you here in this forum for quite so time for obvious reasons, but I'd like to know if you got your layoff notice yet?
 

ITRADE

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
2,860
0
DCA/IAD US2
www.geocities.com
[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/17/2002 6:28:23 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:[BR][BR]This is the most poorly written complaint I've ever seen. It totally fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A well timed motion for summary judgment will probably take care of this one in short order.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR][BR]If you really feel that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, simply argue such in your answer and aver a Rule 12(B)(5) defense. No need to have to jump all the way to a formalized motion for SJ. Then again, many courts treat 12(B)(5) defenses as automatic motions for SJ, so it goes without saying.[/P]
[P]BTW, I have seen complaints before which were much, much worse than this.[/P]
 
OP
A

ART

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/17/2002 6:28:23 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:

This is the most poorly written complaint I've ever seen. It totally fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A well timed motion for summary judgment will probably take care of this one in short order.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Actually, the complaint and any petition can be crafted as simply as an oral statement. If you dont think so - frame this:

A poor Hispanic or Polish or Irish or Italian or Russian or whomever, that does not have a command of the english language or doesnt even speak enflish has been battered by a spouse. He/She goes to the courst and asks for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the offending spouse from interacting with them for a particular period of time. The Judge isnt going to ask for it to be done on 100% rag stock, in a pleading form.

Sometimes the street is good, sometimes it aint. In this case anything is better than the CS way the APFA limp wristed the attack on the LLC employees. For AMR to join in was the real travesty.

Remember, when you deal with people of limited moral fibre, the leaders of APFA, justice will prevail, even to the extent of The Cart filing BK, kicking the APFA out of the way. This will make the situaion ripe for real women and a few men of dignity.

You APFA supporters are driven by today's greed and mental illness.

Come out and play!
 

ITRADE

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
2,860
0
DCA/IAD US2
www.geocities.com
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/19/2002 1:23:20 AM ART wrote:
[P][/P][BR]Actually, the complaint and any petition can be crafted as simply as an oral statement. If you dont think so - frame this:[BR][BR]A poor Hispanic or Polish or Irish or Italian or Russian or whomever, that does not have a command of the english language or doesnt even speak enflish has been battered by a spouse. He/She goes to the courst and asks for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the offending spouse from interacting with them for a particular period of time. The Judge isnt going to ask for it to be done on 100% rag stock, in a pleading form. [BR][BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Yes, yes.....We know. Notice pleading at its best.[/P]
 

QQ3270

Member
Aug 20, 2002
51
0
Hey Art one day AA is going to get so sick of llc and sell it off and lay all of you off
watch it
 

MiAAmi

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
1,490
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/19/2002 1:23:20 AM ART wrote:


Remember, when you deal with people of limited moral fibre, the leaders of APFA, justice will prevail, even to the extent of The Cart filing BK, kicking the APFA out of the way. This will make the situaion ripe for real women and a few men of dignity.

You APFA supporters are driven by today's greed and mental illness.

Come out and play!
----------------
[/blockquote]

ART,

Greed? I didn't get a 40% raise after the buyout

Mental Illness? Well yes, I must be crazy to respond to this post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.