June - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

I believe this pretty much kills any argument that age should be a factor and that it is not fair that the east pilots are older and therefore "deserve" something other than what you got with the Nicolau.

Although Cook asks the court to require a defendant such as Pan Am to examine any prospective seniority system for a possibly negative impact on older workers, they do not suggest a standard against which the "negative impact" is to be measured. The Second Circuit has stated explicitly that the "mere fact that plaintiffs would have fared better under a different scheme does not show that the merged seniority list is a `subterfuge' to evade the ADEA." Cook, 771 F.2d at 644. Presumably plaintiffs are requesting the court to hold that Pan Am must put older pilots in the same position or better than younger pilots with the same seniority, either as an absolute rule or absent a specific reason for elevating the particular younger individual over the older. In practical terms, this would require any large-scale arbitration award, resulting from a merger or otherwise, to observe strict seniority, despite legitimate reasons for deviating from strict seniority, such as preserving pre-merger expectations.
By outlawing plans that are a subterfuge to evade the Act's ban on discrimination on the basis of age, Congress did not intend to dictate the outcome of an arbitration free of discriminatory intent on the part of the arbitrator and the parties. It is enough that Pan Am and the Unions did not base their decisions to adopt and comply with the Award on the basis of the ages of the pilots. To decide otherwise would be to require arbitrators to always reach a decision on the basis of age, despite a clear mandate to the contrary. See Williams v. General Motors Corp.,656 F.2d 120, 129 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) ("ADEA mandates that an employer reach employment decisions without regard to age"), cert. denied,

[size="2pt"][ 647 F.Supp. 826 ][/size]​

455 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 1439, 71 L.Ed.2d 655 (1982).
Even if this court were to adopt the "willfulness" standard espoused by plaintiffs, summary judgment on this issue would, nevertheless, be appropriate. Pan Am concededly knew that the system created by the Award had a disproportionate impact on the seniority rights of Pan Am pilots, who were older as a group than the National pilots. Nevertheless, Pan Am was justified in relying on the arbitration process in which the age of the pilots was a major concern, and in relying on its own legitimate business reason for adopting the Award.

 

[nic4us]

Pretty much......"Not that you were wrong.." Being wrong just results in an immediate change in the subject material subsequently offered by these kids. It's truly amazing to see how much dodging, twisting, turning and spinning some of them are willing to perform.

Good morning Mr. Kettle....

lets talk about the appeals board election, shall we?

Care to explain why usapa needed to change its policies to void a valid election result, and not continue within the framework of its own C&BLs?

My twisted, dodging, turning and spinnig guess would be it is a scab union seeking to renege on binding arbitration and steal West seniority.

What say you?

 

[nic4us]

Sigh!...Again with the astounding delusions of being qualified to speak for "the rest of the world".....?

Less ingestion of the "fairy dust" is strongly suggested.

Well...I supoose you are right. After all, who is qualified to speak for the entire world?

Meriam Webster is such an idiot thinking the world would reference a source to find a common meaning of a word or term.

Then there is the folks over at Guinness. World record my a$$. We all know usapa holds the record for largerst collection of infantile whining adults upset over the exposure of their career position.

 

[cleardirect]

Another look at the case.

18
Two groups of airmen petitioned the CAB to set aside the Gill award. The Janus Group, formed at the time of approval proceedings before the CAB and representing 510 Pan Am crewmen who had been furloughed before the merger, maintained that the Gill award failed adequately to consider the interests of its members and that it was not "fair and equitable" within the meaning of the labor protection provision of CAB Order 79-12-164, at 1. The Janus Group sought a new arbitration in which it would be granted full party status.
19
Pan American Pilots Fighting ("PAPF"), a group of Pan American crewmen who had been employed from dates before the merger, which was formed after the arbitration award to oppose it, argued that the Gill award must be set aside because it used a ratio method to integrate the middle portion of the Pilot List. PAPF maintained that only a "time served" method of integration, either LOS or DOH, was "fair and equitable" and that use of a ratio method was inconsistent with the labor protective provisions that the CAB had imposed in approving the merger. PAPF sought a CAB order integrating the seniority list on a time served basis or renegotiation of the integration with PAPF and the Janus Group as parties.
20
The CAB rejected the two petitions in an order dated April 15, 1982, noting:
21
"The carrier's action is wholly consistent with our long-held, and judicially approved, view that 'absent a showing of bad faith, the adoption by a carrier of an integrated seniority list proposed by the collective bargaining representatives of the employees involved amounts to the carrier having made "provisions * * * for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner" within the meaning of section 3 of the Board's labor protective provisions.'[sup]13[/sup] It follows, therefore, that we also dismiss Janus Group's and PAPF's petitions to set aside the award.

All of the east argument have been made before. It was not fair. DOH/LOS is the only way. Time served must be honored. We want a do over.

All of those arguments were rejected then and are rejuected now. Notice where it said " judicially approved"? So much for Sehams argument that the supreme court says it has to be the "gold standard".

 

[EastUS1]

After all, who is qualified to speak for the entire world?

Well....You certainly aren't, nor am I, or anyone else posting here. What's your point?

 

[EastUS1]

lets talk about the appeals board election, shall we?

What say you?

Had you bothered to read my previously posted thoughts on that; you would know I completely disagreed with how that was handled and believe the west people should have had those elected positions, and that union leadership was wrong to do as they did.

Now then; Why is it so clearly impossible for "The Knights who say Nic" to EVER admit even the slightest failings regarding ANY aspect of the west side's actions?...or even "attitude"?

 

[cleardirect]

50
"Arbitrator Gill was faced with totally opposed positions for the integration of the seniority lists, and the parties were fully permitted to develop their cases supporting their separate positions in a record involving over 4,700 transcript pages and hundreds of exhibits. In the end the arbitrator did what most arbitrators do--he picked parts of the different positions and made compromises to arrive at what he believed was an equitable result. There is no way, given the sharply divergent and contested positions of the parties, that the arbitrator could ever reach a result that was fully acceptable to all parties--to say nothing of the individual pilots and flight engineers whose interests were represented in the proceeding. That is an inevitable result of arbitration. The fact that dissatisfaction remains is no basis for requiring another seniority integration." CAB Order 82-4-75, at 13.

So much for the "I don't like it" argument. If Nicolau had only made me a little more happy it would be OK but we want a do over because I am not happy. It must be all about MEEEEEEE.

 

[Pi brat]

Another look at the case.


All of the east argument have been made before. It was not fair. DOH/LOS is the only way. Time served must be honored. We want a do over.

All of those arguments were rejected then and are rejuected now. Notice where it said " judicially approved"? So much for Sehams argument that the supreme court says it has to be the "gold standard".

Transference? Subject not in question counselor. We were talking about whether an arbitrator had/should look at ages going forward and what to do about it. You were WRONG. Grow a pair and admit it.

But I will address your points. About overturning an award. If you will think back you will remember that I've said that I think we are stuck with the Nic. As a matter of fact, I believe the vast majority of east felt that ALPA's method of fighting the Nic was a path to failure, hence their vote for USAPA.

On what Nicolau might have looked at. I have no idea. I only know what he published in his opinion and award. Why don't you go find an award that puts generally older pilots with 15+ longevity beside generally younger pilots with a few years longevity max, thereby shifting the career possibilities massively to the younger, shorter longevity pilots. Or one that said this:

"In the exercise of caution, we have also constructed the list on a
no-growth basis, using the fleet as it existed on January 1, 2007, and
giving no weight to pre-merger orders except to the extent that any
such additions were in place as of January 1, 2007. Our judgment as to
the fleet is based, not on asserted expectations as both sides urged,
but on reality. Particularly in this day and age, with airline instability a
way of life, it makes little sense to rely on pre-merger projections. This
is especially the case here when the financial picture of both airlines
was less than optimum. A January 1, 2007 list also is a closer
reflection of reality on the merged airline."

Yet gave a larger number of east pilots not their relative position from 2007, but locked them into their pre-merger status.

You were wrong clear. You are a lot. I've shown it over and over again.

 

[cleardirect]

55
"Neither group, both formed to forward the views of some Pan Am furloughees and pilots, respectively, who were otherwise represented in the intra-union arbitration by Pan Am Engineers and Pan Am pilots, has shown that these union representatives breached their duty of fair representation. The record before us amply demonstrates that all union parties vigorously advocated positions on seniority integration advantageous to their members. Janus Group, in addition, appeared in the arbitration to express, directly to Arbitrator Gill, its position for furloughees. To the extent that some of the parties failed to prevail in the substance of their views, and hence occasioned disappointment for certain furloughees and pilots, that is not grounds for our review of the intrinsic nature of the integration system established by the award. It is well-settled that the Board properly 'decline to review and to enter judgment on the merits of * * * [union representatives'] negotiated resolution of * * * [an internal union] seniority dispute arising out of a merger' if satisfied 'that the resolution was reached in a fair and equitable manner.' Here, the record shows that the labor parties adopted fair and equitable procedures--four-way negotiation, mediation, and final and binding arbitration--to resolve their differences on merged seniority; and that the procedures were faithfully carried out--even to the unanimous selection of an eminent arbitrator in airline seniority matters." CAB Order 82-4-75, at 11

 

[Pi brat]

Pretty much......"Not that you were wrong.." Being wrong just results in an immediate change in the subject material subsequently offered by these kids. It's truly amazing to see how much dodging, twisting, turning and spinning some of them are willing to perform.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[Pi brat]

We all know usapa holds the record for largerst collection of infantile whining adults upset over the exposure of their career position.

No Nic, I'd have to disagree. I try to be objective and I've conceded a lot of points to the west, but on the whining score you guys win hands down. Reference the glorious ##$%$%Q@##$#@@ post from fodase.

 

[EastUS1]

Amazing, isn't it?

Indeed sir. Just the alacrity with which one shed his position as a professor of mathematics to again don his judges robes was most impressive 😉 At it's best here...it's cheap entertainment. At it's worst....a rather sad study in some less than desireable human traits. Oh well. Back to some real life fun for now. Have a good one all.

 

[Claxon]

You stupid xxx guzziling goat haired gutter whore scum bag, you call having two fully staffed comittees, spending millions, hiring experts and lawyers, holding arbitration hearings and following a well defined indepedant process agreed to by both parties as "fairy dust and fantasies"? You don't deserve to breathe the same air we do let alone fly an airplane you idiotic simple minded unic.

Will we be hearing from this fellow after this or are the rules changed to all in for the western division group? This even surpasses the startling rants produced by Nic4 US. Franke himself would be startled by the turn this forum has taken. Is the USAirways management aware this fellow is a potential Clayton Osbon at JetBlue?

 

[luvthe9]

You stupid cum guzziling goat haired gutter whore scum bag, you call having two fully staffed comittees, spending millions, hiring experts and lawyers, holding arbitration hearings and following a well defined indepedant process agreed to by both parties as "fairy dust and fantasies"? You don't deserve to breathe the same air we do let alone fly an airplane you idiotic simple minded unic.

Here is my point about the westies going off the deep end. such potty mouth from children.

 

[Barrister]

Nic. did settle it but one party is a bunch of dishonorable scabs.

Such an angry young man.....why don't you go back to flight instructing......probably alot less stress than hanging around these boards!!!
You will just have to wait your turn...about 15-20 years should do it.

NICDOA
NPJB