June - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Zone5]

Oh, well. I've kind of gotten used to my moldy little "piece of cheese". At least I get to "choose" what to munch on.


seajay

 

[Barrister]

Aside from your angry swear words....What part of "binding arbitration" do you not understand? The binding part, or the arbitration part?

Why do you care??

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[EastCheats]

Aside from your angry swear words....What part of "binding arbitration" do you not understand? The binding part, or the arbitration part?

Let's review.....

ARBITRATION:
The submission of a dispute to an unbiased third person designated by the parties to the controversy, who agree in advance to comply with the award—a decision to be issued after a hearing at which both parties have an opportunity to be heard.

Arbitration is a well-established and widely used means to end disputes. It is one of several kinds of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which provide parties to a controversy with a choice other than litigation. Unlike litigation, arbitration takes place out of court: the two sides select an impartial third party, known as an arbitrator; agree in advance to comply with the arbitrator's award; and then participate in a hearing at which both sides can present evidence and testimony. The arbitrator's decision is usually final, and courts rarely reexamine it.

Ultimately, the decision to use arbitration cannot be made lightly. Most arbitration is considered binding: parties who agree to arbitration are bound to that agreement and also bound to satisfy any award determined by the arbitrator. Courts in most jurisdictions enforce awards. Moreover, they allow little or no option for appeal, expecting parties who arbitrate to assume the risks of the process. In addition, arbitration is subject to the legal doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel, which together strictly curtail the option of bringing suits based on issues that were or could have been raised initially.

Res judicata means that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or Cause of Action. Collateral estoppel means that when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid judgment, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties in future litigation. Thus, often the end is truly in sight at the conclusion of an arbitration hearing and the granting of an award.

The FAA gives only four grounds on which a court may vacate, or overturn, an award: (1) where the award is the result of corruption, Fraud, or undue means; (2) where the arbitrators were evidently partial or corrupt; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing or hear pertinent evidence, or where their misbehavior prejudiced the rights of any party; and (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or imperfectly executed them so that a mutual, final, and definite award was not made. In the 1953 case Wilkov. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S. Ct. 182, 98 L. Ed. 168, the U.S. Supreme Court suggested, in passing, that an award may be set aside if it is in "mani-fest disregard of the law," and federal courts have sometimes followed this principle. Public policy can also be grounds for vacating, but this recourse is severely limited to well-defined policy based on legal precedent, a rule emphasized by the Supreme Court in the 1987 case United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, 484U.S. 29, 108 S. Ct. 364, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286.

 

[Ames]

This has to be the most pompous BULLSHIT post I have ever read here. You never know how you career will turn out. Remember this you pompous idiot. Over two thirds of the US Air list DID NOT originally work for US Air. The stupidity of some of you is sometimes hard to fathom.

PS..Did you see Parkers crew news in PHX where he says HIS OWN attorneys tell him it will most likely be a 3 way under Macaskill-Bond......very interesting!!

NICDOA
NPJB

Hey, it's always fun to go back to the third grade schoolyard, isn't it. I'll ignore the name calling and admit that you are right, we never know how our career will turn out. What we choose to do with our career is what matters. For instance, some of us would cling to a failing company and ride it to the bottom in the desperate hope that things will improve, all the while taking the lumps as they come. Others, like myself, would choose to seek other and better situations.

I don't begrudge those of you clingers for doing nothing and hoping for the best. I do begrudge you for attempting to redeem you lousy choices on my back. Three way? Not likely, but we'll see. Remember, barrister, stupid is as stupid does. Keep clinging.

 

[Ames]

The perpetual need to ascribe blame against the East as justification for the Nic they "deserved" as some sort of retribution for "over-reaching"... Well it isn't much of an argument explaining how it is fair and equatable or how it avoids being a windfall. In fact it completely forgets about the parameters placed on Nicky.

No blame, no retrubution. Just explaining the process and how your side refused to participate. You were all in for arbitration and when that didn't go your way you threw a tantrum. Tantrums are usually not rewarded. I will watch with amusement and glee when your side finally gets spanked.

 

[Ames]

Nicky, ain't too sticky..... as in binding, for the West folks.

The judge will render a decision in a matter of weeks. What's your plan if you are wrong about this? You're running out of options and I doubt that APA will be very sympathetic.

 

[Ames]

Aside from your angry swear words....What part of "binding arbitration" do you not understand? The binding part, or the arbitration part?

It appears that barrister doesn't understand much.

 

[luvthe9]

The judge will render a decision in a matter of weeks. What's your plan if you are wrong about this? You're running out of options and I doubt that APA will be very sympathetic.

Exactly what happened when Wake overstepped his bounds. It goes to the 9th. The outcome there has already been done once. Do you expect some sort of epiphany and they change their minds about internal union disputes? Just because the AZ legal system can't get their heads around it doesn't mean anything.

 

[luvthe9]

No blame, no retrubution. Just explaining the process and how your side refused to participate. You were all in for arbitration and when that didn't go your way you threw a tantrum. Tantrums are usually not rewarded. I will watch with amusement and glee when your side finally gets spanked.

Well, when ALPA warned you about your risk, you blew them off also, so expect and get the same. This time the outcome will really be what Freund predicted. "ALL THE RISK LIES WITH THE WEST......."

 

[luvthe9]

[7] Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated


It goes to the court that already said this..........

 

[luvthe9]

You kids are honestly coming down to the wire now on the Nic dream. It is about to implode. And Parker had a hand in it. Nice.

 

[Ames]

Exactly what happened when Wake overstepped his bounds. It goes to the 9th. The outcome there has already been done once. Do you expect some sort of epiphany and they change their minds about internal union disputes? Just because the AZ legal system can't get their heads around it doesn't mean anything.

Do you understand the difference between a DFR lawsuit and a request for declaratory judgement?

 

[Ames]

Well, when ALPA warned you about your risk, you blew them off also, so expect and get the same. This time the outcome will really be what Freund predicted. "ALL THE RISK LIES WITH THE WEST......."

Well, if that's true then we gambled. Let's see what happens when Judge Silver rules. At least I didn't have to be over 700 numbers junior to a guy who was furloughed when this abomination happened. If nothing else I avoided that pitfall for the past few years with the chance coming that I will never have to be junior to guys furloughed at the time of merger, who also have less LOS than I.

 

[Ames]

[7] Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated


It goes to the court that already said this..........

You can quote snippets of transcripts all day long to spin your argument. Intelligent people will recognize the truth is in the totality of said transcript.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Exactly what happened when Wake overstepped his bounds. It goes to the 9th. The outcome there has already been done once. Do you expect some sort of epiphany and they change their minds about internal union disputes? Just because the AZ legal system can't get their heads around it doesn't mean anything.

So how does a process called for and agreed to as part of a collective bargaining agreement, affectionately known as the Transition Agreement, get classified as an "internal union dispute"? Do you think the law clerks at the Ninth forgot about that little detail or were they just inventing new legal definitions of "internal" now involving the various parties represented by Management?

BTW, you never responded to my question about how the Ninth could have resolved the parties' dispute over the seniority issue and the binding nature of the arbitration award if they determined that the court (i.e. themselves) did not posses the jurisdictional authority to resolve the controversies in this case. Care to weigh in on that now? How can a court that has no jurisdictional authority to provide a resolution somehow in turn provide a resolution on a matter which they have no right to resolve?