http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ/Doc_267_Plts_Response_to_USAPA_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment.pdf
Talk about "cherry picking", how the Westicle Lawyers really EVADE the truth buy partial quoting court cases that SUPPORT USAPA POSITIONS!
What they REALLY SAID!
Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition - 420 U.S. 50 (1975)
"In vesting the representatives of the majority with this broad power, Congress did not, of course, authorize a tyranny of the majority over minority interests. First, it confined the exercise of these powers to the context of a "unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,"
i.e., a group of employees with a sufficient commonality of circumstances to ensure against the submergence of a minority with distinctively different interests in the terms and conditions of their employment.
See Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass, 404 U. S. 157,
404 U. S. 171 (1971). Second, it undertook in the 1959 Landrum-Griffin amendments, 73 Stat. 519, to assure that minority voices are heard as they are in the functioning of a democratic institution. Third, we have held, by the very nature of the exclusive bargaining representative's status as representative of all unit employees, Congress implicitly imposed upon it a duty fairly and in good faith to represent the interests of minorities within the unit.
Vaca v. Sipes, supra; Wallace Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U. S. 248 (1944);
cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 (1944). And the Board has taken the position that a union's refusal to process grievances against racial discrimination, in violation of that duty, is an unfair labor practice.
Hughes Tool Co., 147 N.L.R.B. 1573 (1964);
see Miranda Fuel Co., 140 N.L.R.B. 181 (1962),
enforcement denied, 326 F.2d 172 (CA2 1963). Indeed, the Board has ordered a union implicated by a collective bargaining agreement in discrimination with an employer to propose specific contractual provisions to prohibit racial discrimination.
See Local Union No. 12, United Rubber Workers of America v. NLRB, 368 F.2d 12 (CA5 1966) (enforcement granted).
B
Against this background of long and consistent adherence to the principle of exclusive representation tempered by safeguards for the protection of minority interests, respondent urges this Court to fashion a limited exception to that principle: employees who seek to bargain separately with their employer as to the elimination of racially discriminatory employment practices peculiarly affecting them [
Footnote 15] should be free from the constraints of the exclusivity principle of § 9(a). Essentially because established procedures under Title VII or, as in this case, a grievance machinery, are too time-consuming, the national labor policy against discrimination requires this exception, respondent argues, and its adoption would not unduly compromise the legitimate interests of either unions or employers."
They LOST before the Supreme Court JUST LIKE LEONIDAS WILL! Hell, their lawyers cannot even quote Barton Brands which was about changing FROM a DOH to end-tailing the minority, or Bernard where ALPA actually EXCLUDED the Jet America pilots with their integration with Alaska.
"By way of remedy, the district court: (1) directed ALPA to apply its current merger policy providing for negotiation, mediation and arbitration in order to resolve merger and seniority integration disputes between the two groups of pilots; (2) directed ALPA to treat the former Jet America pilots as a separate ALPA-represented group for purposes of implementing this policy and to appoint three Jet America pilot merger representatives; (3) vacated and set aside the October 6, 1987, seniority integration agreement between ALPA and Alaska Airlines; and (4) specified the basis by which pilots would be furloughed, promoted and given flying assignments in the interim period until a new agreement could be reached." Bernard, ALPA screwing the smaller group by shoving them down to the bottom.
Barton Brands where the company convinced the unions to merge DOH in their first contract, the COMPANY didn't do what they promised and the NEXT contract the employees wanted to END TAIL the smaller employee group. (Which they eventually did anyway).
Or how about their old stale argument from Air Wisconsin, even though what Posner said was obviously what that union implied they were going to do and deny the minority a voice and a VOTE. Something USAPA NEVER DID!
You West pilots and your lowlife scum attorneys are going to get exactly what they deserve. And when you lose... and you WILL LOSE.... you Westicles feel free to go POSTAL on Posinelli for promising you something you'll NEVER HAVE!
