What's new

Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
PullUp said:
LLC is an abbreviation for "limited liability corporation". It means that the only assets that someone can sue for are the LLC's, not the individual(s) who owns the LLC.
They are a good way to form a small business and protect your personal money while doing so. 
It is very easy to initiate and form a LLC, as opposed to say, a non-profit organization. I would imagine a non-profit requires more paperwork and a vetting by a govt. agency.
Cheers.
 
 
So you mean an LLC is for profit.... Can it be that some West pilot "leaders" made a profit off of all this...?  And did so under the umbrella of liability protection, regardless of how it all turns out?   Nobody can sue the West pilot "leaders" for their endorsement of the MOU, "according to the terms"?   :blink:  😛
 
Perhaps there needs to be some pointed questions at the next meet and greet! 😀
 
Pi brat said:
"Mark,

I sure hope you are correct. The part of your theory that bothers me is that yes, the company accepted the Nic, but there are conditions in the TA that need to be satisfied in order for it to be utilized. If the MOU does away with the TA, then those conditions are never met.
 
Pat"
 
Sounds like Pat was thinking like an eastie. Bet they shouted him down real quick.
"If"????? the MOU does away with the TA????? Could it be any clearer? Is black and white not obvious enough? These guys are lawyers? Did you check to see what their class ranking was in law school?
Oye Vey! You guys should sue these 'holiday inn express' wannabe legal eagles for malpractice!
 
Phoenix said:
 
 
So you mean an LLC is for profit.... Can it be that some West pilot "leaders" made a profit off of all this...?  And did so under the umbrella of liability protection, regardless of how it all turns out?   Nobody can sue the West pilot "leaders" for their endorsement of the MOU, "according to the terms"?   :blink:  😛
 
Perhaps there needs to be some pointed questions at the next meet and greet! 😀
As I understand how the LLC is set up, the legal liability to the 'owners' of the corporation is shielded. Only the assets of the corporation are at risk. The charter of the LLC (which is a public document filed with the state) usually defines the business structure, who owns it, and, if partners or stockholders are involved, what percentage share each has in the business and what their role is.
 
PullUp said:
As I understand how the LLC is set up, the legal liability to the 'owners' of the corporation is shielded. Only the assets of the corporation are at risk. The charter of the LLC (which is a public document filed with the state) usually defines the business structure, who owns it, and, if partners or stockholders are involved, what percentage share each has in the business and what their role is.
I wanna know how much the salaries were for the West "leaders"... Too bad Judge Silver denied discovery about Leonidas, LCC... probably best.  Imagine there may have been some temptation for West pilots to go totally postal on some "leaders" getting rich off this whole fiasco.  Imagine Platinum, Gold, and Silver donors giving away all their Platinum, Gold, and Silver to the "leaders" who had no responsibility or liability to actually produce anything.  Uncool really.   :angry2:   
 
The best the "leaders" could come up with after it was all said and done was,  "We recommend you vote for it if you want to see a merger according to the terms of the MOU."   Really?  That's the best they could do?  
 
Buyer beware.   :blush:
 
PullUp said:
Give it a rest. After all this time, you don't know the history here? How the company refused to negotiate because they 'needed' the seniority issue settled first?
There was never a TA. Thus never a vote. 
I wanted a new contract. It was apparent the company did not - and they shrewdly used the pilots' situation to their full advantage.
They are doing the same thing now in case you haven't noticed.
Cheers.
The "pilots" didn't create the situation. The EAST did. All by yourselves. Alone.
 
Res Judicata said:
The "pilots" didn't create the situation. The EAST did. All by yourselves. Alone.
Too bad you weren't part of the Leonidas inner circle.  At least you could have had the opportunity to profit off of all this (not that anyone did, mind you, it was just a legal opportunity). 
 
"There are no guarantees; however, it would be reasonable to expect the Court will issue a decision before the anticipated mid-December Effective Date for the merger between US Airways and American."  (from today's USAPA legal update)
 
[SIZE=medium]Interesting, and I understand it is clearly stated as qualified...but I would think Silver would wait for the actual POR. Her entire trial is a sham, based on an event that even now is legally tentative. Seems she would at least wait for the actual merger confirmation. I have been clear, I think her goal is to decree a seat for the West, hoping they will actually get to use it before any appeal process stops it. Kind of like Wake, ramrodding the DFR proceedings and hoping the East would cave prior to a ruling from the Ninth. But there is no ruling from her across the entire spectrum that would surprise me. Her legal logic is more on the quantum level, with decisions and actions strangely existing in multiple places at once.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=medium]Go ahead and hold me to the "seat at the table" prediction. I cannot be any more disgraced on an anonymous public forum that I already am.   🙂  Looks like my departure date from this entertainment site is solidifying around the end of the year, the retrospective payday. RR[/SIZE]
 
Reed Richards said:
"There are no guarantees; however, it would be reasonable to expect the Court will issue a decision before the anticipated mid-December Effective Date for the merger between US Airways and American."  (from today's USAPA legal update)
 
[SIZE=medium]Interesting, and I understand it is clearly stated as qualified...but I would think Silver would wait for the actual POR. Her entire trial is a sham, based on an event that even now is legally tentative. Seems she would at least wait for the actual merger confirmation. I have been clear, I think her goal is to decree a seat for the West, hoping they will actually get to use it before any appeal process stops it. Kind of like Wake, ramrodding the DFR proceedings and hoping the East would cave prior to a ruling from the Ninth. But there is no ruling from her across the entire spectrum that would surprise me. Her legal logic is more on the quantum level, with decisions and actions strangely existing in multiple places at once.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=medium]Go ahead and hold me to the "seat at the table" prediction. I cannot be any more disgraced on an anonymous public forum that I already am.   🙂  Looks like my departure date from this entertainment site is solidifying around the end of the year, the retrospective payday. RR[/SIZE]
 
 
Yes, "multiple places at once."   :lol:  There is no telling how or when she will rule...  
 
....but one thing is certain, upon the Effective Date there is absolutely no contractual support to the Nicolau.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  And the West pilot leaders knew that as clearly, or more clearly than any East voter.  
 
Notwithstanding the law, the contracts, and the certified bargaining agents, Silver may yet publish an order that entirely discounts any one of those or all of those... because its obvious to everyone that USAPA will indeed probably, speculatively, most likely, perchance, presumably, plausibly, apparently, assumably, imaginably, maybe violate its DFR in the future.   :lol:
 
Portly Dorman said:
 
My point was the east has never needed the west to get a contract, the east voluntarily has stayed on LOA93.  You have always had the numerical advantage to get a new contract yet you never did.
 
Why?
 
Just askin'. 
 
The east never needed the west to get a contract.  What they did need was the company to sign on their line at the bottom of a new contract, and that was never forthcoming for a number of reasons: some true, some merely perceived as true (depending on who was doing the perceiving, of course.).
 
 "Mark,

I sure hope you are correct. The part of your theory that bothers me is that yes, the company accepted the Nic, but there are conditions in the TA that need to be satisfied in order for it to be utilized. If the MOU does away with the TA, then those conditions are never met.
 
Pat"
 
DUH!  At least SOMEBODY on the west understands it.   Was Pat one of the 2%, at least?
 
 
 
Res Judicata said:
The "pilots" didn't create the situation. The EAST did. All by yourselves. Alone.
 
They were worried their scheme would get them sued well before USAPA slithered on our property in 2008. They knew they were doing something that could cause them legal troubles.
 
It speaks volumes about their moral character or better yet a lack thereof...
 
Schemers and connivers in 2007. Schemers and connivers in 2013.
 
 
07 September 2007 - 09:46 AM
usa320:
An AWA MEC DFR Lawsuit against USAPA? Would it have merit?
 
 
AAA73pilot response:
 
I did some research and I wanted to set the record straight regarding the DFR lawsuit threat by the West pilots. USAPA's law firm is well aware of the issue and prepared for any DFR lawsuit brought from the West pilots regarding USAPA. One must realize however that the DFR basis is quite limited and very narrow, as is challenging an arbitrators award. I a way the legal height that a challenger must overcome to prevail in a DFR lawsuit is almost as high as the requirement to prevail in overturning an arbitrators award.

A brief on the nature limits and scope of DFR lawsuits is as follows:

The duty of fair representation is the obligation, incumbent upon U.S. labor unions (click here) that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group, to represent all those employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. Originally recognized by the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases in the mid-1940s involving racial discrimination by railway workers' unions covered by the Railway Labor Act, the duty of fair representation also applies to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act and, depending on the terms of the statute, to public sector workers covered by state and local laws regulating labor relations.

The duty applies to virtually every action that a union might take in dealing with an employer as the representative of employees, from its negotiation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, to its handling of grievances arising under that agreement, as well as its operation of an exclusive hiring hall and its enforcement of the union security provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. The duty does not ordinarily apply, on the other hand, to rights that a worker can enforce independently; put another way, the union has no duty to assist the employees it represents in filing claims under a workers' compensation statute or other laws.

The duty likewise does not apply for the most part to unions' internal affairs, such as their right to discipline employees for violation of the union's own rules or union officers' handling of union funds, which are regulated instead by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The courts have, on the other hand, applied the same principles that govern the duty of fair representation to union members' suits to enforce union constitutions.

The courts have, on the whole, taken a deferential approach to reviewing unions' decisions challenged as a breach of their duty of fair representation. Recognizing that the collective bargaining process typically requires compromises, which may favor some workers at the expense of others, the courts have held that a union only breaches its duty if it acts arbitrarily, in bad faith or discriminatorily. Practical considerations have also led the courts to refuse to second-guess unions' decisions: if a court or jury could substitute its judgment as to whether a particular grievance had merit, then unions could not function, since their decisions would rarely be final in any practical sense. Accordingly, the courts have refused to overturn union decisions as arbitrary so long as they were based on a reasoned decision by the union, even if the court might believe that this decision was wrong. {Please note here DOH, is not considered arbitrary}

In recent years the courts and the National Labor Relations Board have applied the duty of fair representation to regulate the manner in which unions enforce the union security provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. Unlike the standard applied to unions' decisions concerning grievance handling and collective bargaining negotiations, the courts and the Board have regulated this area very extensively, specifying the types of expenses that a union can include in the fees that it charges employees who choose not to join the union but are required to pay dues under an agency shop or union shop clause, the accounting procedures used to calculate those amounts, the procedures which the union and employees must follow in the event that an individual worker objects to paying the full amount of dues charged to members or challenges the union's calculation of the lesser amount that non-members can be required to pay and the procedures that the union must follow before it can force the employer to fire an employee for non-payment of dues. Even stricter standards are applied to unions covered by the Railway Labor Act and to unions of governmental employees, but on constitutional, rather than fair representation, grounds.

The NLRB applies a similarly strict standard in reviewing unions' enforcement of exclusive hiring halls, i.e., those in which the employer is bound, by contract, to hire only employees referred to it by the union. The NLRB requires unions to establish clear procedures and to follow those procedures in order to minimize the likelihood that the union would use a hiring hall procedure to exclude non-members or those in disfavor with the union from the workplace. On the other hand, the NLRB applies the more deferential standard applied to union decisions generally in the case of non-exclusive hiring halls, i.e., those in which the union has the power to refer applicants for employment but the employer may also hire employees "off the street"; in those cases the union is barred from acting arbitrarily, in bad faith or discriminatorily.

The NLRB recognizes a breach of the duty of fair representation as a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Because the duty of fair representation was originally created by judicial interpretation, however, rather than as an express statutory prohibition, employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act may sue their unions directly, without being required to first exhaust any administrative procedures provided under the National Labor Relations Board. The same is true for workers covered by the Railway Labor Act, which does not provide any administrative procedure for pursuing claims against a union. Employees' claims under either Act are governed by a six-month statute of limitations.

The NLRB and the courts provide different remedies against unions that breached their duty of fair representation. Because the Board usually does not have the jurisdiction to enforce the collective bargaining agreement or to issue a remedial order against an employer that has violated it, the NLRB often cannot award complete relief to employees. A court, on the other hand, may order an employer to reinstate or pay back pay to an employee if it finds that the employer violated the collective bargaining agreement and may, in some instances, order the union to pay attorneys' fees to a successful plaintiff. These distinctions do not apply to workers covered by the Railway Labor Act since, as noted above, they have no administrative procedures to enforce their rights.

A union may, in some limited circumstances, require employees to exhaust any internal appeals procedures provided under the union's constitution before filing suit. Unions and employers may also generally require employees to exhaust their rights under the grievance arbitration procedures provided for under the collective bargaining agreement before suing the employer for breach of contract. Employees usually do not, on the other hand, have to exhaust such procedures if they are suing only the union, since very few collective bargaining agreements even allow for the filing of a grievance against the union by covered employees. To the extent that an employee might have a breach of contract claim against a union arising out of its performance of its duty to represent that employee, the courts will apply the same deferential standards and procedural requirements that they would employ if the worker sued the union on a breach of the duty of fair representation theory.

Finally, Lee Seham, and many other law firms, say that a DOH integration is the gold standard in labor law. The IAM is DOH, AFA is DOH and many other craft and class trade unions in and out of NMB are based on DOH merger standards. It is very much the standard in the NLRB for many types of unions. Because of this, a group calming DFR charges against a union that uses DOH as the basis of it's merger policy faces an uphill battle.

Regards,
 

 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top