OCT/NOV 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

Much easier legal standard to prove. Aiding and abetting. Transcripts used that term 6-7 times. Don't need collusion. Agreeing to an illegal seniority list will do it.

That is the way the company lawyer described a DOH list.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Much easier legal standard to prove. Aiding and abetting. Transcripts used that term 6-7 times. Don't need collusion. Agreeing to an illegal seniority list will do it.

That is the way the company lawyer described a DOH list.

And if US Air was somehow involved in that with the

requisite state of mind, that is aiding and abetting, perhaps

US Air could be responsible for unfair labor practice.

But this is a very dynamic situation. The Ninth
Circuit has said that. The only difference here, and the

reason why I decided to reach out and attempt to resolve this,

is because throughout the litigation before, US Air was not

involved. It seems to me that they deserved at least an

opportunity to attempt to have some resolution such that they

might feel more comfortable during the contract negotiations ! JUDGE SILVER

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Well they had the opportunity to be involved but MARTY and WEST KNEW it would never float past the 9th, Wake dissmissed them with MARTY's blessing, AWE SHUCKS!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Now, the fact that they have engaged in unfair labor
practice does not, as a matter of law, mean that you're an
aider and abettor. And I think in looking back -- I don't know
where you are on the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but I
suppose, let's say, hypothetically, if the union said, well,
all right, if you accept this agreement on seniority, we will
reduce the amount of salary we're asking for by thousands and
thousands of dollars. If that's unreasonable and unfair
perhaps the carrier would have some responsibility there. I'm
creating an absolutely obscure hypothetical. JUDGE SILVER

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Could be a rough road ahead for the WESTIES , a favorable decision by KASHER on the 3%( puts our narrowbody guys on the WEST payscale) attrition train leaving in a couple months, plenty of EAST movement, and DUI getting the news AA will be standalone, and the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, whew that one is close! Not very "BRIGHT" luved that last C. CORRECTION by CAPT MENEAR, the WINDMILLS! GOOD LUCK!

 

[Pi brat]

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know. But, prior to October the buzz was that the company's attorney agreed with the west. Now, it's collusion with USAPA. I think they pretty much have the plausible deniability (if I'm using that term correctly) covered. We'll see.

 

[Pi brat]

Much easier legal standard to prove. Aiding and abetting. Transcripts used that term 6-7 times. Don't need collusion. Agreeing to an illegal seniority list will do it.

That is the way the company lawyer described a DOH list.

Okay, let's go with that. Serious question and not bait. If the Addington was dismissed, is it an illegal list? It wasn't dismissed on merit, right, so how is it illegal?

 

[CallawayGolf]

I'm not an attorney, so I don't know. But, prior to October the buzz was that the company's attorney agreed with the west. Now, it's collusion with USAPA. I think they pretty much have the plausible deniability (if I'm using that term correctly) covered. We'll see.

How would they have plausible deniability now that they didn't have in 2011 or earlier? They filed a DJ suit claiming that they faced a real and potentially very expensive lawsuit for collusion from the west pilots if they negotiated something other than the NIC for section 22. They testified in federal court that they have accepted the NIC per the requirements called for in the TA (which they also identified as a collective bargaining agreement subject to the RLA). They further testified that they were well aware of the Addington lawsuit in Wake's courtroom and that it resulted in a DFR against USAPA and that it was only dismissed on ripeness not the merits upon appeal to the 9th. If Silver tosses the DJ suit as her proposed ruling suggests she intends to do, then all the company is left with is a series of documented admissions that they cannot abandon the NIC without being held liable for their actions in colluding with the union. Saying "we didn't know it was illegal or wrong" is not likely to be well received by the next federal judge who hears this case.

 

[fifidriver]

How would they have plausible deniability now that they didn't have in 2011 or earlier? They filed a DJ suit claiming that they faced a real and potentially very expensive lawsuit for collusion from the west pilots if they negotiated something other than the NIC for section 22. They testified in federal court that they have accepted the NIC per the requirements called for in the TA (which they also identified as a collective bargaining agreement subject to the RLA). They further testified that they were well aware of the Addington lawsuit in Wake's courtroom and that it resulted in a DFR against USAPA and that it was only dismissed on ripeness not the merits upon appeal to the 9th. If Silver tosses the DJ suit as her proposed ruling suggests she intends to do, then all the company is left with is a series of documented admissions that they cannot abandon the NIC without being held liable for their actions in colluding with the union. Saying "we didn't know it was illegal or wrong" is not likely to be well received by the next federal judge who hears this case.

or jury...

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

How would they have plausible deniability now that they didn't have in 2011 or earlier? They filed a DJ suit claiming that they faced a real and potentially very expensive lawsuit for collusion from the west pilots if they negotiated something other than the NIC for section 22. They testified in federal court that they have accepted the NIC per the requirements called for in the TA (which they also identified as a collective bargaining agreement subject to the RLA). They further testified that they were well aware of the Addington lawsuit in Wake's courtroom and that it resulted in a DFR against USAPA and that it was only dismissed on ripeness not the merits upon appeal to the 9th. If Silver tosses the DJ suit as her proposed ruling suggests she intends to do, then all the company is left with is a series of documented admissions that they cannot abandon the NIC without being held liable for their actions in colluding with the union. Saying "we didn't know it was illegal or wrong" is not likely to be well received by the next federal judge who hears this case.

No it will be recieved the same way this Federal Judge heard it and the same way the 9th interprets the RLA, hey knock yourself out, spin it anyway you want on GILLIGAN'S ISLAND! Or those ITT video's!

 

[Pi brat]

How would they have plausible deniability now that they didn't have in 2011 or earlier? They filed a DJ suit claiming that they faced a real and potentially very expensive lawsuit for collusion from the west pilots if they negotiated something other than the NIC for section 22. They testified in federal court that they have accepted the NIC per the requirements called for in the TA (which they also identified as a collective bargaining agreement subject to the RLA). They further testified that they were well aware of the Addington lawsuit in Wake's courtroom and that it resulted in a DFR against USAPA and that it was only dismissed on ripeness not the merits upon appeal to the 9th. If Silver tosses the DJ suit as her proposed ruling suggests she intends to do, then all the company is left with is a series of documented admissions that they cannot abandon the NIC without being held liable for their actions in colluding with the union. Saying "we didn't know it was illegal or wrong" is not likely to be well received by the next federal judge who hears this case.

That's just it. If she rules the way I've heard she proposed, the company can say "Hey, we tried. All these federal courts say the union has the right to negotiate, and they won't comment on what is a legal negotiation. It's not us, it's them. When it's all done it will be up to a jury to decide if THEY had a legitimate union objective and if THEIR actions were within a wide range of reasonableness. Both the Nicoalu and DOH meet our requirements, what else are we to do?"

If they say anything else then why didn't they say it 5 years ago?

 

[kubotapilot]

So, what do you all think this means...

Phoenix Declaratory Judgment Action Decision and Judgment Issued


The Order/Decision and formal Judgment were issued a few minutes ago in the Phoenix Declaratory Judgment case. They are posted in the Legal Library. Here is the text of the Judgment:

Pursuant to the Court’s resolution of the motions for summary judgment,​

IT IS ORDERED​

Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose.​

An explanatory Update will follow soon.
USAPA Communications

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I see the spin by the honorable Judge, and understand all politics (acknowledging Tip O'Neal) are local (PHX.) But USAPA has no more a duty to the PHX pilots than it does to the DCA, PHL, and CLT pilots. She is stating the obvious. She is stating the law.

I really like the part where she acknowledges USAPA's ability to negotiate change to the Transition Agreement. Makes most all her other commentary moot.

Greeter

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I see the spin by the honorable Judge, and understand all politics (acknowledging Tip O'Neal) are local (PHX.) But USAPA has no more a duty to the PHX pilots than it does to the DCA, PHL, and CLT pilots. She is stating the obvious. She is stating the law.

I really like the part where she acknowledges USAPA's ability to negotiate change to the Transition Agreement. Makes most all her other commentary moot.

Greeter

And the ACKNOWLEDEMENT to save jobs in PHX, the LAW, under the RLA, she ruled accordingly! MUTATIS!

 

[Move2CLT]

If you are stupid enough to make fun of someone that is the same as you, go ahead and laugh.

If you are stupid enough to believe what you just said you then need to STFU