B
US Pilot Labor Thread, Aug.31st-Sep. 07
- Thread starter nostradamus
- Start date
- Status
GorgeousGeorge
Senior
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 357
USAPA Update
September 05, 2008
Item One: On September 4, 2008, six West pilots, Don Addington, John Bostic, Mark Burman, Afshin Iranpour, Roger Velez, and Steve Wargocki, filed a complaint against USAPA and US Airways in the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiffs are represented by the Phoenix law firm of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., which proudly claims on its website that their attorneys have “an enviable track record in representing employers faced with labor union organizing campaigns.â€
The complaint asserts two claims against the Company, breach of the West contract and failure to negotiate in good faith, and one claim against USAPA for breach of the duty of fair representation (DFR). The breach of contract claim against the Company is based on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the Company is in breach of the Transition Agreement because it allegedly does not plan to furlough all pilots on the New Hire Seniority List before it furloughs West pilots on October 1, 2008, and November 1, 2008. Plaintiffs’ second claim against the Company is that “it has not been negotiating with USAPA in good faith to institute Integrated Operations by adopting a single collective bargaining agreement that would implement the Nicolau List.â€
Plaintiffs’ DFR claim against the Association is based on the following allegations: (i) that USAPA failed to give “due consideration†to the interests of the West pilots when deciding USAPA seniority policy; and (ii) that USAPA acted arbitrarily, for improper purpose and/or in bad faith by failing to treat the Nicolau Award as binding and final and because it promised to follow its seniority policy if elected the representative.
An injunction is sought against both the Company and USAPA to enjoin the Company from furloughing any West pilots before it has furloughed all pilots on the New Hire Seniority List and before it has furloughed all East pilots who are junior to the West pilots on the Nicolau List. Plaintiffs also ask the court to prevent USAPA and the Company from amending the West CBA without the approval of the Court unless such amendment is ratified by a majority of the West pilots. Plaintiffs also seek an order requiring USAPA and the Company to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement that fully implements the Nicolau Award, and they seek damages in an unspecified amount to compensate plaintiffs for their allegedly lost wages and benefits.
Our law firm has completed a preliminary review of the Verified Complaint and determined that it has no legal merit whatsoever. Moreover, it is the law firm’s opinion that the Verified Complaint betrays substantial ignorance of the Railway Labor Act, as reflected by the absence of appropriate statutory citation, the use of terminology not recognized under the RLA, and the use of terms inappropriately borrowed from non-RLA labor law.
The Complaint bases its DFR action against USAPA, in part, on the allegation that the union acted in an “arbitrary†fashion in adopting a constitution that endorses date of hire seniority integration without a prior “hearing or procedure.†However, the Plaintiffs will find it impossible to demonstrate that USAPA acted outside the wide range of reasonableness to which unions are entitled given the fact that the USAPA Constitution’s policy objectives are identical to those adopted by most major airline labor unions – including the AFA, IAM, and TWU – and that this policy objective has been recognized by the federal courts as being in the interest of the labor movement as a whole.
Equally unsustainable is the allegation that the Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Nicolau Award treated as “final and binding,†particularly in light of the fact that the West Pilots’ former representatives – the AWA MEC as represented by Jeffrey Freund – have committed themselves to the position that the Nicolau Award was merely a bargaining “proposal†subject to further negotiation.
Case precedent confirms that the seniority integration will be resolved at the negotiating table, not in a federal court. Pilots who are interested in influencing that process would be well advised to become members in Good Standing so that they can participate in the negotiation and ratification process.
Item Two: The Board of Pilot Representatives (BPR) re-convened its scheduled meeting in Charlotte on Thursday and, due to the volume of work, extended the meeting an additional day. The meeting re-convened today Friday, September 5 at 8:00 am and adjourned today at 11:00am.
The Negotiating Advisory Committee (NAC) kicked off the meeting on Thursday with a short briefing complimenting Wednesday’s in-depth briefing to the BPR. One item discussed by the NAC was the issue of contract duration; NAC Chairman Paul Diorio made it clear he was very aware of the fact that the pilots want the shortest duration possible.
Merger Committee Chairman Randy Mowrey then briefed the BPR, stating that it is reasonable to explore a flow-through agreement with our wholly-owned regional carriers, as it can add some stability for our pilots inside such a volatile industry. Chairman Mowrey pointed out that an agreement can provide mutual benefits to all the pilots involved.
It was agreed that the Merger Committee, working in concert with the NAC, brings the appropriate resources to allow the Association to explore the potential to develop a mutually beneficial flow-through agreement between the Company, USAPA and the wholly owned carriers. Accordingly, a resolution was passed that directs the Merger Committee, working in concert with the Negotiating Advisory Committee, to engage the Company and the pilot groups of the wholly owned carriers in discussions to explore the creation of a mutually beneficial flow through agreement.
The BPR than went through a review process of USAPA’s Constitution and By-Laws with the Constitution Review Committee. After review, the BPR passed a resolution accepting Section One, General; Section Two, Membership and Section Three, Meetings.
There were other important issues that were discussed with the Constitution Review Committee that included maintaining USAPA’s National Officer designations and segregating and delineating specific Officer duties and responsibilities.
Secretary/Treasurer, Mark King, and Rob Streble, Chairman of the Finance and Administrative Committee, then reviewed financial statements mailed to pilots. Pilots on dues check off, who do not have a balance, will not receive statements. All other pilots will receive a statement for dues owed. As a review, pilots not on dues check off are required to meet their financial obligation based on an estimate of their 2008 earnings. This is past practice as the Company only provides actual earnings for the previous year. Objectors and challengers fees are based on an estimated non-germane rate of 85% of the regular fee.
All pilots' accounts will be reconciled after the Company provides actual earnings in 2009, and either a credit or an additional bill will be issued. Questions about billing should be sent to billing@usairlinepilots.org.
All earnings for dues and fees are calculated based on the previous bargaining agent’s rules at the present time, 1.95% for members and non-members. On September 2nd, USAPA reported that the Company confirmed that East based pilots have had their USAPA financial obligations computed on income that included 401K contributions. This is a major inconsistency as West Pilots had 401K contributions excluded from their financial obligation calculations. This affects both Pilots on dues check-off and pilots on direct billing. This was the policy of the former bargaining agent when an airline maintained certain multiple retirement vehicles. As USAPA initially maintained that process, the Company has acted properly in matters of dues calculation. This presents USAPA the opportunity for change, and we will keep you posted on this matter.
Late Thursday the BPR passed three resolutions:
1. Approval of new member applications.
2. Resolution approving medical insurance for furloughed pilots who are members in good standing.
3. Resolution approving Dave Ciabattoni as Chairman of Scope Monitoring Committee, a function of the West contract. Dave will be traveling to Tempe on September 15th with fellow Committee member, John Karas, to discuss scope issues with Management. The Committee reviewed the scope language in the West pilot’s working agreement. Numerous loopholes regarding outsourcing of flying were pointed out, demonstrating the need to retain East scope language.
On Friday morning the BPR discussed in detail the use of US Airways’ Training facility for discipline relative to the recent fuel training administered to a few Senior International Pilots. The meeting adjourned Friday at 11:00 AM.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the pilots who made the effort to attend the BPR meeting. We all have demanding schedules and we deeply appreciate your efforts to participate in your union.
September 05, 2008
Item One: On September 4, 2008, six West pilots, Don Addington, John Bostic, Mark Burman, Afshin Iranpour, Roger Velez, and Steve Wargocki, filed a complaint against USAPA and US Airways in the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiffs are represented by the Phoenix law firm of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., which proudly claims on its website that their attorneys have “an enviable track record in representing employers faced with labor union organizing campaigns.â€
The complaint asserts two claims against the Company, breach of the West contract and failure to negotiate in good faith, and one claim against USAPA for breach of the duty of fair representation (DFR). The breach of contract claim against the Company is based on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the Company is in breach of the Transition Agreement because it allegedly does not plan to furlough all pilots on the New Hire Seniority List before it furloughs West pilots on October 1, 2008, and November 1, 2008. Plaintiffs’ second claim against the Company is that “it has not been negotiating with USAPA in good faith to institute Integrated Operations by adopting a single collective bargaining agreement that would implement the Nicolau List.â€
Plaintiffs’ DFR claim against the Association is based on the following allegations: (i) that USAPA failed to give “due consideration†to the interests of the West pilots when deciding USAPA seniority policy; and (ii) that USAPA acted arbitrarily, for improper purpose and/or in bad faith by failing to treat the Nicolau Award as binding and final and because it promised to follow its seniority policy if elected the representative.
An injunction is sought against both the Company and USAPA to enjoin the Company from furloughing any West pilots before it has furloughed all pilots on the New Hire Seniority List and before it has furloughed all East pilots who are junior to the West pilots on the Nicolau List. Plaintiffs also ask the court to prevent USAPA and the Company from amending the West CBA without the approval of the Court unless such amendment is ratified by a majority of the West pilots. Plaintiffs also seek an order requiring USAPA and the Company to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement that fully implements the Nicolau Award, and they seek damages in an unspecified amount to compensate plaintiffs for their allegedly lost wages and benefits.
Our law firm has completed a preliminary review of the Verified Complaint and determined that it has no legal merit whatsoever. Moreover, it is the law firm’s opinion that the Verified Complaint betrays substantial ignorance of the Railway Labor Act, as reflected by the absence of appropriate statutory citation, the use of terminology not recognized under the RLA, and the use of terms inappropriately borrowed from non-RLA labor law.
The Complaint bases its DFR action against USAPA, in part, on the allegation that the union acted in an “arbitrary†fashion in adopting a constitution that endorses date of hire seniority integration without a prior “hearing or procedure.†However, the Plaintiffs will find it impossible to demonstrate that USAPA acted outside the wide range of reasonableness to which unions are entitled given the fact that the USAPA Constitution’s policy objectives are identical to those adopted by most major airline labor unions – including the AFA, IAM, and TWU – and that this policy objective has been recognized by the federal courts as being in the interest of the labor movement as a whole.
Equally unsustainable is the allegation that the Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Nicolau Award treated as “final and binding,†particularly in light of the fact that the West Pilots’ former representatives – the AWA MEC as represented by Jeffrey Freund – have committed themselves to the position that the Nicolau Award was merely a bargaining “proposal†subject to further negotiation.
Case precedent confirms that the seniority integration will be resolved at the negotiating table, not in a federal court. Pilots who are interested in influencing that process would be well advised to become members in Good Standing so that they can participate in the negotiation and ratification process.
Item Two: The Board of Pilot Representatives (BPR) re-convened its scheduled meeting in Charlotte on Thursday and, due to the volume of work, extended the meeting an additional day. The meeting re-convened today Friday, September 5 at 8:00 am and adjourned today at 11:00am.
The Negotiating Advisory Committee (NAC) kicked off the meeting on Thursday with a short briefing complimenting Wednesday’s in-depth briefing to the BPR. One item discussed by the NAC was the issue of contract duration; NAC Chairman Paul Diorio made it clear he was very aware of the fact that the pilots want the shortest duration possible.
Merger Committee Chairman Randy Mowrey then briefed the BPR, stating that it is reasonable to explore a flow-through agreement with our wholly-owned regional carriers, as it can add some stability for our pilots inside such a volatile industry. Chairman Mowrey pointed out that an agreement can provide mutual benefits to all the pilots involved.
It was agreed that the Merger Committee, working in concert with the NAC, brings the appropriate resources to allow the Association to explore the potential to develop a mutually beneficial flow-through agreement between the Company, USAPA and the wholly owned carriers. Accordingly, a resolution was passed that directs the Merger Committee, working in concert with the Negotiating Advisory Committee, to engage the Company and the pilot groups of the wholly owned carriers in discussions to explore the creation of a mutually beneficial flow through agreement.
The BPR than went through a review process of USAPA’s Constitution and By-Laws with the Constitution Review Committee. After review, the BPR passed a resolution accepting Section One, General; Section Two, Membership and Section Three, Meetings.
There were other important issues that were discussed with the Constitution Review Committee that included maintaining USAPA’s National Officer designations and segregating and delineating specific Officer duties and responsibilities.
Secretary/Treasurer, Mark King, and Rob Streble, Chairman of the Finance and Administrative Committee, then reviewed financial statements mailed to pilots. Pilots on dues check off, who do not have a balance, will not receive statements. All other pilots will receive a statement for dues owed. As a review, pilots not on dues check off are required to meet their financial obligation based on an estimate of their 2008 earnings. This is past practice as the Company only provides actual earnings for the previous year. Objectors and challengers fees are based on an estimated non-germane rate of 85% of the regular fee.
All pilots' accounts will be reconciled after the Company provides actual earnings in 2009, and either a credit or an additional bill will be issued. Questions about billing should be sent to billing@usairlinepilots.org.
All earnings for dues and fees are calculated based on the previous bargaining agent’s rules at the present time, 1.95% for members and non-members. On September 2nd, USAPA reported that the Company confirmed that East based pilots have had their USAPA financial obligations computed on income that included 401K contributions. This is a major inconsistency as West Pilots had 401K contributions excluded from their financial obligation calculations. This affects both Pilots on dues check-off and pilots on direct billing. This was the policy of the former bargaining agent when an airline maintained certain multiple retirement vehicles. As USAPA initially maintained that process, the Company has acted properly in matters of dues calculation. This presents USAPA the opportunity for change, and we will keep you posted on this matter.
Late Thursday the BPR passed three resolutions:
1. Approval of new member applications.
2. Resolution approving medical insurance for furloughed pilots who are members in good standing.
3. Resolution approving Dave Ciabattoni as Chairman of Scope Monitoring Committee, a function of the West contract. Dave will be traveling to Tempe on September 15th with fellow Committee member, John Karas, to discuss scope issues with Management. The Committee reviewed the scope language in the West pilot’s working agreement. Numerous loopholes regarding outsourcing of flying were pointed out, demonstrating the need to retain East scope language.
On Friday morning the BPR discussed in detail the use of US Airways’ Training facility for discipline relative to the recent fuel training administered to a few Senior International Pilots. The meeting adjourned Friday at 11:00 AM.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the pilots who made the effort to attend the BPR meeting. We all have demanding schedules and we deeply appreciate your efforts to participate in your union.
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 12
"The sky is blue!"
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No! It's not!"
"Yes... It is!"
"No it's not..."
"Yes it is!"
"...
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No! It's not!"
"Yes... It is!"
"No it's not..."
"Yes it is!"
"...
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 12
I know someone else who has made a substantial amount of money backing management too! Can you guess who I'm thinking of? Yes you are correct! Lee Seham!
See my previous post... Of course he's gonna tell you guys there is no merit. What else would a lawyer do? C'mon guys! Let's let the court decide what is appropriate. Although this time if someone doesn't like it they won't be able to vote in a new union and... Well you get my point.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Except for the appeal.
then the next appeal..
And then the civil suit..
And then the AWA pilots finally outnumber the USAir and force a return to ALPA (Heaven help us 🙄)
And ALPA then does everything to abide by legal and binding..
And then more appeals..
Law school might be a good plan.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Except for the appeal.
then the next appeal..
And then the civil suit..
And then the AWA pilots finally outnumber the USAir and force a return to ALPA (Heaven help us 🙄)
And ALPA then does everything to abide by legal and binding..
And then more appeals..
Law school might be a good plan.
So, what your are insinuating is that it would be better if:
1. USAPA should drop all law suits (or appeals) against former AWA pilots.
2. USAPA should change its constitution regarding seniority to reflect what is now recent passed law (that oddly mirrors ALPA merger policy).
3. USAPA should adopt and enforce the Nicoalu binding arbitration as is.
4. USAPA should aggressively rally support of the former AWA pilots instead of seeking to fire them.
5. USAPA should be sure that all pilots and bases are fairly represented in the BPR.
and....
6. USAPA "NAC" should then secure a new contract (utilizing the entire scope of pilots, volunteers, and Subject Matter Experts) to gain a wage that is north of the AWA wage with better schedules, time off and quality of life improvements.
Right?? 😀
E
EastUS
Guest
Uh..No. I believe what's actually insinuated's more of a "Lotsa' Luck with your legal games". Do please call us in however many years it takes for any result to ever occur..assuming that they' don't get tossed at the starting gate of course.
SegmentKing
Veteran
Looks like the West is playing a familiar game...
So what happens when the judge throws out the lawsuit?
And the west STILL has to pay in USAPA dues.
I'm wondering what's going to hurt the west pilots more.... just agree to join USAPA and work on a joint contract, knowing in 10 years they're all going to be climbing the ranks of CLT/PHL as the US guys retire...
or get stuck paying 1.9% of $65,000 to $120,000 a year for 2 years (assuming their litigation takes 18 mos to see the court). So on top of the $5,000 these pilots may be giving Leonidas and AWAPPA, they're going to have to write ANOTHER check to USAPA for $2,000 to $4,000
I'm thinking the leaders @ Leonidas and AWAPPA need to come clean with their members and show them the numbers if they fail.
So what happens when the judge throws out the lawsuit?
And the west STILL has to pay in USAPA dues.
I'm wondering what's going to hurt the west pilots more.... just agree to join USAPA and work on a joint contract, knowing in 10 years they're all going to be climbing the ranks of CLT/PHL as the US guys retire...
or get stuck paying 1.9% of $65,000 to $120,000 a year for 2 years (assuming their litigation takes 18 mos to see the court). So on top of the $5,000 these pilots may be giving Leonidas and AWAPPA, they're going to have to write ANOTHER check to USAPA for $2,000 to $4,000
I'm thinking the leaders @ Leonidas and AWAPPA need to come clean with their members and show them the numbers if they fail.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
Wow! Help me out here Tiger to see if I understand your post correctly.
These 6 are the "Army" whose identities and activities have been, up till now, anonymous and unknown to their fellow West pilots? They seem to be only suing for themselves and ask your blind faith and money?
Is my impression correct?
Heck no! The chilling effect seems to have stopped the fertilized mail and "prank calls", for now.
You and I must be reading different laws. The one I read fills in major gaps in the ALPA merger policy. Actually, the USAPA C&BL seems to follow the new law pretty well, thank you.
Why? The "nic" is as potent (and useful) as any proposal rendered, but not accepted, in the past. It is as useless as a $400 per hour pay proposal in 1991. In negotiations, literally thousands of such proposals are proposed as part of package deals, then tossed aside. Would you then revive all those?
Layman's understanding: The "nic" is only one part of a "merger package". The arbitration was the result of a stalled "seniority" negotiation and is only "binding" within the ALPA sponsored "merger package" for that merger attempt and only during that time period and only has effect if the package goes through, all the eyes dotted and tees crossed. It holds no weight outside of the ALPA sponsored "merger package".
Are you suggesting that a union should tolerate that some members not pay dues while the rest do? All those "protesting" have to do is to pay a "maintenance fee". Some will not even do that. Even so, USAPA represents west pilots.
They do and they are, at least for those that bother to send representatives. If, say, LAS, were to send someone, I sincerely doubt that person would be turned away. Try to send someone who really does speak for most and not just one or two. Just try, at least.
They are, with or without the west pilots. Cooperation would help, but it is doable without west participation.
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 12
No. You are wrong. The "Army" is the entire west pilot group minus a few spineless USAPA supporters. The "Army" therefore was not and is not anonymous! The "6" were the ones brave enough to hang their a$$es out there in hopes of seeing the collective group's interests represented... I applaud them and fully support them. ...And yes that means give them money "blindly." Maybe you guys out east will see eventually just as the nic brought you together so it has with us...
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,627
- Reaction score
- 945
Looks like one way to get pay parity.
West pay - money spent on useless lawsuits = East pay (maybe even less).
I'd prefer another way to get parity, but that's just me.
West pay - money spent on useless lawsuits = East pay (maybe even less).
I'd prefer another way to get parity, but that's just me.
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 254
I dunno. Quick glance at the suit, It looks like the army is suing USAPA for not following ALPA merger rules???? Uhmmm....The problem being that ALPA dragged it's feet and didn't get the merger integration done before they were thrown out. Hence ALPA merger policy no longer applies. Shouldn't this suit be directed at ALPA?
Kev3188
Veteran
Looks like the West is playing a familiar game...
NO WHAMMIES! NO WHAMMIES!
ableoneable
Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 0
I think that the suit was premature.
Until west pilots are actually furloughed, and or downgraded, it will be difficult to prove that harm has occurred.
I don't think that promotions that otherwise would have occurred are going to impress the bench.
If a judge sees the case prior to the above taking place I think there is a strong possibility of a dismissal without prejudice.
Until west pilots are actually furloughed, and or downgraded, it will be difficult to prove that harm has occurred.
I don't think that promotions that otherwise would have occurred are going to impress the bench.
If a judge sees the case prior to the above taking place I think there is a strong possibility of a dismissal without prejudice.
- Status
