US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/26- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[ChuckBewFarley]

You still havent explained it. Germane expenses are only to enforce and negotiate the CBA, not other expenses that are not relevant to the CBA.

And there isnt usapa/east and usapa/west, its one union.

usapa is considering ALL legal expenses as germane, they consider defending the union from any and all attacks as a germane expense.

I love spending money to sue myself and then have to pay to defend myself.

 

[700UW]

USAPA can consider it germane but when someone informs the DOL they are charging objectors for expenses not for negotiating or enforcing the CBA, you will see how fast their tone will change.

 

[aquagreen73s]

You still havent explained it. Germane expenses are only to enforce and negotiate the CBA, not other expenses that are not relevant to the CBA.

And there isnt usapa/east and usapa/west, its one union.

Ellis v. Railway Clerks covers it completely
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...6&invol=435



"Hence, when employees such as petitioners object to being burdened with particular union expenditures, the test must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Under this standard, objecting employees may be compelled to pay their fair share of not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit."

And further down:

"5. Litigation. The expenses of litigation incident to negotiating and administering the contract or to settling grievances and disputes arising in the bargaining unit are clearly chargeable to petitioners as a normal incident of the duties of the exclusive representative. The same is true of fair representation litigation arising within the unit, of jurisdictional disputes with other unions, and of any other litigation before agencies or in the courts that concerns bargaining unit employees and is normally conducted by the exclusive representative. The expenses of litigation not having such a connection with the bargaining unit are not to be charged to objecting employees. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, therefore, unless the Western Airlines bargaining unit is directly concerned, objecting employees need not share the costs of the union's challenge to the legality of the airline industry mutual aid pact; of litigation seeking to protect the rights of airline employees generally during bankruptcy proceedings; or of defending suits alleging violation of the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

 

[john john]

So, as I said before, one needs to distinguish "form a new union" from "elect a new union." The motivation of those who form a new union is all that matters if one is discussing why the union was formed, but may matter little or not at all when one is discussing why the union was elected.

Jim

The new union was form to have an election under the process of the NMB. They have sole jurisdiction and authority on elections. That is all that matters

 

[hp_fa]

... but that's misleading and your summation is almost entirely correct with one trivial exception: we really don't know what the facts are from just a jury verdict as all they do is check a box and hand the paper to the court room clerk.

Yes, I'll buy that.

I don't recall Seham cross examining anyone on the content of that memo, but uncontroverted evidence does not rise to the level of a stipulated fact.

I 'm not sure, but I think I remember Bringle or one of them asking one or two quick questions on the topic. But I totally agree they didn't want the jury thinking about that subject.

 

[Phoenix]

The motivation ... is irrelevant.

One of the judges on the 9th seemed to get that, when she repeatedly asked "But what did they actually DO?"

 

[Flippin43]

USAPA can consider it germane but when someone informs the DOL they are charging objectors for expenses not for negotiating or enforcing the CBA, you will see how fast their tone will change.

700,


If you are an Objector, your on the hook too for the way your union conducts itself. You may be happy with what they are doing, thinking that you are not going to pay. Guess what? there will in fact be a bill coming to your house as well. I have already come to grips with that. But I'm OK with it since I know your gettin one too. Then I think it will be your tone that will change.

So to refresh your memory, here it is again.


Ellis v. Railway Clerks covers it completely
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...6&invol=435



"Hence, when employees such as petitioners object to being burdened with particular union expenditures, the test must be whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues. Under this standard, objecting employees may be compelled to pay their fair share of not only the direct costs of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining contract and of settling grievances and disputes, but also the expenses of activities or undertakings normally or reasonably employed to implement or effectuate the duties of the union as exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit."

And further down:

"5. Litigation. The expenses of litigation incident to negotiating and administering the contract or to settling grievances and disputes arising in the bargaining unit are clearly chargeable to petitioners as a normal incident of the duties of the exclusive representative. The same is true of fair representation litigation arising within the unit, of jurisdictional disputes with other unions, and of any other litigation before agencies or in the courts that concerns bargaining unit employees and is normally conducted by the exclusive representative. The expenses of litigation not having such a connection with the bargaining unit are not to be charged to objecting employees. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, therefore, unless the Western Airlines bargaining unit is directly concerned, objecting employees need not share the costs of the union's challenge to the legality of the airline industry mutual aid pact; of litigation seeking to protect the rights of airline employees generally during bankruptcy proceedings; or of defending suits alleging violation of the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

 

[Phoenix]

The new union was form to have an election under the process of the NMB. They have sole jurisdiction and authority on elections. That is all that matters

With respect to the question of whether or not USAPA is the union and what authorities and responsibilities they have consequent to the adopted and hortatory constitution, I agree.

However, the issue that remains, and has yet to be acknowledge by the courts, is the obvious root cause of the opposing arguments, namely the conflicting preeminence argued for the various rules that define and govern USAPA's responsibilities and authorities. One side argues that a Union, once it has willfully abrogated its authorities (arbitration was a willful/self-imposed abrogation), must then forever subscribe to that abrogation. The other argues that a union can always admit its error at self-imposed abrogation and can subsequently reassert its authorities that have always existed and remained constant--remained constant in spite of any self-limiting decisions the union may have imposed upon itself.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One side argues that a Union, once it has willfully abrogated its authorities (arbitration was a willful/self-imposed abrogation), must then forever subscribe to that abrogation. The other argues that a union can always admit its error at self-imposed abrogation and can subsequently reassert its authorities that have always existed and remained constant--remained constant in spite of any self-limiting decisions the union may have imposed upon itself.

It's a shame that theory isn't in question here because we aren't dealing with a union but rather one union wishing to undo what a different union put in place. I do suspect that if a union wished to undo what it's own constitution and policies dictated in a merger and the result would be differential treatment favoring one pre-merger side over the other such "admission of it's error" could lead to a DFR suit, especially when that "self-imposed abrogation" had legal precedent saying it was the only logical way for that union to preempt charges of conflict of interest and thus DFR.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

Damages are germane.


You must have missed the Plaintiff's entire case in chief, where all kinds of exhibits were admitted into evidence which demonstrated that USAPA was formed as a mechanism to avoid the arbitration. When something is admitted into evidence in our court system, they become legal facts and arguably there isn't anyting in existence more factual than legal facts as nowhere else I can think of is there such an intense distillation and filtering process as with the Rules of Evidence.

No, they become "legal facts" only in the context that they are admitted. As far as being true or factual, that is a different story.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Yes! And there isn't one legal fact that was true against any convicted felon either! They're all innocent!

But you conveniently disregard that the evidence being discussed was the Bradford memo, something that Seham screamed like a stuck pig to keep away from the jury. Why?

We all know why as it clearly manifested that the sole purpose of the back-of-the-van gang was to screw the West, and every juror understood it plainly. Once in, Seham basically said nothing as he knew how damaging it was. Uncontroverted is basically an admission.

 

[EastUS]

Yes! And there isn't one legal fact that was true against any convicted felon either! They're all innocent.

...and every juror...

Well....at least OJay apparently was "Not Guilty", and not even convicted, whilst a goodly number of truly innocent people have been improperly imprisoned, even murdered/executed by the perfect and pristinely pure legal system over time. How many innocents on death row itself have been released in the light of further evidence?

A point I've always wondered at is just why the west was so very fine with the fact that any aspect of fairness regarding the nic was NEVER to be put on trial. Ummm...I wonder why? 🙄 Whew!..Now there's a true desire for "justice" and "integrity" in action

The tingling sensation the west gets from the righteous glory of courtrooms and round one of Addington never fails to amuse......

 

[aquagreen73s]

Actually, the Nicolau was on trial in that it was Exhibit #2 I think. THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. It was right there before the jurors and if it was soooooo unfair, then there is such a thing as jury nullification ala OJ.

Is that what you wanted - an OJ jury?

 

[Phoenix]

It's a shame that theory isn't in question ..

Its not a theory, and it certainly is the issue that the court has not honestly come to grips with.

ALPA abrogated its authority to determine the seniority integration, and forever cast it to the whims of Nicolau, whom they agreed would forever have jurisdiction. And they did so through the allowance of the constitution to shirk any and all responsibility (in force only as it was ratified by the electorate, whether or not they understood the potential consequences). It is worth taking note of the obvious.. a majority of the electorate concluded that ALPA defrauded them.

USAPA has a constitutional hortatory duly established by the electorates will within established law.

The defunct constitution resulted in a self-imposed promise (according to the will of the electorate, as ALPA was so fond of telling us... YOU are ALPA) to abide by a third party whim, whatsoever it be.

Which takes preeminence is the issue, whether or not it is honestly acknowledged.

 

[Flippin43]

Well....at least OJay apparently was "Not Guilty", and not even convicted, whilst a goodly number of truly innocent people have been improperly imprisoned, even murdered/executed by the perfect and pristinely pure legal system over time. How many innocents on death row itself have been released in the light of further evidence?

A point I've always wondered at is just why the west was so very fine with the fact that any aspect of fairness regarding the nic was NEVER to be put on trial. Ummm...I wonder why? 🙄 Whew!..Now there's a true desire for "justice" and "integrity" in action

The tingling sensation the west gets from the righteous glory of courtrooms and round one of Addington never fails to amuse......

East,

The full and complete Nicolau award was part of the Documents given to the Jury. It would appear that they read it. Have you. Keep in mind that your idea of fairness of the Nicolau award or anything else in this world is not the final word. And not a test that all things must pass to be regarded as "Fair". As you are not living up to the obligation of keeping your word. I would recalculate how often you throw around the word "Integrity".

Flip