US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[N924PS]

Because the subject has not come to exists yet
The maintenance airbus heavy maintenance arbitration never came to be only a negotiated water down version

Huh?

 

[Captain Underpants]

I think that #1 is generally accepted to mean what it says (and I'm confident your "has" expired refers to the 1/1/2010 date).

It's that #2 that is open to interpretation - eventually by an arbitrator.

Just a question - I know that the pay rate is the biggie, but are you looking forward to the return of night differential and int'l override on non-oceanic flights? From what you quoted earlier, even USAPA doesn't mention those returning.

Jim

Jim,

The way I see it when line #1 expires it becomes moot. Just like an expired credit card or passport it has no value and can no longer be used. Line #1 can just as well be deleted at expiration because it has no effect after 12/31/09. Line #2 now by itself contains a contingency of reducing "rates as frozen". Since line #1 has expired there is no longer a frozen rate to reduce from and there is no contractual provision to reduce an unfrozen rate.

Pay rates then revert to Attachment A of LOA 84 which after 5/1/08 have contractually returned to the original restructuring agreement rates. For years 2009 and beyond the contract sets the pay rates at the restructuring agreement rate of 174.85 for group 2 C/O plus the annual 3% adjustments.

Line #3 and Line #4 of LOA 93 eliminating night pay and reducing the Int'l override remain in effect as do all the other provisions of LOA 93 that have not specifically expired.

USAPA winning the grievance just honors the previously negotiated pay rates and brings the rates back to industry standard. If the company "wins" and the rates stay frozen the pilots will strike at the first opportunity. Winning a dispute feels good but only if you can survive the inevitable consequences.

underpants

 

[Metroyet]

. If the company "wins" and the rates stay frozen the pilots will strike at the first opportunity. Winning a dispute feels good but only if you can survive the inevitable consequences.

underpants

Sure. Which pilots will strike at the first opportunity? Certainly not those on the Western side of the Mississippi. Pull whatever illegal job action you think you have the stones for but the one living with the consequences will you and those like-minded.

 

[N924PS]

If the company "wins" and the rates stay frozen the pilots will strike at the first opportunity. Winning a dispute feels good but only if you can survive the inevitable consequences.

underpants

Please post a link to the last successful airline labor strike.

 

[boeingplt]

Please post a link to the last successful airline labor strike.

Pleas post a link to the last successful concession

 

[N924PS]

Pleas post a link to the last successful concession

None exists, of course. Just as there has not been a successul airline pilot strike in the US since deregulation.

With one third of the USAirways pilots cocked in the pissed off position and thousands of pilots furloughed industry wide, how long do you think it would take Doug and Scott to replace the other two thirds?

Things aren't so good in Dubai these days, so that Emirate's job is not a good fall back position.
Starbucks? Loews? At least they have benefits.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Starbucks? Loews? At least they have benefits.

Starbucks just canned a bunch of people and closed some stores. I noticed in the local Home Depot that they removed the employment application kiosk as well.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Sure. Which pilots will strike at the first opportunity? Certainly not those on the Western side of the Mississippi.

Of course not!

We see that as "past practice."

Why would we expect anything different?

 

[nic4us]

What exactly is the source of that pay table? ............." It still wouldn't mean a thing if it's not contained in the LOA.

I pulled it from a documents library available to west pilots. We also have your contracts and such. Remember, we were once working together on joint negotiations. How it got there I do not know. Also, I do not know its author. As I said to umderpants, I thought it looked suspect. If you notice though it is tittled "Scenario", so it looked like something ALPA presented to the pilots showing the effect the freeze would have.

In any event, eveything does not have to be in the LOA when you are in front of the arbitrator. If the company makes the case that you were negotiating for lower rates, (as Parker said in the crew video) and produces a pay table out through 2011 that was constructed by ALPA, and who knows what else to support their claim that you are being disingenous, well it gives the arbitrator something to think about.

 

[nic4us]

Of course not!

We see that as "past practice."

Why would we expect anything different?

You probably should expect no less, so maybe the usapa communications guy can write an informative first hand account of how to go about it.

 

[Phoenix]

....

What became obvious in the court tapes to me is this appeal boils down to ripeness. ...

Rakestraw, good-faith, bad-faith, jury instructions, what's allowed in, ligitimate union objective-that's all a bunch of hooey. ..

Agreed.. Ripeness is the issue..

..and the hypothetical illuminated it all the more. Graber's hypothetical established an exaggerated test against the defendant's claim which was that the courts should not interfere during negotiations. She acknowledged that there is a distinction between the period of negotiations and the end of negotiations (a distinction that must be overcome for plaintiff to prevail?... It was how she started her questions to plaintiff). She proposed an absurd union negotiating position to test if a bargaining position could hypothetically be so absurd that it would be sufficient to overshadow or eliminate the distinction, and thus establish ripeness.

Plaintiff submitted that the Ramey case is the example of how the distinction is overshadowed in the present case. It seemed that there are a number of substantive differences between Ramey and the present case.. not sure it can withstand the weight as hoped.

If on the other hand an absurdly prejudicial bargaining position hypothetically does necessitate ripeness, even before all contingencies are allowed to play out, then of course the case is hypothetically ripe.. And the union would be entitled to freely present its defense.

Double or nothing... not ripe yet.. defense will be allowed to fully present their case to the jury in the DFR, many moons hence.. (hey, what the heck, it sounds more reasonable than proposing another UCT )

 

[Al Legheny]

The text of a letter sent to the court answering the question further. This is what the lawyer was looking for during the long pause. This is a little beyond my understanding but I guess it makes the point he wanted to about ripeness.

Pursuant to FRAP 28(j) and Ninth Circuit Rule 28-6, Plaintiffs-
Appellees Addington, et al., submit authority to clarify a point raised
yesterday at oral argument.

Judge Tashima asked counsel to explain where Ramey v. District
141 states, “we do not require, or even permit, union members to bring
a suit against their union simply because the union has announced its
future intention to breach its duty.â€￾ 378 F.3d 269, 279 (2d Cir. 2004).
Not having the decision readily available, counsel was unable to directly
call the Court’s attention to footnote 4 that immediately follows this
quotation. This footnote states as follows:

In some limited circumstances, a suit for a preliminary
injunction may be brought based on such an announcement.
However, because the standards for obtaining preliminary
injunctive relief are significantly higher than the standards
for litigating a case after a breach has occurred, the
possibility of maintaining a preliminary injunction
proceeding does not trigger the statute of limitations.
Id. at 279, n.4.

Footnote four clarifies that the Ramey court was addressing
accrual of limitations, not accrual of ripeness. If a claim is ripe for one
kind of relief that satisfies jurisdictional ripeness. Ramey, therefore,
does not preclude finding our claim ripe

Let's read that again. In some limited circumstances, a suit for a preliminary injunction may be brought based on such an annoumcement. However, because the standars for obtaiing preliminary injunctive relief are significantly higher than the standards for litigating a case.....

I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. Plaintiffs brought a preliminary injunction and judge Wake dismissed it. Only a preliminary injunction can be given absent ripeness, it is done to stop a harm.

Preliminary Injunction: A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order commanding or preventing a specific action. Unlike a permanent injunction, which is issued at the end of trial as part of the court’s final decision, a preliminary injunction is issued before or during trial. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent major injury or damage from occurring while the court is deciding the case. (See also “Injunctionâ€￾).

My limited intelligence non legal mind reads this as the only way to beat ripeness is via a preliminary njunction and we been there and done that. Judge Wake said he case did not rise to the level of preliminary injunctive relief.

 

[aquagreen73s]

You're missing the whole purpose of the footnote being there: the Ramey court put it there to clarify that that they were talking about the triggering of the statute of limitations. Limitations are completely different from ripeness. Often they coincide, but at other times they don't and Ramey is one of those cases. The point of bringing it up at oral arguments was to hammer this distinction home. It was to the plaintiff's benefit that Judge T. brought it up.

 

[BoeingBoy]

In response to my question about night and international override pay:

The freeze is specific to the pay rate and the expiration date is specific to the freeze.

Line #3 and Line #4 of LOA 93 eliminating night pay and reducing the Int'l override remain in effect as do all the other provisions of LOA 93 that have not specifically expired.

About what I figured the response would be.

I don't have a copy of LOA 84, but didn't it include pay rates for day and night? Even if not, is not the night differential a part of the pay rate for any flying between 6pm and 6am? Is not the international over-ride for non-oceanic a part of the pay rate for those that do that flying. If not, what is the rate of pay for someone flying at night or on international non-oceanic routes? The day rate? I think not.

So if the pay rate returns to that specified in LOA 84, is not night and international non-oceanic pay part of that rate for those that do that flying and thus returned to that specified in LOA 84?

As for the rest, most everyone has an opinion about what the language means - an opinion and nothing else. Personally, I can argue for any of 3 possibilities. As I've said before - eventually an arbitrator will decide and that will be that. Unless the company agrees with USAPA that binding arbitration isn't really binding...

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Let's read that again. In some limited circumstances, a suit for a preliminary injunction may be brought based on such an annoumcement. However, because the standars for obtaiing preliminary injunctive relief are significantly higher than the standards for litigating a case.....

I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. Plaintiffs brought a preliminary injunction and judge Wake dismissed it. Only a preliminary injunction can be given absent ripeness, it is done to stop a harm.

Preliminary Injunction: A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order commanding or preventing a specific action. Unlike a permanent injunction, which is issued at the end of trial as part of the court’s final decision, a preliminary injunction is issued before or during trial. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent major injury or damage from occurring while the court is deciding the case. (See also “Injunctionâ€￾).

My limited intelligence non legal mind reads this as the only way to beat ripeness is via a preliminary njunction and we been there and done that. Judge Wake said he case did not rise to the level of preliminary injunctive relief.

Not sure if you misunderstood. I did not write this piece it was submitted by the plaintiff lawyer. The bolded part is the quote of the footnote from Ramey.

If you go back to the hearings transcript judge Wake said that instead of issuing a preliminary or temporary injunction he would rather get to the trial and issue a permanent one if needed. That is the reason this case was expedited. He said the harm to the west and to the company. If you remember we asked for a temporary injunction.

What I think this letter is saying is the a DFR case has a limitation of 6 months. But if the harm or ripeness does not start until after the 6 months there is never a time that suit can be brought. If there is no time that it becomes ripe unions could cause all kinds of harm and never be held accountable. That is what judge Bybee was asking. When will this end, when will it become ripe.

Judge Graber was asking the same thing. If the west has to wait until some future date say three years from now and the contract passed. Now it is ripe and harm begins. We wade through the court process two or three more years when we win how does the west get made whole? How does the court fix 6-8 years of damage that has been done? Do they order a bump and flush of the seniority list? Make the out of order upgrades repay the blocked pilots.

No in this case it is quite clear of the intent and actions of usapa were to violate our fair representation.

One last thing. The court had no questions or problem with the trial or the finding of liability. They had no problem with the evidence allowed or not allowed, no problem with the jury instructions. So I would venture a guess that they agree that usapa was wrong. The only question is was it done at the right time. Now or later either way the jury is going to come to the same conclusion.