That is my layman's interpretation also. While the Nic wasn't on trial in the District Court, the use or rejection of Nic was - that's what got the guilty verdict against USAPA. So it would appear that any menaingful tampering with the Nic award could very well end up with the same verdict against USAPA.
Jim
Here is what the Dissent" wrote:
"The
ripeness inquiry is not concerned with whether
a case is as ripe as it possibly could be."
In short, either it is or it isn't.
However, the MAJORITY (We know how much you HATE the MAJORITY), stated:
We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the accompanying injury.
At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA.
Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new,
single CBA. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is.
Because these contingencies make the claim speculative, the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.
Therefore, in the dissents "attempt" to turn logic on it's head, it could well be said, using the Dissent's language, that:
"The
ratification inquiry is not concerned with whether a CBA
is voted in by as much of a majority as it possibly could be.
So if and when the ratification vote occurs AND if and when the MAJORITY of the ratification votes affirms a CBA with DOH with conditions and restrictions, will the real questions before the court be:
Can a DFR occur if the MAJORITY, the overwhelming MAJORITY, a MAJORITY with a number so large that it statistically proves that an overwhelming MAJORITY of the combined East and West, irregardless of geography, a MAJORITY that may even include many of the West "Plaintiffs" may of voted for, ratified a CBA???
How would you know? Testimony? Will the court's or the lawyer's subpoena ballotpoints records to see if maybe Addington, Bostic, Burman, Iranpur, Velez, or Wargocki voted FOR or AGAINST the CBA (oh thats right, at least one of them isn't even employed here)... maybe one or more of the pilots in the America West "class" voted to accept the CBA. How does THAT affect THEIR rights???
KEEP DREAMING!!!
Army of Leonidas, a
minority of wanna-be union busters run by an anti-labor law firm.