US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

Or possibly the fact that the dynamic at the airline regarding bases, bids etc. has changed so radically since NIC passed judgement, that a hard look should be taken into it's applicability to current conditions, NOT pre-merger.


Driver B)

And there it is. You want a do over plain and simple, everything you got since 2005 is because of the merger not in spite of it. So your logic is this, ignore the arbitration long enough and when i'm in a better position I want a do over to account for my better position 6 years after we are a single company. Do you really think any court will buy that?

 

[fodase]

2. Neither ALPA nor the Company ever agreed that LOA 96 prevented them from freely bargaining,

True, and judge wake said that usapa was as free as alpa was to negotiate and the 9th quoted that. Based on this info why didn't alpa just give you the majority the doh you demanded? After all they would have kept the property. Could it be that if alpa did what you wanted they would be guilty of dfr?

and the 9th spanked Wake for attempting to change that.

Untrue, the judge and jury were correct, it is illegal. All the 9th said is not ripe.

If you insist that the Company is liable for damages to the same extent as precedent has already found USAPA liable, then fine.

Obviously you didn't follow any of the trials. The company was dismissed from addington why? Because they had not accepted the doh list and testified that the nicolau was the only list they had accepted. Judge wake warned lcc that if colusion with usapa was found he would bring them back into the case. Don't have to believe me, read the transcripts of the companys dismissal from addington.

The Company has ZERO liability, by precedent.

So the company is let go from the first hybrid dfr because they hadn't touched the nic, the company knows that usapa has been convicted of dfr, the company knows that precedent says that what usapa is doing is illegal and you think they have zero liability?

 

[A320 Driver]

So their not a majority that is changing an agreed to seniority list that advances the majority over the minority? The fact the east believes they are in the right doesn't change the facts of what usapa proposes, illegal.

That seniority list was NOT agreed to. What was agreed to was a process that many on the East believe failed INCLUDING the ALPA president at the time. He said so in the PHL crew room but didn't have the stones to do anything of value to fix it.

Driver <_<

 

[Metroyet]

Just to be clear:

Is USAPA still claiming that they haven't heard a SINGLE WORD from Kasher regarding the LOA 93 snap back?

hmmm. Interesting. 😀

 

[fodase]

A union has the responsibility to establish seniority policy of its members.

Sure, but not after the fact. You should have votede in usapa prior to the merger,

Obviously, ALPA failed at establishing a ratifiable contrat, and if they were still here, they would still be attempting to change their bargaining position in order to achieve a ratifiable contract.

Alpa wasn't allowed to present a ratifiable contract because the east pulled out of negotiations to prevent one from seeing the light of day, you know this and it has been proven in court. Remember there is a paper trail a mile long proving this, you know it and we know it. We have sworn testimony where the phl reps were scared that the east would vote in the nic. with the proposed pay rates back in 2007 and their solution was to pull out.

As Driver already said, things have changed so radically, how could any union be constrained from making adjustments to their bargaining positions? The failure to adjust for new realities would itself be a DFR. Do we have to wait for another 10 years before a change to bargaining can be considered?

So your union creates an impasse and then wants a do over because the impasse they created benefits the majority at the expense of the minority, you don't think thats a dfr?

 

[Phoenix]

"a union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one
group of employees over another,"

...

Precedent has been established that speculations about possible future harm and liability that might occur, once the bargaining is completed and ratified, do not provide a basis for injunctive intervention on the bargaining parties.

Determination of the presence or absence of harm is a future conversation, and should that conversation occur, the representative bargaining agent will remind any court of the 9th's reference to the SCOTUS standard of wide range of reasonableness, among others, including your post above.

 

[fodase]

That seniority list was NOT agreed to. What was agreed to was a process that many on the East believe failed INCLUDING the ALPA president at the time. He said so in the PHL crew room but didn't have the stones to do anything of value to fix it.

Driver <_<

You are correct, the seniority list never required approval, you agreed to be bound by the result and there is no denying that. Parker is a coward, he wants the courts to his dirty work for him, on that we can agree.

 

[Phoenix]

....

Until bargaining is complete, there is no static bargaining position. When its over, sue to your heart's content.

 

[fodase]

"a union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one
group of employees over another,"



The other case relied on by the USAPA law firm is the Seventh Circuit U.S.
Court ofAppeals decision in Rakestraw v. United Airlines. In that case, ALPA
successfully defended DFR claims brought by United replacement pilots after ALPA
secured United's agreement to restore the seniority ofthe Group of 570 striking pilots to
the seniority they would have had but for the strike. Rakestraw recognized that seniority
is an element of an agreement rather than a fixed right or commodity, but it did not
simply grant a free hand to unions to renegotiate seniority terms. Rather, the court held that "a union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one group of employees over another," and the union may seek to negotiate an adjustment in a seniority list only if the adjustment "rationally promote the aggregate welfare of employees in the bargaining unit." 981 F.2d at 1535.

Trader, there is a much better case that addresses this situation and is more relevant than rakestraw. The case is Barton brands vs. nlrb, that case established that a majority cannot change unions to steal a minorities seniority. That case makes what usapa is trying to do illegal in this country. That case was brought up in the 7th circuit again when the larger air wisconsin group tried to do the Mississippi valley pilots what usapa is trying to do to the west, the 7th in fact reiterated that changing unions to undo the arbitrated list as the air wisconsin pilots tried to do was a slam dunk dfr.

 

[fodase]

Until bargaining is complete, there is no static bargaining position.

Company says that they don't negotiate seniority they just accept the unions list. Is that incorrect?

When its over, sue to your heart's content.

If that's true why is usapa about to have another trial in phoenix federal court?

 

[Phoenix]

... what usapa is doing is illegal...

Right now? They are doing something illegal right now! Where is your injunction?

 

[fodase]

BTW, any of you easties have any doubt the west can easily prove usapa was formed in part to undo the nic. and establish doh to favor the east? If you do, you need to rethink your stance. Videos, emails, attorney letters, lanyards etc. we have them all and ready to be admitted into evidence again. There is no question why you formed usapa, that my friends is undeniable, and it doesn't go away when and if you ratify a contract with something other than the Nic.

 

[Phoenix]

Company says that they don't negotiate seniority they just accept the unions list. Is that incorrect?

No that is not correct. The company has no confusion about their responsibility to bargain.

They are claiming concern that if they take a bargaining position of only accepting the Nic, they will be at an impasse with the bargaining agent with whom they are required to bargain, and could suffer a work stoppage as a result.

 

[fodase]

Right now? They are doing something illegal right now!

Well are they proposing a list that advances the east and harms the west when compared with nicolau?

Where is your injunction?

we had one, but the idiots on the 9th refused to look at the facts, so they lifted it until you ratify a contract, that just makes it ripe not legal.

 

[fodase]

No that is not correct. The company has no confusion about their responsibility to bargain.

They are claiming concern that if they take a bargaining position of only accepting the Nic, they will be at an impasse with the bargaining agent with whom they are required to bargain, and could suffer a work stoppage as a result.

So you are saying, as an example, usapa will propose a seniority list and the company will counter with a different seniority list and they will bargain seniority until a list exists that satisfies both sides? Is that what you are saying that the company must actively negotiate pilots positions on the list? Never heard of that being done before, but usapa's founders did say seniority was like crew meals.