BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
doug parker drove a car drunk, kirby was on his own airline drunk.
I was not around when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped.
I must admit I have no proof of not being involved with the ladder, er latter.
HPearlyretiree
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,614
Oh Chicken, you just are a ray of sunshine. You know, anger and hate kills, its shortening your lifespan.
You work for Doug, he owns you, step out of line, and you will be working at Lowes.
LOL
BTW, let me know when you have proof about Kirby...
HPearlyretiree
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,614
Not ducking it. Your side agreed with the west side and the company to abide by an arbiters decision. That is called a contract. Everyone agreed but then the East thought they could duck out of their agreement by forming a sham union. Fast forward years later, and you are still on LOA93, just got your ass handed to you by a judge, and things haven't changed.
Imagine where you could be if you just lived up to your agreements, like real men do?
parker drove drunk, kirby was a drunk on his own airline.
Something you should be concerned about, I do not ever have to worry about telling the truth.
I do not work for your drunk friends, but I will spend my life educating the masses about them.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
That's obvious since you never do.
As that demonstrates...
Hey Driver - we've got a poster who claims he doesn't work for US. Are you curious?
Jim
HPearlyretiree
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,614
What, by being "before" in the before and after commercials?
LOL
Be careful, slander is a dangerous thing, and you east pilots are already under the thumb of a judge, don't want to make any more mistakes....do you?
The East formed a new union because it was their only way to object to a flawed contract. I ask you again, would you close on the house that you knew was flawed?
Answer the question....that's all. You can't because you know that you would never honor that contract.
Therefore, the contract is void and it is worth LOA 93 wages to not buy in the flawed house. The seller is not going to screw the buyer in this case.
Your lack of honesty shows just how much you have to learn about Karma, junior.
breeze
Well, I beg to differ......I was there. I was hired as no. 151 pilot in 1984 with AWA. Your/mine airline at the time hired scabs, military types who couldn't upgrade so upgrade went out of senority and it was the "Peoples Express" way......multiple job functions. Yeah.....way to run a airline......NOT.......I left and went to Usair. For twenty + years made more money than you could possibly try to duplicate. I can sit on LOA 93 and you have no chance to even come close. So get off your high horse and go out and try to catch up....
What, by being "before" in the before and after commercials?
LOL
Be careful, slander is a dangerous thing, and you east pilots are already under the thumb of a judge, don't want to make any more mistakes....do you?
Maybe I will be more careful what I say then.
parker drove a car drunk and kirby was drunk as a passenger on his own airline.
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Now you just elect scabs to represent you and speak to the media for you.. Way to run a union...NOT...
Good to see you can sit on LOA93 because its something you'll be doing for a long time.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
The answer is simple breeze - you have no proof the house is flawed. You just want out of the contract because you decided that you didn't like the color. So reverse your question. You signed a contract to sell a house. Now the buyer is making claims that you know are false, but the buyer won't listen to you, threatens to take you to court, burn down your house and demands to break the contract, get his earnest money back, get the house for free, plus half the agreed on price for damages. What would you, as seller, do? Give in to his demands?
Jim
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
You easties should be getting a copy of this in your mailboxes next week. We managed to illegally obtain your addresses again.
9-30-11 Leonidas Update
September 30, 2011
Leonidas Update
Dear BRIAN,
On September 28th, 2011, Judge Conrad granted US Airways’ request for a preliminary injunction. You can read the 45 page order here. Our initial comments are:
USAPA has been sued in two different federal district courts by two different plaintiffs – the West pilots and now the company. Both plaintiffs sued to enjoin (stop) USAPA from consciously harming the respective interests of the plaintiffs. In both suits, the plaintiffs prevailed against USAPA.
Recall that Lee Seham boasted early in our suit that “DFRs are notoriously difficult to win.” Judge Conrad writes, “[p]reliminary injunctions are an extraordinary remedy whose primary function is to protect the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a lawsuit”.
Twice now USAPA has lost on claims which should have been easy for a union to prevail on had they followed the law. It is astounding that a union could face two different claims and lose on both, all within three and a half years of its creation.
In addition to losing a DFR and an injunction, in its short lifetime, USAPA has also sued its own members under a civil RICO theory, lost, appealed and lost again on the appeal. In addition, USAPA has allowed grievances to become backlogged to levels unheard of under ALPA; spent over three years in Section 6 negotiations with virtually no progress; virtually eliminated West representation on committees; burned through millions of dollars of pilots’ dues money in other frivolous investigations; and now faces the prospect of dozens of pilots being terminated as a result of USAPA’s illegal job action. USAPA rabidly uses its Section 29 powers against its membership, unlike anything seen before under East or West ALPA.
The common denominator in all of USAPA’s experiences since its inception is the habit of doing the wrong thing, even when the right thing to do is glaringly obvious. The mentality appears to be, “[w]e will get what we want, right or wrong, no matter what it takes!” This fact becomes abundantly clear when one reads Judge Conrad’s order. We are stunned by how similar the injunction order against USAPA is when compared to Judge Wake’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” (Doc 593). Both are from very different claims, with very different facts, but when we were finished reading Judge Conrad’s order for the first time, it was as if we had seen all of this before. We have. Once again, it comes down to USAPA's consistent inability to do the right thing.
We have printed the headers below from Judge Conrad’s order with selected text from each section. We also referenced headers and text from Judge Wake’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for you to compare to Judge Conrad’s order. The gist is clear that the union is wrong. Judge Conrad makes it obvious that USAPA is wrong in its intent, wrong in its actions, and wrong in its direction.
We wish we had more to discuss regarding the company's Declaratory Action, but that case sits at the bottom of Judge Silvers’ overloaded docket. We are awaiting a ruling from Judge Silver on class certification for the West. The West and company briefs in support of, and the USAPA briefs against West class certification, were all submitted several months ago. So, we are simply forced to wait. We will not speculate as to how long it will take Judge Silver to rule on class certification, or how long it will take the Declaratory Action to be adjudicated. It could be soon, it could be next summer, or it could take several more years.
Finally, it is important to notice how, in spite of USAPA's repeated assertions that the original Addington lawsuit is a “legal nullity”...it remains, and will continue to remain. USAPA is haunted and directly affected by the historical facts that were found in Judge Wake's courtroom.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
www.cactuspilot.com
The following are excerpts from Judge Conrad’s order:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Section 2, First of the RLA imposes a duty on USAPA to exert every reasonable effort to avoid interruptions to US Airways’s operations.
“Thus, even if this court were to conclude that USAPA had not instigated the slowdown, the association would still have an affirmative duty to exert every reasonable effort to stop it.”
B. USAPA has violated Section 2, First of the RLA.
1) USAPA Directly Encouraged Certain Aspects of Slowdown
“While USAPA asserts that these actions were solely about safety, the association’s communications plainly encouraged East pilots to engage in this conduct for the purpose, in part, of obtaining a favorable CBA.”
2) USAPA did not Exert Every Reasonable Effort to Stop the Slowdown
“In addition to the Court’s findings on USAPA’s instigation of the slowdown, it has violated its duty to exert every reasonable effort to stop it. *** Yet there is no evidence, nor even any argument except with regard to distance learning, that USAPA published anything that was sincerely meant to discourage this conduct or otherwise took any serious actions to do so until this Court ruled against USAPA’s motion to dismiss, transfer, of stay the instant against. To the contrary, USAPA continued to publish the sorts of communications and directives that were intended to encourage East pilots to engage in a slowdown campaign.”
C. Action is not Barred by Unclean Hands Provision
“Here, the heart of the RLA is at stake because the slowdown activities that US Airways seeks to enjoin contravene USAPA’s duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”
D. A Preliminary Injunction is not Prohibited by the Norris-La Guardia Act,
“Regardless of the proper standard, this Court finds that US Airways has offered enough “clear proof” of USAPA’s involvement in the work slowdown to satisfy the RLA standards. In addition to the vast statistical evidence, US Airways introduced numerous formal communications from USAPA that explicitly instructed pilots to change their normal behaviors under the guise of safety. Defendants offer no satisfying explanation why its communications beseeched pilots to put safety first in the context of blaming US Airways for the lack of progress in the contract negotiations, why it told pilots that the Safety Culture Survey would have “strong implications beyond just safety,” or why the “I AM ON BOARD SAFETY FIRST!/I’VE HAD ENOUGH I AM READY TO STRIKE” bag tags were mailed from its own headquarters. Nor did Defendants explain why the Strike Prep Committee advised pilots to “MEET OR EXCEED safety standards.”
E. Injunctive relief is necessary to end the slowdown.
1) US Airways has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits.
“The defendants had three weeks after US Airways filed its complaint to conduct discovery and prepare its defenses before the preliminary injunction hearing commenced, and they were aided by the fact that they had already conducted discovery on related issues for their action against US Airways in New York. Much of the relevant evidence was in USAPA’s control. The defendants had an unrestricted amount of time to cross-examine Plaintiff’s witnesses and present their own witnesses. The hearing itself lasted two days, during which the parties presented live testimony from eleven witnesses, submitted declarations from ten witnesses (many of whom submitted multiple declarations), and introduced over 100 exhibits. The Court is convinced that the defendants have been heard on their defenses and are unlikely to be victorious should this case go to trial.”
2) US Airways is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.
3) The balance of the equities tips in favor of US Airways.
“Because USAPA is engaged in an illegal slowdown, the balance of equities clearly tips in favor of US Airways. *** To the extent that USAPA is concerned that an injunction would hamper its legitimate safety efforts, this Court declares that it in no way intends to interfere with the duty of pilots in command to ensure the safety of their passengers and equipment. The court’s injunction therefore should not dissuade good faith efforts to ensure the safe operation of the airline.”
4) An injunction is in the public interest.
“An injunction is in the public interest considering that the central purpose of the RLA was to protect the public from interruptions to transportation caused by labor disputes, which is occurring here.”
Now compare Judge Conrad’s headers with the headers in Judge Wake’s “Conclusions of Law.” A different case entirely, but is anyone surprised about who the same bad actor is? From Doc. 593 in the Addington case:
A. Duty of Fair Representation
“A jury has already found that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation with respect to the West Pilots. In short, USAPA violated the duty because it cast aside the result of an internal seniority arbitration solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots. USAPA failed to prove that any legitimate union objective motivated its acts.”
1. Bargaining Backdrop
“USAPA does not dispute that it succeeded to ALPA’s rights and obligations under the Transition Agreement. Nonetheless, USAPA contends that the Nicolau Award does not limit USAPA in any sense.*** USAPA suggests that the Nicolau Award bound only the merger representatives, with the sole effect of precluding those representatives from asserting the existence of any disagreement between them regarding the Nicolau Award. The award, according to USAPA, was imposed on the East Pilots without their consent; ALPA, and by extension USAPA, remained free to order its affairs as though the award had never happened. This argument offends common sense, the evidence, and fundamental principles of law. In the context of labor rights, it is both discordant and irrelevant.”
2. Theory of Liability
“The question is not whether USAPA made a seniority proposal that is acceptable in the abstract, or whether USAPA deprived certain employees of their property rights, or what position it could have taken before agreement to a different final and binding process. The question is not whether USAPA has the right to adjust its bargaining position, even after playing out an agreed final and binding process, for some good reason. The legal question is whether USAPA—or any union—violates its duty of fair representation by adopting and promoting a certain integrated seniority list for no reason other than to favor one group of employees at the expense of another. An established genre of fair representation decisions says yes.”
3. Legitimate Union Objectives
“Liability attached because USAPA’s only actual motivation in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots.”
4. USAPA’s Seniority Objective
“There is no authority for a magic rule that date-of-hire stops all inquiry on the duty of fair representation, in disregard of circumstances. The significance of date-of-hire seniority varies from one labor negotiation to the next. The bankrupt position of US Airways at the time of the merger, with almost as many furloughed pilots as America West had working, and with a significant furlough history, lent date-of-hire integration some hues of inequity it might not have had in another merger. The question before the arbitrator was not whether date-of-hire seniority, in the abstract, was a desirable thing, but whether it would provide a fair and equitable answer to the career expectations of the unmerged pilot groups.”
5. USAPA’s Impasse-Related Objective
“The evidence of a supposed impasse requiring sacrifice of the West Pilots to angry East Pilots was pretextual; in any event, it did not persuade the jury or the Court that an actual impasse existed; and the so-called impasse could not, as a matter of law, justify USAPA’s actions toward the West Pilots and the Nicolau Award.”
i. Pretext
“The evidence well supports the conclusion, implicit in the verdict and persuasive to the Court, that any asserted impasse was a pretext for bare favoritism of the East Pilots.”
ii. Non-persuasion
“Before certification, USAPA repeatedly asserted that a contract was likely to be presented for ratification soon.”
iii. Legal insufficiency
“Even if an impasse did exist, it would not justify USAPA’s actions as a matter of law. Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority. *** In effect, USAPA claims that the East Pilots hold such strong objections to the Nicolau Award that they always will vote as a bloc against any new CBA with it, enjoying the self-denial of a single CBA with improved wages and working conditions into perpetuity. Even if this unbelievable story is believed, it only means that the East Pilots have the power of self-inflicted harm. It does not mean that the union’s duty of fair representation falls victim to self-hostage taking.”
6. USAPA’s Other Objectives
“Dissatisfaction with the previously agreed-upon ALPA merger procedures was not a legitimate union objective. Honest disagreement required honesty up front. It was only after the Nicolau Award was issued, and the pilots lost their veil of ignorance, that so many East Pilots decided that the procedures were inherently unjust. The union cannot satisfy its duty by catering to this self-interested hindsight.”
7. Taxonomy of Liability
“USAPA ‘discriminated’ when it adopted a seniority proposal for no reason other than to advantage the majority East Pilots at the minority West Pilots’ expense.”
9-30-11 Leonidas Update
September 30, 2011
Leonidas Update
Dear BRIAN,
On September 28th, 2011, Judge Conrad granted US Airways’ request for a preliminary injunction. You can read the 45 page order here. Our initial comments are:
USAPA has been sued in two different federal district courts by two different plaintiffs – the West pilots and now the company. Both plaintiffs sued to enjoin (stop) USAPA from consciously harming the respective interests of the plaintiffs. In both suits, the plaintiffs prevailed against USAPA.
Recall that Lee Seham boasted early in our suit that “DFRs are notoriously difficult to win.” Judge Conrad writes, “[p]reliminary injunctions are an extraordinary remedy whose primary function is to protect the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a lawsuit”.
Twice now USAPA has lost on claims which should have been easy for a union to prevail on had they followed the law. It is astounding that a union could face two different claims and lose on both, all within three and a half years of its creation.
In addition to losing a DFR and an injunction, in its short lifetime, USAPA has also sued its own members under a civil RICO theory, lost, appealed and lost again on the appeal. In addition, USAPA has allowed grievances to become backlogged to levels unheard of under ALPA; spent over three years in Section 6 negotiations with virtually no progress; virtually eliminated West representation on committees; burned through millions of dollars of pilots’ dues money in other frivolous investigations; and now faces the prospect of dozens of pilots being terminated as a result of USAPA’s illegal job action. USAPA rabidly uses its Section 29 powers against its membership, unlike anything seen before under East or West ALPA.
The common denominator in all of USAPA’s experiences since its inception is the habit of doing the wrong thing, even when the right thing to do is glaringly obvious. The mentality appears to be, “[w]e will get what we want, right or wrong, no matter what it takes!” This fact becomes abundantly clear when one reads Judge Conrad’s order. We are stunned by how similar the injunction order against USAPA is when compared to Judge Wake’s “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” (Doc 593). Both are from very different claims, with very different facts, but when we were finished reading Judge Conrad’s order for the first time, it was as if we had seen all of this before. We have. Once again, it comes down to USAPA's consistent inability to do the right thing.
We have printed the headers below from Judge Conrad’s order with selected text from each section. We also referenced headers and text from Judge Wake’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for you to compare to Judge Conrad’s order. The gist is clear that the union is wrong. Judge Conrad makes it obvious that USAPA is wrong in its intent, wrong in its actions, and wrong in its direction.
We wish we had more to discuss regarding the company's Declaratory Action, but that case sits at the bottom of Judge Silvers’ overloaded docket. We are awaiting a ruling from Judge Silver on class certification for the West. The West and company briefs in support of, and the USAPA briefs against West class certification, were all submitted several months ago. So, we are simply forced to wait. We will not speculate as to how long it will take Judge Silver to rule on class certification, or how long it will take the Declaratory Action to be adjudicated. It could be soon, it could be next summer, or it could take several more years.
Finally, it is important to notice how, in spite of USAPA's repeated assertions that the original Addington lawsuit is a “legal nullity”...it remains, and will continue to remain. USAPA is haunted and directly affected by the historical facts that were found in Judge Wake's courtroom.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
www.cactuspilot.com
The following are excerpts from Judge Conrad’s order:
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Section 2, First of the RLA imposes a duty on USAPA to exert every reasonable effort to avoid interruptions to US Airways’s operations.
“Thus, even if this court were to conclude that USAPA had not instigated the slowdown, the association would still have an affirmative duty to exert every reasonable effort to stop it.”
B. USAPA has violated Section 2, First of the RLA.
1) USAPA Directly Encouraged Certain Aspects of Slowdown
“While USAPA asserts that these actions were solely about safety, the association’s communications plainly encouraged East pilots to engage in this conduct for the purpose, in part, of obtaining a favorable CBA.”
2) USAPA did not Exert Every Reasonable Effort to Stop the Slowdown
“In addition to the Court’s findings on USAPA’s instigation of the slowdown, it has violated its duty to exert every reasonable effort to stop it. *** Yet there is no evidence, nor even any argument except with regard to distance learning, that USAPA published anything that was sincerely meant to discourage this conduct or otherwise took any serious actions to do so until this Court ruled against USAPA’s motion to dismiss, transfer, of stay the instant against. To the contrary, USAPA continued to publish the sorts of communications and directives that were intended to encourage East pilots to engage in a slowdown campaign.”
C. Action is not Barred by Unclean Hands Provision
“Here, the heart of the RLA is at stake because the slowdown activities that US Airways seeks to enjoin contravene USAPA’s duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”
D. A Preliminary Injunction is not Prohibited by the Norris-La Guardia Act,
“Regardless of the proper standard, this Court finds that US Airways has offered enough “clear proof” of USAPA’s involvement in the work slowdown to satisfy the RLA standards. In addition to the vast statistical evidence, US Airways introduced numerous formal communications from USAPA that explicitly instructed pilots to change their normal behaviors under the guise of safety. Defendants offer no satisfying explanation why its communications beseeched pilots to put safety first in the context of blaming US Airways for the lack of progress in the contract negotiations, why it told pilots that the Safety Culture Survey would have “strong implications beyond just safety,” or why the “I AM ON BOARD SAFETY FIRST!/I’VE HAD ENOUGH I AM READY TO STRIKE” bag tags were mailed from its own headquarters. Nor did Defendants explain why the Strike Prep Committee advised pilots to “MEET OR EXCEED safety standards.”
E. Injunctive relief is necessary to end the slowdown.
1) US Airways has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits.
“The defendants had three weeks after US Airways filed its complaint to conduct discovery and prepare its defenses before the preliminary injunction hearing commenced, and they were aided by the fact that they had already conducted discovery on related issues for their action against US Airways in New York. Much of the relevant evidence was in USAPA’s control. The defendants had an unrestricted amount of time to cross-examine Plaintiff’s witnesses and present their own witnesses. The hearing itself lasted two days, during which the parties presented live testimony from eleven witnesses, submitted declarations from ten witnesses (many of whom submitted multiple declarations), and introduced over 100 exhibits. The Court is convinced that the defendants have been heard on their defenses and are unlikely to be victorious should this case go to trial.”
2) US Airways is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.
3) The balance of the equities tips in favor of US Airways.
“Because USAPA is engaged in an illegal slowdown, the balance of equities clearly tips in favor of US Airways. *** To the extent that USAPA is concerned that an injunction would hamper its legitimate safety efforts, this Court declares that it in no way intends to interfere with the duty of pilots in command to ensure the safety of their passengers and equipment. The court’s injunction therefore should not dissuade good faith efforts to ensure the safe operation of the airline.”
4) An injunction is in the public interest.
“An injunction is in the public interest considering that the central purpose of the RLA was to protect the public from interruptions to transportation caused by labor disputes, which is occurring here.”
Now compare Judge Conrad’s headers with the headers in Judge Wake’s “Conclusions of Law.” A different case entirely, but is anyone surprised about who the same bad actor is? From Doc. 593 in the Addington case:
A. Duty of Fair Representation
“A jury has already found that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation with respect to the West Pilots. In short, USAPA violated the duty because it cast aside the result of an internal seniority arbitration solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots. USAPA failed to prove that any legitimate union objective motivated its acts.”
1. Bargaining Backdrop
“USAPA does not dispute that it succeeded to ALPA’s rights and obligations under the Transition Agreement. Nonetheless, USAPA contends that the Nicolau Award does not limit USAPA in any sense.*** USAPA suggests that the Nicolau Award bound only the merger representatives, with the sole effect of precluding those representatives from asserting the existence of any disagreement between them regarding the Nicolau Award. The award, according to USAPA, was imposed on the East Pilots without their consent; ALPA, and by extension USAPA, remained free to order its affairs as though the award had never happened. This argument offends common sense, the evidence, and fundamental principles of law. In the context of labor rights, it is both discordant and irrelevant.”
2. Theory of Liability
“The question is not whether USAPA made a seniority proposal that is acceptable in the abstract, or whether USAPA deprived certain employees of their property rights, or what position it could have taken before agreement to a different final and binding process. The question is not whether USAPA has the right to adjust its bargaining position, even after playing out an agreed final and binding process, for some good reason. The legal question is whether USAPA—or any union—violates its duty of fair representation by adopting and promoting a certain integrated seniority list for no reason other than to favor one group of employees at the expense of another. An established genre of fair representation decisions says yes.”
3. Legitimate Union Objectives
“Liability attached because USAPA’s only actual motivation in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots.”
4. USAPA’s Seniority Objective
“There is no authority for a magic rule that date-of-hire stops all inquiry on the duty of fair representation, in disregard of circumstances. The significance of date-of-hire seniority varies from one labor negotiation to the next. The bankrupt position of US Airways at the time of the merger, with almost as many furloughed pilots as America West had working, and with a significant furlough history, lent date-of-hire integration some hues of inequity it might not have had in another merger. The question before the arbitrator was not whether date-of-hire seniority, in the abstract, was a desirable thing, but whether it would provide a fair and equitable answer to the career expectations of the unmerged pilot groups.”
5. USAPA’s Impasse-Related Objective
“The evidence of a supposed impasse requiring sacrifice of the West Pilots to angry East Pilots was pretextual; in any event, it did not persuade the jury or the Court that an actual impasse existed; and the so-called impasse could not, as a matter of law, justify USAPA’s actions toward the West Pilots and the Nicolau Award.”
i. Pretext
“The evidence well supports the conclusion, implicit in the verdict and persuasive to the Court, that any asserted impasse was a pretext for bare favoritism of the East Pilots.”
ii. Non-persuasion
“Before certification, USAPA repeatedly asserted that a contract was likely to be presented for ratification soon.”
iii. Legal insufficiency
“Even if an impasse did exist, it would not justify USAPA’s actions as a matter of law. Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority. *** In effect, USAPA claims that the East Pilots hold such strong objections to the Nicolau Award that they always will vote as a bloc against any new CBA with it, enjoying the self-denial of a single CBA with improved wages and working conditions into perpetuity. Even if this unbelievable story is believed, it only means that the East Pilots have the power of self-inflicted harm. It does not mean that the union’s duty of fair representation falls victim to self-hostage taking.”
6. USAPA’s Other Objectives
“Dissatisfaction with the previously agreed-upon ALPA merger procedures was not a legitimate union objective. Honest disagreement required honesty up front. It was only after the Nicolau Award was issued, and the pilots lost their veil of ignorance, that so many East Pilots decided that the procedures were inherently unjust. The union cannot satisfy its duty by catering to this self-interested hindsight.”
7. Taxonomy of Liability
“USAPA ‘discriminated’ when it adopted a seniority proposal for no reason other than to advantage the majority East Pilots at the minority West Pilots’ expense.”
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,048
- Reaction score
- 8,631
Chicken, we don't click on your links so save the effort.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
