Great piece out of the transcripts!
THE COURT: "Now, what happens here under the Railway Labor Act is just a little different than what {USAPA} is saying, and I don't think {USAPA} means to say what {it} quite said. There's no real dispute that the transition agreement, the collective bargaining agreement, between ALPA and the company is still a binding document to which USAPA succeeded when it became the successor Union." -- p.32
You easties get a chance to read it yet? Maybe Thuer will come out of retirement to spin a nice version for you guys.
YES WE DID!MR. SYZMANSKI: Your Honor, I have to back up and I think there's one thing that has been missing from the discussion at this point. And that is that the Union that was party to the proceedings that led to the Nicolau determination is not my client. There was a vote. There is a new Union certified by the National Mediation Board and as we've explained, the black letter law under the Railway Labor Act is that a newly certified Union has full bargaining rights without regard to whatever had happened before.
THE COURT: I understand. So this Union was not part and did not litigate the -- its position before Nicolau; right?
MR. SYZMANSKI: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's a legal issue. As far as you're concerned, Judge Wake made the wrong decision?
MR. SYZMANSKI: Yes, Your Honor. It was part of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit but the Ninth Circuit, because of it's decision, didn't reach that issue.
THE COURT: That's right. So that's back here in a new case and that's what I have to decide.
THE COURT: Okay. And is it your position that the Union at that time did not adequately represent the employees in raising that in? It was -- because that's what Mr. Harper is saying, whether it was this Union or a different Union at the time of the presentation of this issue before Arbitrator Nicolau, it was raised, it was resolved, and then the matter was presented to Judge Wake. So what is your position about the representation of all of the pilots by the Union that existed at the time the matter was presented to Nicolau?
MR. SYZMANSKI: Your Honor, the representation was good; but subsequent to the issuance of that determination, the East Pilot Master Executive Council, a division of ALPA, the former Union, filed a lawsuit in DC Superior Court to overturn decision, have it rejected because it didn't, in their view, comport with the ALPA merger policy that it was issued under. In other words, they thought at that point that the decision was inconsistent with the authority granted the United States District Court arbitrator. That case did not go to judgments because while that case was pending, the US Airline Pilots Association was certified as a new representative and as a result, the previous parties to that case, the West MEC and the East MEC divisions of ALPA disappeared and there were no parties to carry on that case.
THE COURT: When you say there were no parties, the case had been dismissed before this occurred?
MR. SYZMANSKI: No, Your Honor. It was pending at the point
THE COURT: Well, then, why didn't US Airline Pilots Association substitute in that case?
MR. SYZMANSKI: Because as a new representative, they have a right, under the Railway Labor Act, to negotiate a seniority provision without regard to whatever might have been binding on the prior Union, so they had no need to set aside or attack the award because it was not binding on them. They were not a party to that proceeding. They didn't sign any of the agreements that led to it. They certainly weren't governed by the Airline Pilots Association constitution and bylaws that provided for the integration proceeding and required the West MEC and the East MEC to proceed.
THE COURT: I see. But was this raised by USAPA? Was it raised in front of Judge Wake?
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, this is Marty.
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. Now, Mr. Harper. I am talking to Mr. Szymanski. Was that raised?
MR. SYZMANSKI: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It was? And rejected?
MR. SYZMANSKI: It was rejected.
😛
