Courtney, you can't possibly be as stupid as you look, can you? I mean you know people will read the whole document , especially the part where the company's attorney shoots down this whole exchange?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.
Pre,
Well good he should be rested up and ready when he get's to the 9th in SFO!
Seriously? You don't think that the judge can't read that the TA is between the PILOTS of both airlines irrespective of their agents.
I believe the discrepancy comes from slight wording differences between the TA that was available to the pilots at the time and the TA that was included in the POR and approved by the bankruptcy Judge. Obviously the one accepted by the Judge takes precedence since both MEC's has access to it and didn't object to the changes. That TA is included in Doc 134-1 of the DJ case, the POR, which is on the cactus site.
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.
Of course they have a duty to fairly represent ALL members. Let me guess... The USAToday?
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.
Why do you think the judicial system gives once ounce of a crap if you get a new contract? Nobody owes you one...until the day you die. Nobody owes you or your fake union one single iota of contractual improvement...EVER. Nobody cares about you and your B.S. Culture of entitlement. You are free to vote down any contract you wish until the end of time. Again, NOBODY CARES! Your desire for a better contract hardly trumps the West pilots right to DFR. Same goes for the company which is why they've all of the sudden had an epiphany and declared the nic. The only list they'll consider.
