Got to go read this somewhere, from your quote it looks as if the company is arguing in usapa's favor.
No. It's 100% correct and not in USAPA's favor. Read the last paragraph. USAPA can't escape DFR scrutiny. The company makes this a very simple and straightforward case. Two pages to lay the law out there; and they cite to Judge Wake in the process.
"Although the Transition Agreement is binding on USAPA and US Airways, it
expressly provides that it “may be modified by the written agreement of the Association
and the Airline Parties.” (See Hollinger Decl. Exh. C, § XII.B at p. 14.) In seeking to
amend the Transition Agreement, however, USAPA’s conduct is regulated by its duty of
fair representation (“DFR”) to the West Pilots. In other words, its actions cannot be
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. See generally Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill,
499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991); Beck v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 99,
506 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2007); Bernard v. Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l,
873 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir. 1989).
In prior litigation between the West Pilots and USAPA, District Judge Neil V.
Wake reviewed the relevant decisions and interpreted this DFR standard to mean that
USAPA must have “some legitimate union objective” in advocating for a non-Nicolau
seniority list, and that “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,” USAPA
had breached its DFR. Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No. CV 08-1633-PHXNVW,
2009 WL 2169164, at *11 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2009);10 see also id. at *11
(discussing Bernard v. Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l, “Under Bernard, a union may
not diverge from its merger policy solely to advance the seniority rights of union members
at the expense of non-union members.”); id. (discussing Truck Drivers, Local Union 568
v. NLRB, 379 F.2d 137, 143 (D.C. Cir. 1967), “Of particular relevance was the union’s
sole motivation to ‘win[ ] an election by a promise of preferential representation to the
numerically larger number of voters.’”); but see id. at *14 (discussing Rakestraw v. United
Airlines, 981 F.2d 1524, 1535 (7th Cir. 1992), “By acting to restore a seniority system visa-
vis newly hired pilots, the union served the legitimate objective of “stability” by
protecting long-term employee expectations against outright erasure.”).
US Airways submits that the Court’s resolution of the defendants’ cross-motions
for summary judgment should be based on the Court’s application of the above-recited
DFR standard and related case law to the circumstances of this case. In determining
“whether or not the principles of duty of fair representation permit USAPA to make a
proposal to change the transition agreement and to present a list other than Nicolau” (See
Hollinger Decl. Exh. G at 32:24-33:1), US Airways submits that the salient material facts
are undisputed, and that the Court is therefore in a position to definitively rule on the
defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment as to Counts 1 and 2 of Complaint, and
issue a declaration that: (i) entry into a CBA with a non-Nicolau seniority list would
constitute a violation of USAPA’s DFR and US Airways is therefore prohibited from
implementing a non-Nicolau seniority list; or alternatively (ii) entry into a CBA with a
non-Nicolau seniority list would not constitute a violation of USAPA’s DFR and US
Airways is therefore not prohibited from implementing a non-Nicolau seniority list. "
