US Pilots Labor Discussion

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

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. "

Pretty FUNNY, you site USAPA but I don't see any case law supporting the WEST POSITION, notice you don't offer counterpoint , very telling but hey, not yours to decide but to criticize! MM!

 

[Move2CLT]

Pretty FUNNY, you site USAPA ...

You know what else is funny? You using the word "site" when you mean "cite".

Back to your hole.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You know what else is funny? You using the word "site" when you mean "cite".

Back to your hole.

You must post just to see yourself think ,But then again for you it is hard to get the big picture on such a small screen! MM!

 

[Move2CLT]

You must post just to see yourself think ,But then again for you it is hard to get the big picture on such a small screen! MM!

Ahhh, I see you're back to your old self.

Go USF Bulls!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Ahhh, I see you're back to your old self.

Go SF Bulls!

http://sfbulls.com/ HEY NONE OF MY BUSINESS YOUR LIFE!

 

[Move2CLT]

http://sfbulls.com/ HEY NONE OF MY BUSINESS YOUR LIFE!

No boo boo!! USF Bulls - your team!!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

No boo boo!! USF Bulls - your team!!

Actually the CRIMSON TIDE is my ALMA, how many times do you have to get it! But then again, you don't! MM!

 

[Pi brat]

Metrojet, I mean yet, I'm waiting. Integrity and all.

Uhaul, that's a pretty good picture of our next VP. Who is the guy to the right?

 

[Move2CLT]

Metrojet, I mean yet, I'm waiting. Integrity and all.

Uhaul, that's a pretty good picture of our next VP. Who is the guy to the right?

Cleary's best friend Hummel and your next president.

 

[Move2CLT]

Hey Mutation, check this out. It's in the company's filing:


"10 Although the district court’s rulings in Addington do not carry precedential
weight in light of the Ninth Circuit’s subsequent ruling, this Court may refer to them to
the extent it finds it helpful to do so. See Ala. Hosp. Ass’n v. United States, 656 F.2d 606"


You know what it says? It says to reference Wake's decision.

For something that's supposedly dead, Addington sure keeps popping up all the time.

 

[Pi brat]

Cleary's best friend Hummel and your next president.

Really? Not a good picture, might want to find a better one. Besides, put one of Elmer up there, that would be fun having him as Pres and Jamie as VP!

What's this:

Equipment/Position 757 CA 320 CA 757 FO 320 FO
Permanent Vacancies 6 0 8 0
Permanent Reductions 0 -6 0 -8
Projected Lineholders as of Dec 2012 42 522 42 505
Projected Reserves as of Dec 2012 15 82 15 88
Projected Upgrades = 0
IMPORTANT:
Training for this bid may begin as early as March 2, 2012 . Please be prepared to begin training at that time.

 

[Move2CLT]

Really? Not a good picture, might want to find a better one. Besides, put one of Elmer up there, that would be fun having him as Pres and Jamie as VP!

What's this:

Equipment/Position 757 CA 320 CA 757 FO 320 FO
Permanent Vacancies 6 0 8 0
Permanent Reductions 0 -6 0 -8
Projected Lineholders as of Dec 2012 42 522 42 505
Projected Reserves as of Dec 2012 15 82 15 88
Projected Upgrades = 0
IMPORTANT:
Training for this bid may begin as early as March 2, 2012 . Please be prepared to begin training at that time.

Movement of pilots from one aircraft to another. Kind of what you do seasonally.

 

[Move2CLT]

Hey hair Pi, the company included this reference in its filing. Do you know where it came from? Begins with an "A" and ends with a "ddington"


"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."


The company REALLY wants Silver to reference something that's soooooo dead according to
USAPA.

I wonder how VP Javurek is going to spin this?

 

[Pi brat]

Movement of pilots from one aircraft to another. Kind of what you do seasonally.

Ours usually have a few upgrades on it though.

You know if we were having that bid with Nic in place, with our filling of vacancies, those 6 757 captains (and probably a few AB captains) would most likely go to east guys, right? Are you in favor of keeping your provision of displaced captains have preference on captain vacancies? I'm not exactly sure how it works, but could be beneficial to both sides. What do you think?

 

[Pi brat]

Hey hair Pi, the company included this reference in its filing. Do you know where it came from? Begins with an "A" and ends with a "ddington"


"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."


The company REALLY wants Silver to reference something that's soooooo dead according to
USAPA.

I wonder how VP Javurek is going to spin this?

Not sure why you are addressing this to me, but I can tell when you are worked up, you drag out the "hair".

Has cactuspilot posted the docs? I didn't see them.