What's new

US Pilots Labor Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
if you ever hope to get a ratified contract - then yes we are getting a do over.
That's not how arbitration works. You don't get to keep doing it over until you get what you want. You wanted a staple and you'll never get it. You're the majority currently so you're in control, that won't always be the case.

Otherwise, enjoy the last 5years because that's all you'll ever have.
Right back at ya! :lol:
 
What part is decided by ratification? The seniority or the contract?

Think of it like this. You buy a 1/4 acre piece of land to build a house. You can build any kind of house you want as long as it passes the building inspector (negotiating with the company). But there are certain rules that you must abide by when you agree to the purchase and building permit. Lot set back, height restrictions, sewer ect. You can't go and build a house that will cover 1/3 of an acre just because you have a lot of money (the majority). You are constrained by the lot you bought and the rules you agreed to. (the Nicolau)

Go negotiate a contract. Vote all day everyday. Just realize that it is going to be constrained by the Nicolau. No stealing from your neighbors.


But then I was elected as president of the homeowners association and we changed the rules. I then bought another 1/4 acre lot next to the original one and then I built my house that covered 1/3 of an acre. Then everyone was happy so we had a neighborhood picnic.

Oh, and I put in a pool too.

True story.
 
That's the most absurd analogy I've heard yet...
You don’t like analogies? Okay how about some undisputed facts:

1. Following the merger, US Airways, America West, their respective corporate parents, ALPA, the US Airways Master Executive Council (“MEC”), and the America West MEC entered into a Transition Agreement which governed, among other things, the integration of the East Pilots and West Pilots seniority lists.

2. The Transition Agreement mandated that “[t]he seniority lists of America West pilots and US Airways pilots will be integrated in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy and submitted to the Airline Parties for acceptance,” and further required that “[t]he Airline Parties will accept such integrated seniority list, including conditions and restrictions, if such list and the conditions and restrictions comply with” the following criteria: (i) no “system flush” (through which “an active pilot may displace any other active pilot from the latter’s Position”); (ii) furloughed pilots could not displace active pilots; (iii) no differential pay where a pilot is paid for a position not actually flown; (iv) ability of pilots who are in the process of being trained for a new position to be assigned to that position “regardless of their relative standing on the integrated seniority list;” and (v) no conditions and restrictions that “materially increase costs associated with training or company paid moves.”

3. Pursuant to ALPA’s Merger Policy, if two pilot groups could not agree on an integrated seniority list through direct negotiations or mediation, the next step was to integrate the pre-merger seniority lists on a “fair and equitable” basis through arbitration award that “shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration.”

4. Mr. Nicolau is a full-time arbitrator, mediator and attorney, with extensive experience in the airline industry; he is also a past President of the National Academy of Arbitrators, and has received the Distinguished Service Award of the American Arbitration Association.

5. The Nicolau Award placed approximately 500 East Pilots at the top of the seniority list, 1,700 furloughed East Pilots at the bottom of the list, and blended the remainder of the East Pilots with the West Pilots generally according to their relative positions on their pre-merger seniority lists.

6. The integrated seniority list generated through the Nicolau Award satisfied the specified criteria set out in the Transition Agreement.

7. As required by the Transition Agreement, US Airways accepted the integrated seniority list on December 20, 2007.

8. At trial, the jury found that USAPA had violated its DFR to the West Pilot class because it “cast aside the result of an internal seniority arbitration solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots,” and “failed to prove that any legitimate union objective motivated its acts.”

9. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of the West Pilots’ DFR claim against SAPA, but instead held that their claim was not ripe.

10. The fact that there was a change in the pilots’ representative—from the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”) to USAPA—does not affect the validity of any pre-existing CBA, including the Transition Agreement. That Agreement remains in full force and effect, and USAPA—as the successor to ALPA as the pilots’ representative—has rights and obligations thereunder (as does US Airways). Indeed, since replacing ALPA, USAPA has consistently invoked various provisions of the Transition Agreement, and has in no way acted as if that Agreement is anything but a binding contract.

11. The decertification of ALPA and the certification of USAPA did not change the binding nature of the Transition Agreement.

12. The parties to a CBA under the RLA include the carrier and its employees – not only the carrier and the union.

13. Like any other provision of a binding agreement, the “process elements” of the Transition Agreement are binding on US Airways’ pilots and their union.

14. The Supreme Court has affirmed that a union must comply with its DFR in negotiating CBAs, and has held that a union breaches its duty in that context if its actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

15. There have been numerous cases in which courts have addressed allegations that a union’s negotiation of particular seniority provisions – precisely what USAPA seeks to negotiate here in lieu of the seniority list required by the Nicolau Award – constitutes a breach of its DFR.
 
never said I didn't like analogies, just absurd ones...

He has reading comprehension difficulties.

And he missed a couple of facts, like the ability for the parties to alter the transition agreement and the ability of ALPA to reject, modify, or negotiate the seniority award.
 
But then I was elected as president of the homeowners association and we changed the rules. I then bought another 1/4 acre lot next to the original one and then I built my house that covered 1/3 of an acre. Then everyone was happy so we had a neighborhood picnic.

Oh, and I put in a pool too.

True story.
Congratulations. You followed a process, legally changed the rules, and then proceeded with your construction plans. The difference here is that USAPA wants to go back and change the process after the construction was complete and already determined to be illegal. Furthermore, in your HOA example, you had the full rights and authority to make changes to the C&BLs with a simple majority vote of your neighbors. Again that does not apply here because USAPA does not have the rights or authority to change the RLA which supersedes any attempt USAPA or Management could make regarding a negotiable section of the CBA. For example, can your HOA approve the right for you to construct an oil refinery right behind your new pool or would your HOA have no right to grant such permission under local, state and federal law?

USAPA can negotiate in good faith (that would be a first) and can establish whatever internal procedures, principles of C&BL's it wishes so long as doing so does not violate federal statues under the RLA, which includes the Duty to Fair Representation, which they have already been found guilty of violating once because of this issue, and they are very likely to be constrained by the court from attempting to do it again.
 
Congratulations. You followed a process, Voted in USAPA
legally changed the rules, Bylaws
and then proceeded with your construction plans. CBA negotiations
The difference here is that USAPA wants to go back and change the process after the construction was complete and already determined to be illegal. Just because one court determines it illegal doesnt mean another one will.

Furthermore, in your HOA example, you had the full rights and authority to make changes to the C&BLs with a simple majority vote of your neighbors. Majority rule, as it should be.
Again that does not apply here because USAPA does not have the rights or authority to change the RLA which supersedes any attempt USAPA or Management could make regarding a negotiable section of the CBA.
ALPA could do it, what about Wye river?

For example, can your HOA approve the right for you to construct an oil refinery right behind your new pool or would your HOA have no right to grant such permission under local, state and federal law? I dont need an oil refinery because there is already one there.

USAPA can negotiate in good faith (that would be a first) and can establish whatever internal procedures, principles of C&BL's it wishes so long as doing so does not violate federal statues under the RLA, which includes the Duty to Fair Representation, which they have already been found guilty of violating once because of this issue, and they are very likely to be constrained by the court from attempting to do it again.

Or the court will say like the ninth - USAPA is free to negotiate.
 
He has reading comprehension difficulties.

And he missed a couple of facts, like the ability for the parties to alter the transition agreement and the ability of ALPA to reject, modify, or negotiate the seniority award.
I never said or implied that the Transition Agreement does not contain provisions for modification. It does. However, any modification would still be subject to the RLA statutes, specifically the DFR provision. Furthermore, there is no obligation on the part of Management to accept any or all proposed modifications by ALPA/USAPA, especially if Management believes that such a modification would be a violation of federal law. The Company has testified that they believe that modifying the already arbitrated seniority list may be illegal and that accepting USAPA's list as if it would comply with the unmodified TA would be illegal based on the findings of the jury in Addington.

ALPA was free to reject, modify or renegotiate the seniority award within the constrains (just as ClearDirect pointed out) of the Transition Agreement and the RLA provisions for fair representation. If the Award was found to be non-compliant with ALPA merger policy, the TA or the RLA, then ALPA could have rejected it. They didn't and in fact presented it to Management who in turn accepted it as the final and fully-valid results of the SLI process. If not before 12/20/2007, certainly on that date ALPA and US Airways and the pilots represented by the agreement were bound by the same. That fact gives any pilot at US the right to file a DFR claim should that list not be included in the JCBA.

Count 1 is very likely headed your way soon enough. No need to worry about modifying the TA or the NIC now. The curtain is closing on USAPA's "seniority is like a crew meal" scam.
 
Or the court will say like the ninth - USAPA is free to negotiate.

If USAPA can negotiate whatever they want, then what's the holdup with the new contract? All NAC peeps are east, all national officers are east and all committees are chaired by east. Hmmm.
Maybe the east is ineffective?
 
And he missed a couple of facts, like the ability for the parties to alter the transition agreement and the ability of ALPA to reject, modify, or negotiate the seniority award.
The parties - plural - can make changes to the TA. USAPA can not do so unilaterally no matter how much the majority wants to change some things.

ALPA had one shot at rejecting the seniority award - they could have said that it didn't meet the requirements of merger policy. Unfortunately for the east, ALPA's BOD decided that the award did satisfy the policy. ALPA had no ability to modify or negotiate the award per it's own C&B/L's once the BOD decided.

Some real facts from the east at least occasionally would be nice...

Jim
 
If USAPA can negotiate whatever they want, then what's the holdup with the new contract? All NAC peeps are east, all national officers are east and all committees are chaired by east. Hmmm.
Maybe the east is ineffective?

Maybe they are, I dont care.

Now go change that tampon, the one you have is starting to smell.
 
If USAPA can negotiate whatever they want, then what's the holdup with the new contract? All NAC peeps are east, all national officers are east and all committees are chaired by east. Hmmm.
Maybe the east is ineffective?
If DP is serious about American, then don't expect him to offer anything better than their new banruptsy contract, whatever it might be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top