What's new

US Pilots Labor Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
The best written discussion on this matter is in the Baptiste and Wilder RLA blog. Search the column on the right, for some really interesting discussions on a lot of other airlines, and also this one. The main point of Bill Wilder being this is an INTERNAL UNION DISPUTE, not a dispute between the company and its' pilots. The part about ALPA being replaced with a new bargaining agent, in a certified election, totally legal - is the crux of the matter. And to use the former (ALPA) in this seniority dispute, is to perpetuate the former. USAPA is NOT beholden to the former position. Not commenting about the political or opinions of either side- just the fact that what went down was legal, and this is why we are where we are today.

During the Teamster drive on UAL to represent the Mechanics and Related, Baptiste and Wilder wrote an opinion piece claiming simply changing unions entitled the Mechanics to an early section 6 opener.

As our CBA at the time was not yet amendable, that was an outright lie.

For that reason, I do not accept opinion from Baptiste and Wilder as conclusive.
 
The best written discussion on this matter is in the Baptiste and Wilder RLA blog. Search the column on the right, for some really interesting discussions on a lot of other airlines, and also this one. The main point of Bill Wilder being this is an INTERNAL UNION DISPUTE, not a dispute between the company and its' pilots. The part about ALPA being replaced with a new bargaining agent, in a certified election, totally legal - is the crux of the matter. And to use the former (ALPA) in this seniority dispute, is to perpetuate the former. USAPA is NOT beholden to the former position. Not commenting about the political or opinions of either side- just the fact that what went down was legal, and this is why we are where we are today.

Actually the best written discussion can be found in two places, the Nicolau award itself and the transcripts of the Addington trial.

The West pilots and myself fully understand the arguement of INTERNAL UNION DISPUTE. What the east pilots, Seham, Wilder refuse to admit is that the arbitration was not between ALPA and ALPA. The arbitration was between the East and West pilot groups. usapa did not replace the parties that participated in the arbitration, usapa now represents both of the same parties, and yes usapa is beholden to the results.
 
Yes, I am sure there is an "out" somehwere in there that says if either party does not like the outcome, it is free to disregard it, and that the process is not really intended to be binding after all.

While that may indeed be true, as I haven't read it, I don't know. My request was to find the stated intent of the policy.

I have never heard of arbitration used to reach a negotiable bargaining position. In every example I have ever seen arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution.
 
During the Teamster drive on UAL to represent the Mechanics and Related, Baptiste and Wilder wrote an opinion piece claiming simply changing unions entitled the Mechanics to an early section 6 opener.

As our CBA at the time was not yet amendable, that was an outright lie.

For that reason, I do not accept opinion from Baptiste and Wilder as conclusive.

Well in the blog piece, Wilder fails to mention that there is a tripartite contract called the Transition Agreement. This contract is between three parties, the company(the combination of the pre-merger corporations), the east pilot group(as rep by ALPA) and the West pilots(also rep by ALPA).

He is not outright lying, just failing to mention key facts in the case.

There is a contract between not only east and West but also those two groups and the company. I fail to see how this INTERNAL UNION DISPUTE arguement can hold water when there is a contract with the company saying that the arbitration results will be used.

In other words the West pilots hold a contract with the company that says the results will be used. It is not just between east and West, or internal to ALPA.

Further, regardless of the TA, usapa inherits its predecessor 's contracts. Both groups have ALPA merger policy in their respective CBA, and just like payrates and crew meals, the arbitration result carries forward.
 
I have never heard of arbitration used to reach a negotiable bargaining position. In every example I have ever seen arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution.

The very reason why usapa will always fail at their DOH seniority theft scandal.

Put it in front of any jury, and ask the members of the jury, "hey, ever heard of using final and binding arbitration to reach a position that can then be ignored by one side of the arbitration if they so desire?
 
While that may indeed be true, as I haven't read it, I don't know. My request was to find the stated intent of the policy.

I have never heard of arbitration used to reach a negotiable bargaining position. In every example I have ever seen arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution.
I am agreeing with you - my other post was sarcastic.

It would be interesting if someone could post the part of the policy which states it is only to reach a "bargaining position" and means nothing beyond that.

I think we will be in for a long wait to get a response.
 
I'd like to add an additional request to this if I may. Can some post a link to ALPAs merger policy at the time in its entirety?

I have to believe that at some point( if it hasn't happened already ) the intent of the policy itself has to be considered, and I have a hard time believing that the policy ends with arbitration intending only to reach a "bargaining position", rather than settling in finality a dispute between parties.

East article on merger policy dealing with United

I particulary like the paragraph that says, "No ALPA seniority integration has ever been set aside by the courts".

Another thought, did any of the pilots on this letter testify as Stephan that they believed the policy was only binding on the negotiating committe reps?
 
Do you really think the Pennsylvania and North Carolina politicians and also the President would let this go down in this economic environment? Not a chance.
Oh are we back to US Air is to important to the economy to fail? Have you read an newspaper? The public is sick and tired of taxpayer bailouts. The industry is consolidating and removing capacity. US Air would be just about the right amount to make the industry healthy.

You think the the politicians in Georgia, IL, and Texas might oppose that move?

But you guys go ahead and kill it. All of you have second 6 figure jobs or are close to retirement with millions in the bank. You all have said this is a hobby job anyway. Right?
 
I'd like to add an additional request to this if I may. Can some post a link to ALPAs merger policy at the time in its entirety?

I have to believe that at some point( if it hasn't happened already ) the intent of the policy itself has to be considered, and I have a hard time believing that the policy ends with arbitration intending only to reach a "bargaining position", rather than settling in finality a dispute between parties.
Here is the relevant sction.

5. Opinion and Award
a. The Opinion and Award of the Arbitration Board shall be made and written in
executive session and shall bear the signature of the Arbitrator (Chairman of the
Arbitration Board). Such Opinion and Award shall be issued simultaneously and
within fifty (50) days following the convening of said Arbitration Board unless
extensions are agreed to by all parties to the proceeding, including the President.
Participation in executive sessions shall be limited to Arbitration Board members only
and the Arbitrator shall decide all issues. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998;
Executive Board October 2001)

b. The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the
arbitration
and shall be defended by ALPA. The Award shall include any agreements
reached at the mediation step. The Arbitration Board will include in its Award a
provision retaining jurisdiction until all the provisions of the Award have been
satisfied for the limited purpose of resolving disputes which may arise between the
pilot groups with regard to the meaning or interpretation of the Award. (AMENDED -
Executive Board October 1991; Executive Board May 1998)
 
I am agreeing with you - my other post was sarcastic.

It would be interesting if someone could post the part of the policy which states it is only to reach a "bargaining position" and means nothing beyond that.

I think we will be in for a long wait to get a response.


You won't get a credible response, just one which cites personal opinion or perhaps subjective opinion of a law firm which once worked for the east pilots and is trying to get back on the gravy train.
A few days ago I asked another poster about his statement "the Nic is dead". Never got a response other than his opinion or a reference to Baptise and Wilder. Don't hold your breath about your question being answered, everyone knows the obvious answer to your question and the east likes to hide from the truth. It is probably how they were raised.
 
The best written discussion on this matter is in the Baptiste and Wilder RLA blog. Search the column on the right, for some really interesting discussions on a lot of other airlines, and also this one. The main point of Bill Wilder being this is an INTERNAL UNION DISPUTE, not a dispute between the company and its' pilots. The part about ALPA being replaced with a new bargaining agent, in a certified election, totally legal - is the crux of the matter. And to use the former (ALPA) in this seniority dispute, is to perpetuate the former. USAPA is NOT beholden to the former position. Not commenting about the political or opinions of either side- just the fact that what went down was legal, and this is why we are where we are today.
I tell you what. Using the current legal documents that we have between our two groups point to the one that determines which arbitrations are valid and which ones are not. Is there a checklist or something that you can point to? If this happens arbitration goes away? NO!

It does not matter if it is internal or external. The pilots agreed to use this method (arbitration) to end this argument. Do you honestly think that if the west had known or even thought that arbitration was just an exercise we would have agreed to it? Since the east wants out of arbitration how about paying us the cost of the aribtration? Care to cut a check for $1.5 million that we spent?

Why would we agree to anything with you guys from now on? You make a deal, don't like the deal break the deal.

Kind of like the T/A profit sharing now. Sure agree to profit sharing. Now you don't like the deal and you guys try and steal our profit sharing. You guys can not be trusted with anything you say.

No integrity and can't be trusted.
 
Thanks for the links/info, nic & clear

Another question:

This is taken from nic's link...

"".. ALPA presents the carrier with the merged list created pursuant to ALPA Merger Policy, but the Company is not given the right to use the merged list prior to the successful conclusion of the merged collective bargaining agreement...""

I've been following this thread since the Nic award, and I've seen a multitude of references to implementing the list only with a joint agreement.

Now until I read this article I was under the impression that the joint contract implementation issue was a function of RLA law, this article would seem to indicate that it is ALPA policy that prohibits the implementation of the seniority list, specifically..."but the Company is not given the right to use the merged list" ...

Is this actually the case?

If so, how can you rely on "ALPA policy" to prevent implementation of the list, yet ignore its final and binding mandate?
 
Thanks for the links/info, nic & clear

Another question:

This is taken from nic's link...

"".. ALPA presents the carrier with the merged list created pursuant to ALPA Merger Policy, but the Company is not given the right to use the merged list prior to the successful conclusion of the merged collective bargaining agreement...""

I've been following this thread since the Nic award, and I've seen a multitude of references to implementing the list only with a joint agreement.

Now until I read this article I was under the impression that the joint contract implementation issue was a function of RLA law, this article would seem to indicate that it is ALPA policy that prohibits the implementation of the seniority list, specifically..."but the Company is not given the right to use the merged list" ...

Is this actually the case?

If so, how can you rely on "ALPA policy" to prevent implementation of the list, yet ignore its final and binding mandate?
From the transition agreement.
C. US Airways, America West and the Single Carrier may not use an integrated pilot seniority list prior to Operational Pilot Integration as defined in Section VI.A. below.

This point I guess is how and why the T/A provision is in there.
4. The President shall take reasonable measures to provide that the flight operations, equipment, and existing flying of each company party to a merger shall remain separated until such time as the pilot seniority lists and the employment agreements are merged, or until the MECs of the affected pilot groups mutually agree otherwise. Any dispute shall be decided by the Executive Council. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)


C. The combining of the America West and US Airways MECs will be governed by the Association’s Constitution and By-Laws and its Merger and Fragmentation Policy (“ALPA Merger Policy”). IV. Seniority List Integration

A. The 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. The 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:


ALPA Merger Policy

b. The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA. The Award shall include any agreements reached at the mediation step. The Arbitration Board will include in its Award a provision retaining jurisdiction until all the provisions of the Award have been satisfied for the limited purpose of resolving disputes which may arise between the pilot groups with regard to the meaning or interpretation of the Award. (AMENDED - Executive Board October 1991; Executive Board May 1998)

I. MERGED FLIGHT DECK CREW MEMBER SENIORITY LIST IMPLEMENTATION
1. The merged seniority list will be presented to management and ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)


The company accepted the list on December 20, 2007

It is ALPA merger policy that determined the list. It is the T/A that does not allow the company to use the list until we have a joint contract.

3. Each MEC is encouraged to have a standing Merger Committee at all times. The Merger Committee for each MEC shall consist of two or three merger representatives elected by the MEC from its seniority list. In the event an MEC fails to elect merger representatives within ten days following the Policy Initiation Date, the President may, at his discretion and subject to an opportunity for the affected MEC to be heard by him, appoint any member of ALPA in good standing from the affected airline to fill any merger representative vacancy. These representatives shall have complete and full authority to act for and on behalf of the flight deck crew members of their respective airlines for the purpose of concluding a single flight deck crew member seniority list, which shall not be subject to ratification. Nothing herein is intended to limit the discretion of respective MECs in the selection or replacement of their merger representatives prior to the election of merged MEC officers. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)
A small little sentence that the east pilot really try and ignore. First it is the pilots that are subject to this not just the merger reps like Seham tries to sell. Second. There is no ratification of the seniority list. It is a ratification of a joint contract. The east pilots want to vote on a list.
 
and you "homie" will maybe get hired by another carrier... and guess where you'll be sitting on their list... #1 to be furloughed!... Me... I'll just retire!

Why wait? Just do it today and save yourself the heartache and us the trouble of having to hear you whine about how we in the west should pay for you career with ours.

AWA320
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top