US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/9-6/16--PLEASE OBSERVE THE RULES

[N924PS]

Bingo!

It takes real conscience to hold out in the minority on a jury and forcing a hung jury. Most people would rather go with the flow, get it over with and go home.

It also takes real conscience to weigh the evidence presented at the trial and render a proper verdict based on the law. Which is exactly what happened here.

Now, certain posters here have blamed ALPA Merger Policy, a feeble arbitrator, a "home-town" judge, and a jury antsy to finish up and get home for the Nic Award.

Wait until the Ninth Circuit Court rules. The spin will be amazing.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Wait until the Ninth Circuit Court rules. The spin will be amazing.

It is simply stunning to see the absolute refusal to recognize and accept the facts as they are...

This perfectly illustrates our situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJJA1vvMc4I

 

[nic4us]

Perhaps PHX is different. Heck, they got that fruit-cake for a sheriff so who knows.

USAPA should not be concerned with the sheriff of Maricopa County, their concern should be with who is the Marshall.

 

[Metroyet]

Wait until the Ninth Circuit Court rules. The spin will be amazing.

By then, USAPA will either be fundamentally different, (ie an ACTUAL union as opposed to a FAKE one used as a lever against the minority) or killed and off the property.

 

[hp_fa]

That is correct. However, each time on the criminal cases, we were told to think about what we said, publicly.

That does make sense if for no other reason than have nut jobs with guns or baseball bats show up at your house.

 

[aquagreen73s]

None of that matters. What does matter, I suppose, is that the issue of damages (improper furloughs) has no legs under the TA for the same reason the company was held harmless for said furloughs in the initial complaint.

Good job...that's exactly what the master wants you to believe. After all, this case had no merit nor was jurisdiction proper. Ooops. Scratch that. But don't worry as the plaintiffs can't prove causation!

(pssst....do you see a trend here?)

 

[skyflyr69]

Prater's total compensation as president of ALPA was over $550,000/yr. Cleary's compensation as president of USAPA is 75% lower. I would say the promise was fulfilled especially considering ALPA had over 100 six figure employees with ALPA paid full pensions and benefits including secretaries and office workers consuming over 60% of our dues monies.

underpants

Why would an ALPA "Event Planner" make 115,000 a year? Must be nice.

 

[Captain Underpants]

The fact is it doesn't really matter why the jury found for the plaintiffs....

Agreed...there are no damages so the jury verdict is meaningless.

Both USAPA and the company are in full compliance with the contract which requires any integrated seniority list will not be used for any purpose until a single joint contract is negotiated and ratified.

Of course if the Nic list is fair and equitable there won't be any problem negotiating and ratifying a single contract with Nic included. If the Nic list is fair and equitable the West would not need to beg for court intervention to try to force it into a contract.

The important questions going forward are:

-Can a federal court seize control of the RLA collective bargaining process by telling a union how it must negotiate a subsequent contract.

-Can a federal court prevent union members from voting to ratify contract changes before they take effect or reverse a union member vote to reject a proposed contract in order to satisfy a court agenda.

-Can a federal court prevent a union from negotiating improvement to wages and working conditions through the section 6 process of the RLA.

If the answers to any of the above questions is no then the Nic list will never be implemented.

underpants

 

[aquagreen73s]

Prater's total compensation as president of ALPA was over $550,000/yr. Cleary's compensation as president of USAPA is 75% lower.

Just think what the pay would be if each of those individuals were paid according to their respective performance. I doubt Prater would be worth anything close to 550, but Cleary would end up owing several millions of dollars as he has been very detrimental to the pilots he's supposed to be representing.

 

[hp_fa]

Ok, juror, here's the choice: agree with the majority, go home/back to work. No more being stuck in these windowless rooms getting $15/day applying all available brain power to something you really could care less about and does not affect your life at all.
Been there, done that - I will agree that one of the prime considerations for the jury is to 'be done with it' and go home.

Poug, I have a couple of thoughts concerning this.

1. It was USAPA that insisted on a jury trial.

2. The decision of the jury was reached fairly early in the morning on their first full day of deliberation. They did start deliberating the night before and may have, for all we know, taken a poll before going home for the night and the following morning resolved whatever issues may have remained after thinking about the evidence. My point is that the jury had a lot of time left on the day they did return the verdict and I don't subscribe to the theory that they wanted to be done with the case that fast on that day and start an early weekend.

3. By the third or fourth day of trial I felt that some of the jurors did seem to turn off like a switch when Seham started talking and causing many sidebars. If you were at the trial you may have seen the same thing that I did. I suspected that I knew what it meant, but from experience I have learned that "reading a jury" is fraught with danger. I never know for sure until a verdict is read, but I have developed instincts for reading their facial expressions and body language as evidence is presented and legal arguments occur in their presence. A jury appearing bored while your attorney is speaking is not a good sign at trial.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Both USAPA and the company are in full compliance with the contract which requires any integrated seniority list will not be used for any purpose until a single joint contract is negotiated and ratified.

You're glossing over the most important point: BUT FOR the East sabotaging negotiations for a joint contract, the West pilots would not have been furloughed.

The company hasn't sobtaged, but you have . . .

 

[skyflyr69]

John John, this is not the same as what you allude to in your post.

This originated from an intra-union dispute that arose out of the merger. Your post, to me, suggests that you are confusing union/company negotiations and transactions with union/union negotiations and transactions. This is a union/union negotiation and transaction that arose under ALPA merger policy at the time of the merger. ALPA may be gone, but the binding issues resolved while ALPA was on the property are still binding.

Judge Wake is currently drafting findings of fact and law which will be issued later this month and will accompany both the final and appealable decision from the liability phase of Addington v. USAPA, as well as any Permanent Injunction that he sees fit to issue in that case. I firmly anticipate seeing findings of fact and law which essentially provide:

1. That at the time of the merger both pilot groups were affiliated with ALPA;

2. That ALPA had an existing seniority integration policy that addressed situations that arose when one ALPA represented carrier merged with another ALPA represented carrier;

3. That the AAA MEC and the AWA MEC began seniority integration procedures soon after the merger was finalized;

4. That the AAA MEC supported a DOH/LOS form of integration;

5. That the AWA MEC supported a proportional form of integration;

6. That the parties failed to resolve their differences by negotiations;

7. That when an agreement between the parties could not be arrived at via negotiations that ALPA merger policy provided for mediation and arbitration by an arbitrator that was to be chosed from a list of approved arbitrators;

8. That the parties took the list provided by ALPA and then each party took turns striking potential arbitrators from the list of names provided;

9. That when the process of striking names was completed the remaining name was George Nicolau and he became the assigned arbitrator;

10. That each party then chose a pilot from another carrier from an ALPA provided list to assist Nicolau on the Arbitration Panel;

11. That once the Arbitration Panel was constituted they proceeded with mediation under the terms of ALPA merger policy;

12. That the parties failed to resolve their issues in mediation and commenced arbitration that would result in a full and binding seniority integration;

13. That the parties, as provided under ALPA merger policy, arbitrated their respective cases to the Arbitration Panel through the presentation of multiple witnesses and by the presentation of multiple documents to the Arbitration Panel;

14. That at the conclusion of the arbitration and after deliberations the Arbitration Panel issued a ruling that is now known as the Nicolau Award;

15. That the Nicolau Award provided for a mixture of protected East flying and that the remained of the pilots were integrated via a proportional formula and that furloughed pilots would not be integrated ahead of a non-furloughed pilot;

16. That after the release of the Nicolau Award there was considerable discontent among AAA members;

17. That Stephan Bradford began forming USAPA as a way to circumvent ALPA's merger policy;

18. That evidence at trial established that the primary purpose of USAPA was to nullify the Nicolau Award;

19. That USAPA did win an election and replaced ALPA as the sole bargaining agent for the merged pilot groups;

20. That the USAPA constitution provided for a DOH/LOS formation of a combined senioity list;

21. That plaintiffs filed suit seeking injunctive relief because of their loss of seniority from what had been a full and binding award that was not being defended by USAPA;

22. That after a trial that a jury found that USAPA had breached it's Duty of Fair Representation that it owed to the AWA pilots in connection with seniority integration;

23. That the Court has, as a matter of law, found that an injunction should issue and is so issuing a Permanent Injunction as a judicial remedy in connection with those matters that are solely matters of law that have been presented to the Court and argued before the Court.

Now, belief it or not, that is likely a very short version of the findings of law and fact that will issue from Judge Wake once he completes preparing the various documents that he is preparing to issue later this month.

Final and binding is fine as long as WINDFALL is addressed, FENCES addressed etc. That was NOT INCLUDED. If it was, ALPA would still be on the property. Who doesn't understand those tenants of a merger policy. " DO NO HARM"

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Final and binding is fine as long as WINDFALL is addressed, FENCES addressed etc. That was NOT INCLUDED. If it was, ALPA would still be on the property. Who doesn't understand those tenants of a merger policy. " DO NO HARM"

Sure.

 

[Megasnoop]

The options you post support a reasonable enough arguement, however, in this case it only took 2 hours to deliberate, and it was not even a Friday afternoon. There were no holdouts, no inproper jury instructions, USAPA was/is guilty and that was why the verdict was unanimous, quick, and proper.

Just a couple points here, nic4. Whether there improper jury instructions or the trial was "proper" will be determined by the 9th circuit, not you saying so. After reading the jury instructions, Im suprised it took them a whole 2 hours. just to remind you to fact check before posting, on the expiration of our concessionary pay rates, you said last week,

Hope you get them, West contract has a "Me Too clause". But we have already heard Kirby's resonse to the snapback.

And we know where that came from, don’t we, Nic4us? It came off your assets/debets. Then you finally got round to reading your own contract (your welcome for me pointing it out in your LOA 13) and just matter-of-fact replied that,

I cannot point out the "me too" clause because I was mistaken, it only involves the granting of stock, stock options.

Nice come-back. Noticed you didnt want to reply back to me on that.

As the spokesman for the company at the time, I would expect Kirby to have said just what he did, "what is a number very close to zero chance", because I think he knows the reality of the situation. In his and the company's mind you have nothing more than an amendable date, not a snapback date.

Which just goes to show how little he knows about the RLA and our contract. With no coaching, even with coaching, that’s what we expect Kirby to say. Hate2fly had it right,

Hate2fly @ Jun 8 2009, 11:32 AM
January 1, 2010 pay rates per Restructuring Agreement:
12th year Captain Rate 12th year F/O rate
A330--------$222.26 A330------$152.22
Group 1----$201.35 Group 1---$137.52
Group 2----$174.85 Group 2---$119.42
Also there are a couple of e-mails from DXXX BXXXXXXX that explain the expiration of the LOA93 pay rate provision. Both of these e-mails bode well for the east!

Spot-on, Hate2fly. It was also in the road shows, given by ALPA. Hey, they could be our witnesses, can you imagine them denying what they printed up? With the 2010 rates, Im not so sure the hurry for a new contract. Their better than whats on the table. We should have that grievance done within a year. If the company refuses to agree after their arbitration loss, it could be major dispute time, maybe 30-day? Could happen, theres precedent. If it goes that way, it’s a real gut check for all sides. Lots of things to wade through in the next 12 months, DFR appeal, contract negotiations, downsizing and RJ arbitrations, pension investigation, 2010 pay rates. Who ever thought wed last until 2010? One thing we got going, weve got a track record of staying power. We dont need it all now.

I saw a beautiful site and got a great pix from the cockpit last week in FRA. 3 USAir 330s lined up next to each other. Tel Aviv coming in July. Thats whats driving the west guys so nuts, so close, yet so far away. Patience, grasshopper.

 

[hp_fa]

Final and binding is fine as long as WINDFALL is addressed, FENCES addressed etc. That was NOT INCLUDED. If it was, ALPA would still be on the property. Who doesn't understand those tenants of a merger policy. " DO NO HARM"

Hi Skyflyr69,

The problem is that unlike "final and binding" being an objective term the term "windfall" is not objective, but rather subjective. In other words it is in the eye of the beholder.

What is a windfall? In the context of the seniority integration the ALPA merger policy did indeed use that subjective term in saying that the arbitration award should not provide a windfall to either party. But what does it mean in an objective sense?

George Nicolau stated that he was cognizant of that in issuing the Award. He did protect the top 517 East pilots. Was that a windfall for the East in light of the fact that East was in bankruptcy and very close to liquidation? West pilots would probably claim that was a windfall, but I leave it to them to say that.

Was it a windfall for active West pilots to be integrated ahead of East pilots then on furlough? How do you tell a flying pilot that because of a merger taking place with the other airline that he/she now doesn't have a job because a pilot not currently flying is going to take their active flying slot? Wouldn't that be a a windfall for the furloughed pilot to now have an active flying job simply because of a merger with an airline that had been hiring and training right up until the merger was announced?

Please don't think I am picking on you. I am simply making a point based on the question you raise considering "windfall".