Here are some of the crucial points she made:
When USAPA became the pilots’ new collective bargaining representative, it
succeeded “to the status of the former representative without alteration in the contract terms.”
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 1983). As
there does not appear to be any dispute that the Transition Agreement was part of the contract
between the pilots and US Airways, the Transition Agreement applies to USAPA. Even the
case which USAPA relies upon states there is a “general principle that collective bargaining
agreements survive a change in representative.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v.
USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432, 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Thus, just as ALPA would have been
bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is
bound by the Transition Agreement.2
More:
Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach
its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award
and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the
result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is
running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective
bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an
appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding
the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground
and for the company's benefit she wrote:
This conclusion places US Airways in a difficult position. At the present time, it is
not possible to predict what will result from the collective bargaining negotiations. Thus, the
Court cannot grant US Airways prospective immunity from any legal action by the West
Pilots. But based on the representation at oral argument that the seniority list is unlike other
matters addressed in collective bargaining, it is unlikely the West Pilots could successfully
allege claims against US Airways merely for not insisting that USAPA continue to advocate
for the Nicolau Award. See Davenport v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356,
361-62 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (addressing, without deciding, “the proper standard for determining
whether an employer can be implicated in a union’s breach of duty”).