I'm having a hard time grasping how the Skywest pilots are okay with a management funded body of representation (SAPA). This concept even appears to violate the RLA, yet there seems to be no action to join ALPA or if you're anti-ALPA, form your own in house union such as the Skywest Pilots Union, where pilots fund their own representation.
The following is case law from 2007 from the
Skywest Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee v Skywest Airlines.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by CHARLES BREYER, District Judge. This is some of the deleted information removed from the other thread by the controversial moderator.
"B. SkyWest Funding of SAPA
Plaintiffs also contend that SkyWest's 100 percent funding of SAPA violates the RLA's prohibition on using "the funds of the carrier in maintaining or assisting or contributing to any labor organization, labor representative, or other agency of collective bargaining. . . ." 45 U.S.C. § 152, Fourth. In Barthelemy, the Ninth Circuit explained the prohibition:
Obviously, the line between cooperation and support is not an obvious one. Permissible cooperation becomes prohibited support once the union's independence is compromised. This is a subjective inquiry: the question is whether the assistance provided the union is in fact depriving employees their freedom of choice. It is not the potential for but the reality of domination that these statutes are intended to prevent.
Barthelemy, 897 F.2d at 1016. The Ninth Circuit identified four factors relevant to deciding whether company financial support has stifled employee free choice: (1) whether the employer assistance occurred in response to an outside effort to organize, (2) evidence of the union becoming beholden to the employer, (3) employee approval of agreements between the union and employer, and (4) whether the employer assistance is sustained or simply a one-time payment. 897 F.2d at 1017.
Plaintiffs have not subjectively demonstrated that SkyWest's 100 percent funding of SAPA has deprived the pilots of their freedom of choice. First, SAPA was not created in response to any outside effort to organize. Even if the Court does accept the hearsay evidence that SAPA was altered in direct response to a previous ALPA campaign, a modification of a group's practices in response to employees' desires after a failed campaign does not raise the same concerns as creating an entirely new organization to quell support for a union during a campaign. Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court to infer that SAPA must be beholden to SkyWest because of its funding without producing any evidence that SAPA actually has altered its practices or demands in response to management influence. Finally, pilots vote on and approve the agreements SAPA enters into with SkyWest, and the pilots even refused to ratify one agreement without certain modification. Moreover, the President of SAPA is an ALPA supporter and the record reflects that the relative merits of ALPA versus SAPA are actively debated at SAPA Board meetings.
On the other hand, SkyWest's unlimited funding of SAPA appears, on its face, to violate the RLA and SkyWest does not contend that there are any cases in the courts or even the NMB that have placed their blessing on such unfettered financial support.
In any event, assuming, without deciding, that SkyWest's complete and unlimited funding of SAPA violates RLA section 2, Fourth, the Court finds that the balance of hardships strongly counsels in favor of denying a preliminary injunction prohibiting such funding. SAPA has represented the pilots and been fully funded by SkyWest for over ten years without legal challenge. Though the length of SAPA's existence is not relevant to whether the funding is lawful, it does speak to the amount of "irreparable" harm Plaintiffs will suffer without a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' challenge could have been brought at any time during these past ten years; nothing of significance has changed. Also, given that the Organizing Committee had been campaigning for well over a year before seeking a preliminary injunction, it is unreasonable to grant the requested relief without the benefit of a full record. Moreover, SAPA serves several important administrative functions for SkyWest and its pilots, such as facilitating the FAA amnesty program and addressing employee complaints about pay errors and other issues. By prohibiting all SkyWest funding of SAPA, a preliminary injunction would threaten the completion of these activities which would harm both the airline and its pilots.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SkyWest, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting by, through, under, or in concert with Defendant, pending a final ruling by the Court on the merits:
1) Are enjoined from prohibiting SkyWest pilots from wearing the dark blue ALPA lanyard with white lettering, and
2) Are enjoined from interfering with SkyWest pilots' oral communications with fellow SkyWest pilots regarding ALPA and the ALPA organizing campaign in non-work areas and on non-work time, and from interfering with SkyWest pilots' communication with fellow SkyWest pilots regarding ALPA and the ALPA organizing campaign through distribution of ALPA-related materials in non-work areas such as bulletin boards and crew lounges.
All other claims for preliminary injunction are denied. The parties are directed to appear for a case management conference on Friday, August 3 at 8:30 a.m. and shall meet and confer on the need, if any, for a bond and the amount of such bond. The hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss is VACATED pending the Case Management Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED."
1, 2, 3, GO!