This entire thread has developed based on the presumption of a single poster that ASA ALPA has reasonable grounds to bring a DFR suit against ALPA National for the actions of UAL and CAL ALPA. No support is provided for this reasoning, and all who question the reasoning are labeled as 'armchair attorneys'. This appears to be an ad hominem disagreement.
Getting out of my 'armchair' for a moment to sit in my 'JD admitted to the bar' chair . . .
The American Bar Association has a
brief on Duty of Fair Representation, which states the following, in part:
UAL ALPA and CAL ALPA are not acting at the direction of ALPA National - it is, in fact, the other way around. ALPA National acts on the direction of UAL and CAL ALPA in collective bargaining with UAL, Inc. (See Article I, Section 6.B.15. of ALPA's Constitution and By Laws).
Assuming UAL and CAL ALPA were acting at the behest of ALPA National (ALPA National violating its own by laws), would ALPA National's conduct in a UAL/CAL ALPA member ratified contract be found “so far outside a `wide range of reasonableness,’... that it is wholly `irrational’ or ‘arbitrary,’” to ASA ALPA?
As an aside, ASA ALPA bringing a DFR suit against ALPA National would likely violate Article IV, Section 2.C. of ALPA's By Laws.
If there is a case here (not saying there isn't), it's going to take more than "because I said so", or accusations of 'armchair lawyering'. Perhaps this whole discussion of ASA ALPA bringing suit is nothing more than the musings of an 'armchair attorney', and my response to it is totally unnecessary?
'rickair' is right - not all of us are plumbers in armchairs.