Judge Silver rules
01-11-2014 | 01:04 PM
#91
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
14 USAPA’s own authority proves this point. As cited by USAPA, the order in
National Airlines Acquisition, Arbitration Request, 94 C.A.B. 433 (1982) establishes the new
representative of all the post-merger pilots will be the only proper party involved in
determining seniority.
National Airlines Acquisition, Arbitration Request, 94 C.A.B. 433 (1982) establishes the new
representative of all the post-merger pilots will be the only proper party involved in
determining seniority.
01-11-2014 | 01:07 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Quit already. You have enough donations.
Anything a judge writes before "IT IS ORDERED" is merely dicta, without any force, and only for both sides to feel they got a trophy. It is all immaterial opinion that has no force whatsoever.
Still waiting... Name one document affirming that the Nic must be used by anyone....
01-11-2014 | 01:08 PM
#93
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified
representative. But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of
CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and
that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration. National
Airlines, Acquisition, 84 C.A.B. 408, 477 (1979). And when USAPA is no longer the
certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified
representative. But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of
CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and
that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration. National
Airlines, Acquisition, 84 C.A.B. 408, 477 (1979). And when USAPA is no longer the
certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration
01-11-2014 | 01:10 PM
#94
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Quit already. You have enough donations.
Anything a judge writes before "IT IS ORDERED" is merely dicta, without any force, and only for both sides to feel they got a trophy. It is all immaterial opinion that has no force whatsoever.
Still waiting... Name one document affirming that the Nic must be used by anyone....
Quit already. You have enough donations.
Anything a judge writes before "IT IS ORDERED" is merely dicta, without any force, and only for both sides to feel they got a trophy. It is all immaterial opinion that has no force whatsoever.
Still waiting... Name one document affirming that the Nic must be used by anyone....
01-11-2014 | 01:10 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
01-11-2014 | 01:12 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
01-11-2014 | 01:15 PM
#97
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Here is the most surprising nugget that I took from Silvers ruling. Very interesting if true...
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration. Whether the post-merger carrier’s promise to remain neutral regarding seniority violates the obligations imposed on it by McCaskill-Bond is an open
question and one not presented in this case".
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration. Whether the post-merger carrier’s promise to remain neutral regarding seniority violates the obligations imposed on it by McCaskill-Bond is an open
question and one not presented in this case".
01-11-2014 | 01:18 PM
#98
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: FO
Here is the most surprising nugget that I took from Silvers ruling. Very interesting if true...
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration. Whether the post-merger carrier’s promise to remain neutral regarding seniority violates the obligations imposed on it by McCaskill-Bond is an open
question and one not presented in this case".
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration. Whether the post-merger carrier’s promise to remain neutral regarding seniority violates the obligations imposed on it by McCaskill-Bond is an open
question and one not presented in this case".
01-11-2014 | 01:20 PM
#99
You scratched my anchor
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,127
Likes: 87
So usapa is representing both the east and west. So they must bring a list to the table with APA. The only two lists that exist are 1) the NIC 2) the individual lists from the east and west.
Is this correct?
Is this correct?
01-11-2014 | 01:25 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Here is the most surprising nugget that I took from Silvers ruling. Very interesting if true...
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration. Whether the post-merger carrier’s promise to remain neutral regarding seniority violates the obligations imposed on it by McCaskill-Bond is an open
question and one not presented in this case".
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration. Whether the post-merger carrier’s promise to remain neutral regarding seniority violates the obligations imposed on it by McCaskill-Bond is an open
question and one not presented in this case".
Her opinion prior to the explicit ORDER will not be reviewed on appeal, and has no force on what the parties to the MOU chose do to achieve the obligations of the MOU they themselves signed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
