Ah, I see it. Don't know how I missed that on first skimming. Yup, a committee "claiming to represent" the West pilots can apply to the arbitrator to be designated as a separate merger committee for the West list. I think USAPA would be smart to take this deal, it still sends all three lists intact into negotiation/arbitration AND it seems to set a Dec 9, 2013 "default" snapshot for the lists (although still disputable by interested parties, guarantee the West would dispute it)

I make no predictions for how it's going to go down. But I think it's a reasonable offer. They give up their "hard won" exclusion of the West, but gain quite a bit in return. They could lose these lawsuits and find themselves completely shut out.

 

^^^^^Well, to USAPA it is "regressive" and "a step backwards" per the Merger Committee update this morning. So the fun continues.

 

I don't see it as a hard won exclusion. The West refused to participate or participated then quit.

Then, 8 West pilots form a corporation, get class status then meet with management to undermine the union.

ALPA shut down the PHL LEC by placing into trusteeship just for publically supporting an election vote - not an outcome, just take it to a vote and then let's move on.

 

I don't see any distinction between "West" and "East," or not including West. Unless I'm mistaken, APA simply mentions "USAPA" which obviously includes west and east together, since USAPA represents both groups....right?

 

I don't have a philosophical problem with the west pilots having their own merger committee, I've said that with the separate seniority list provision of the MOU/MTA I can see the logic in it. However, I can see a potential for legal issues and I sure have a problem with the APA controlling the whole process. This is why:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf


Read the bottom of page 24, top of 25 if nothing else. I can't cut and paste my copy.

USAPA Merger Committee Update


"Click here to read the proposed Protocol Agreement from the APA, which you may have seen posted elsewhere after its release by the APA. Our Merger Counsel sent our proposals for Protocol, Union Transition, and Global Settlement Agreements to APA Counsel on April 29. This week’s APA proposal came to us unannounced, with no prior communication to our Merger Counsel. Needless to say, we were surprised to see the APA’s proposal, given APA's recent refusal to negotiate, and after we were told there would be no counterproposal.

Contrary to what you may have heard from APA communications, this APA Protocol Agreement proposal does not incorporate the compromises we offered back on April 29. In fact, the APA proposal rejects virtually every item we included in our April 29 proposal, which protected your McCaskill-Bond rights, while also resolving the impasse in the negotiations.

For example:



(1) The APA proposal continues to provide that once APA becomes the certified representative, it controls the Seniority List Integration (SLI) process, thus allowing it and the Company to make wholesale changes to the Protocol Agreement. This means US Airways pilots would waive their protections under McCaskill-Bond and only be protected by APA's Duty of Fair Representation. This was the reason we could not agree on a Protocol Agreement back in February, and is what led to the need for USAPA to file a lawsuit in the federal court in the District of Columbia compelling APA, AA and US Airways to follow the requirements of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment.



(2) The APA proposal adds a new requirement that the integrated list resulting from the M-B process would be implemented only through a Joint Collective Bargaining Process, completely controlled by APA. If this requirement were allowed, USAPA and our Merger Committee would be cut out of the process.



(3) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw its opposition to the NMB single carrier determination, paving the way for APA to become the sole bargaining representative for the combined pilot group and eliminating USAPA’s right to separately represent our pilots, thereby allowing APA to implement its plan to unilaterally control the SLI process.



(4) The APA proposal requires USAPA to withdraw the M-B Injunction Action currently pending in federal court in the District of Columbia with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the claims in the lawsuit cannot be refiled and that we give up our right under McCaskill-Bond to proceed to arbitration now.



(5) The APA proposal includes no guarantee whatsoever that APA will refrain from interfering with USAPA’s relationship with the USAPA Merger Committee.

The TWA pilots waived their contractual language which would have ensured Allegheny-Mohawk Section 3 and 13 protections. The Merger Committee has resisted any effort to forfeit our M-B rights to ensure those protections, and rest assured, we will continue to do so.

In short, the APA proposal is regressive. It is a step backwards from the proposal we rejected in February.

Additionally, the APA posted its proposal on the web just hours after providing it to us, after agreeing to keep protocol negotiations confidential. We fully appreciate the need for appropriate transparency, but productive negotiations do not happen on the internet. While we intend to honor the confidentiality of protocol negotiations we agreed to, you should know our compromise proposal was a reasonable solution to the impasse. We cannot accept a proposal that separates us from our M-B rights and effective representation in the SLI process.

We assure you we are committed to gaining a fair and equitable result for all US Airways pilots in the SLI process. We will keep you informed of any developments in this matter as they occur.

USAPA Merger Committee"

 

I happen to agree as well. It's the repeated end runs around the union that are the issue.

 

The article has highlights of several attempts by pilot groups to do the same. I can't cut and paste from my copy, but the bottom of page 24 and top of 25 are interesting.

It's not the AA pilots or the APA. I wouldn't trust any group to control the whole process. They sure wouldn't trust USAPA to run it and I wouldn't either in their shoes.

I actually think that having a west merger committee would help drive a stake in the Nic. The MOU/MTA call for the use of seniority lists in effect. The west is calling for their own merger committee because of that. Okay, so they acknowledge that the Nic is not in effect, and never has been, but would then argue that is should be used?

 

A simple honest question aa73. If you were in my shoes, and after reading the paper I posted, would you trust the APA to have control over the whole process? In your shoes, would you trust USAPA to have control over the whole process?

At first reading of the APA update I was encouraged. But after a few readings my skepticism returned.

 

For me, the honest answer is always binding neutral arbitration....period. However, I have no problems with APA or USAPA putting out protocol intentions, as it's all posturing for the inevitable.

 

Seeing that we will never agree...
Has the clock started in order for this to go to arbitration? Does the protocol agreement have to be agreed upon before that happens?