morecowbell

Hey East Pilots?

__________________________________________________ ____
APA's update on SLI integration
As part of APA's ongoing effort to keep you informed about the progress of the merger, we provide this update on the seniority-integration process and the single-employer proceeding before the National Mediation Board (NMB).
Seniority Integration

On Feb. 19, 2014, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) Merger Committee issued a "Protocol Agreement Update" accusing APA of insisting on "a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU." That update is seriously misguided. APA's position remained consistent throughout the protocol negotiations.
By way of background, the MOU that became effective Dec. 9, 2013, provides for seniority-integration negotiations to begin as soon as possible after the merger. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement, the McCaskill-Bond arbitration will occur after the parties' agreement on a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) and after the NMB finds that US Airways and American Airlines are operating as a single transportation system. The MOU also provides that the parties will negotiate a Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") within 30 days of the merger. That timeline has been extended several times by mutual agreement of the parties.
On Feb. 19, 2014, counsel for American Airlines informed APA and USAPA that the parties had failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a Protocol Agreement. USAPA immediately posted an update that stated: "Unfortunately at the last minute, APA insisted on a significant change that would radically change the process you accepted a year ago through ratification of the MOU. . . . With little notice, APA's Merger Committee demanded USAPA allow APA and the Company the option to modify the Protocol Agreement should APA be certified as the sole bargaining representative by the NMB." This statement is incorrect in every respect.
APA and the company have always understood that, at some point after a ruling by the NMB on the single-carrier proceeding, APA would assume representation for pilots at the two carriers and, as a consequence, take on a duty of fair representation to all of the pilots. In recognition of this legally mandated state of affairs, APA therefore agreed that, up until the time APA becomes the representative of the entire pilot group, USAPA would be the sole representative of the pilots at US Airways and handle the merger negotiations within its discretion. However, consistent with the law, once APA becomes the representative of all pilots, APA would of necessity displace USAPA and have authority as the certified collective bargaining representative over the process. USAPA has always insisted that it maintain institutional involvement and a degree of control over the process even after it ceases to be a lawful collective bargaining representative. That, however, cannot be the case under the law, as the Arizona district court judge expressly ruled.
In the litigation between the US Airways East and West pilots over their inability to achieve an integrated seniority list in the eight years since their merger, Judge Silver accepted USAPA's argument opposing the West pilots' request for McCaskill-Bond status. She did so because she accepted the proposition that only the certified representative was entitled to participate in the process. However, in doing so, the court stated that it "has no doubt that — as is USAPA's consistent practice — USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. . . . The Court's patience with USAPA has run out. . . . And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."
USAPA's continuing effort to maintain its role in the McCaskill-Bond process even after APA becomes the certified representative of all pilots at the "new" American Airlines runs directly counter to Judge Silver's unambiguous directive. Given that APA will have the legal duty to represent all pilots and, potentially, liability for failing to do so, and especially in light of Judge Silver's express order, neither APA nor the company could possibly agree to let USAPA control the process after it ceased to be the collective bargaining representative. USAPA's effort to blame APA for this state of affairs is simply nonsense.
Single-Employer Proceeding

As we have previously informed you, APA filed for a declaration of single-employer status on Jan. 14, 2014, and filed its Position Statement in support of its request Feb. 19. USAPA filed an opposition Position Statement, arguing principally that the NMB should wait until the parties reach the JCBA (even though we are all already operating under a single collective bargaining agreement) and produce an integrated seniority list.
It is ironic that USAPA would suggest now that there should be no single transportation system finding without an integrated seniority list, given that it made the polar opposite argument in support of its successful petition to have US Airways and America West declared a single transportation system in order to force an election to decertify the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). In that case, ALPA made precisely the same argument that USAPA makes now, and USAPA successfully opposed it. As a result, the NMB found that a single transportation system existed even though no single collective bargaining agreement existed. In fact, as you know, in the eight years after the US Airways–America West merger and six years after the NMB's January 2008 single-carrier determination, there never was either a single collective bargaining agreement or an integrated seniority list at US Airways.
USAPA's position in the current single-carrier proceeding also contradicts the MOU it negotiated and its members ratified. The parties contemplated that the JCBA would not be final until after a finding by the NMB that the two carriers constituted a single transportation system, and the McCaskill-Bond arbitration could not even begin until after the JCBA.
What's Next?

Failure to reach a Protocol Agreement during the time allotted by the MOU has no practical effect on the timeline for implementation of an integrated seniority list. The MOU itself contemplates the probability that negotiations will not result in an integrated list. With that possibility in mind, it incorporates a timeline and procedure for a final and binding interest arbitration that would occur subsequent to the JCBA process and result in a "fair and equitable" final list that integrates the three separate lists that are currently in effect at the "new" American Airlines. Also, the MOU does not preclude future negotiations between the parties regarding seniority integration should that opportunity present itself as we move through the NMB's single-carrier investigation and JCBA process. If we cannot negotiate a list, then we will arbitrate a list; in either case, the objective of the process will be a list that recognizes and maintains the pre-merger career expectations of every pilot at the "new" American Airlines and ensures equitable sharing of any consequential shrinkage or growth between the pre-merger pilot groups.

Snarge

It's going to get real nasty.....

Packrat

No surprises here. The Pickleballers have NEVER shown any integrity.

R57 relay

The westicles have shown no integrity. They voted overwhelmingly for the MOU, then claimed it was illegal. Get it right.

eaglefly

Let's face it, considering the last eight years of East/West and the birth of USAPA, there is little hope of expecting rational compromise from USAPA on anything. I can't think of a single solitary instance USAPA has ever compromised their unwavering demands on. It will be a bumpy 5 years, but by then, with retirements and new-hires, the hard core of USAPA (which doesn't comprise ALL East pilots, just some) will be a disgruntled super-minority and I think the AA pilot group will be much stronger. Until then, fences will likely corral the sub-groups so hopefully there will be little mixing of oil and water.

Snarge

the birth of USAPA.... is that what it was?

eaglefly

But didn't you vote overwhelmingly for the MOU which only provides for one bargaining representative and knew due to the numbers that USAPA wasn't it ?

I don't understand what the uproar is now that USAPA is being jettisoned just as anticipated and why APA are the bad guys for moving the process forward ?

eaglefly

Well, I suppose some would call it an afterbirth, but I wasn't including emotion nor using messy terms.

PurpleTurtle

If one is going to accuse others of deceit, then one should not engage in deceit while doing so.

MB Law never intended to allow elimination of the separate representation of the carriers during SLI negotiations. Obviously the law was passed to preserve the separate representation. Arguing otherwise is deceitful.

Additionally USAPA is not attempting to control the process, they are merely asserting their right to reject APA's and the Company's request that USAPA abandon its rights and responsibility to fulfill its role under MB Law. If, as APA says, the NMB can eliminate the rights and responsibilities of USAPA and APA to represent their pilots throughout the whole SLI process, then why is APA insistent to get USAPA to agree? Its gonna happen anyway, right? Why stir the pot, accuse, and threaten, if it is all unnecessary? Why poison the well?

It is unfortunate that APA mischaracterizes MB and is mischaracterizing USAPA's bargaining position.

PurpleTurtle

Regardless of your opinion about USAPA's barging positions, they are none the less entitled to both their position and their seat, unlike those who are not parties to the MOU.

None of us will have any problem with separate operations for another 20 years.