Atlas Wins an Injuction
12-04-2017, 03:31 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by WhaleWrangler
Monies which the judge ordered Atlas Pilots (1224) to pay to the company. I hope these funds are coming from Atlas pilot assesment fund and not from the general 1224 fund that others whom this doesn't effect have paid into??
12-04-2017, 06:08 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by flyergurl
Anyone who reads the judge's order will see the requirement of a $200,000 bond to be paid.
29 U.S.C. § 107. Setting an appropriate bond is necessary because “a party injured by an erroneous injunction has no action for damages in the absence of a bond and is limited to recovering the amount of a bond.”
The party that would be injured by the erroneous injunction in this case is IBT Local 1224, not AAWH.
"...the Court will order that Atlas post a bond
in the amount of $200,000..."
- Page 73 of the Memorandum Opinion.
12-04-2017, 07:36 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 282
Originally Posted by WingOffLight
BOOT
Is not block out on time ( or “just” I may add )
The goal of a properly implemented BOOT is to cause an arrival delay. Block on time and then slow taxi, fly planned rout at endurance then min speed allowed in terminal and not picking or requesting a logical runway.
You cant be legaly or ethically charged for pushing on time.
Is not block out on time ( or “just” I may add )
The goal of a properly implemented BOOT is to cause an arrival delay. Block on time and then slow taxi, fly planned rout at endurance then min speed allowed in terminal and not picking or requesting a logical runway.
You cant be legaly or ethically charged for pushing on time.
12-04-2017, 08:07 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Looking to the left
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by RyeMex
And anyone who reads the Memorandum Opinion carefully will see that the $200,000 bond is to be paid by Atlas. Not 1224. Not the pilots.
29 U.S.C. § 107. Setting an appropriate bond is necessary because “a party injured by an erroneous injunction has no action for damages in the absence of a bond and is limited to recovering the amount of a bond.”
The party that would be injured by the erroneous injunction in this case is IBT Local 1224, not AAWH.
"...the Court will order that Atlas post a bond
in the amount of $200,000..."
- Page 73 of the Memorandum Opinion.
29 U.S.C. § 107. Setting an appropriate bond is necessary because “a party injured by an erroneous injunction has no action for damages in the absence of a bond and is limited to recovering the amount of a bond.”
The party that would be injured by the erroneous injunction in this case is IBT Local 1224, not AAWH.
"...the Court will order that Atlas post a bond
in the amount of $200,000..."
- Page 73 of the Memorandum Opinion.
12-04-2017, 12:22 PM
#26
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Code Red
Atlas is ****ed. No airline has been released since 2007. They go should go to the table and take what they can get.
12-04-2017, 03:07 PM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 109
Is Atlas pursuing court costs? I know our ExCo said they would if they won, but we obviously didn't win.
Most of our pilot group anticipated a easy win. Some of the more experienced union guys kind of new that we rarely win in court on work action cases by reviewing other carriers cases. How our union carried it out in public like they did under Kirchner guaranteed it was going to happen this way. While the court order seems like "kissing your sister" so to speak, this injunction will make section 19s against crewmembers easier for the company and in court on damages in the future against the union.
You can test it out yourselves by continuing, but I bet the union will not help you much when/if you get popped on it. The union will try to minimize their own exposure of your actions.
I've seen guys risk their jobs for a lot less, it's in our nature. Just make sure you have a class date somewhere else when you do if your not rock solid right on your actions. Also remember, you might be exposing your other crewmembers your paired with.
Most of our pilot group anticipated a easy win. Some of the more experienced union guys kind of new that we rarely win in court on work action cases by reviewing other carriers cases. How our union carried it out in public like they did under Kirchner guaranteed it was going to happen this way. While the court order seems like "kissing your sister" so to speak, this injunction will make section 19s against crewmembers easier for the company and in court on damages in the future against the union.
You can test it out yourselves by continuing, but I bet the union will not help you much when/if you get popped on it. The union will try to minimize their own exposure of your actions.
I've seen guys risk their jobs for a lot less, it's in our nature. Just make sure you have a class date somewhere else when you do if your not rock solid right on your actions. Also remember, you might be exposing your other crewmembers your paired with.
12-04-2017, 03:43 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Doing Just Fine
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by RyeMex
Um, excuse me, who exactly told you that the Judge ordered 1224 to pay anything?
ORDERED that within 48 hours after this Order issues, an undertaking in the sum of $200,000, or cash in that amount, be filed by the Plaintiffs to pay the costs, attorneys’ fees, and damages sustained by any person or entity found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained;
12-04-2017, 04:50 PM
#30
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 109
C. Bond
One final issue merits brief discussion. Section 7 of the NLGA requires the posting of a
bond:
No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on
condition that complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in
an amount to be fixed by the court sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any
loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such
order or injunction, including all reasonable costs (together with a reasonable
attorney's fee) and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of
any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the
court.
29 U.S.C. § 107. Setting an appropriate bond is necessary because “a party injured by an
erroneous injunction has no action for damages in the absence of a bond and is limited to
72recovering the amount of a bond.” Alton & S. Ry. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 899 F. Supp.
646, 650 (D.D.C. 1995) (citing Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern
Airlines, 925 F.2d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1991)). In this district, the exact boundaries of when an action
for attorney’s fees under the NLGA may be brought are unclear, but courts have imposed a bond
sufficient to cover the costs of litigating the motion and any appeal. Id. at 651. Because the
parties have not offered proof of the appropriate bond, the Court will order that Atlas post a bond
in the amount of $200,000, but the Court invites the parties to file further briefs and supporting
evidence should either seek to modify this amount.
One final issue merits brief discussion. Section 7 of the NLGA requires the posting of a
bond:
No temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall be issued except on
condition that complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate security in
an amount to be fixed by the court sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any
loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such
order or injunction, including all reasonable costs (together with a reasonable
attorney's fee) and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of
any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the
court.
29 U.S.C. § 107. Setting an appropriate bond is necessary because “a party injured by an
erroneous injunction has no action for damages in the absence of a bond and is limited to
72recovering the amount of a bond.” Alton & S. Ry. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 899 F. Supp.
646, 650 (D.D.C. 1995) (citing Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern
Airlines, 925 F.2d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1991)). In this district, the exact boundaries of when an action
for attorney’s fees under the NLGA may be brought are unclear, but courts have imposed a bond
sufficient to cover the costs of litigating the motion and any appeal. Id. at 651. Because the
parties have not offered proof of the appropriate bond, the Court will order that Atlas post a bond
in the amount of $200,000, but the Court invites the parties to file further briefs and supporting
evidence should either seek to modify this amount.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
