Cactusone

LOA 93 Update


Although the Union does not discuss arbitrators' decisions when in a draft form, we have very unusual and extenuating circumstances, which we believe dictate a change in our long standing practice of maintaining strict confidentiality -- for this specific dispute only.
Arbitrator Kasher suffered a very serious medical emergency approximately two weeks ago. He is recovering; however, he informed both USAPA and the Company that he would not continue his work until released from his doctor to do so.
During the second week of November a draft decision was released to the parties, and the Union requested an Executive Session, which was scheduled for December 13. Obviously, that has now been postponed indefinitely.
Unfortunately, the Union did not prevail.
It appears that the Arbitrator found that we did not carry our burden of proof.
In order to prevail in this grievance ALPA's negotiators were required to do the following:
The ALPA negotiators must have intended to have the pay restored on January 1, 2010; and
The ALPA negotiators were required to clearly convey and communicate this to the Company negotiators during the course of negotiations.
We were able to present only one negotiator.
The former ALPA negotiator testified that he had communicated these points to the Company; however, he was unable to produce any notes to substantiate his testimony.
The Company produced three negotiators who were able to support their testimony with contemporaneous notes taken during ALPA's presentation of the pay reduction proposal, which contradicted the testimony of the Union witness.
We are still in the early stages of planning our strategy for the Executive Session, but it is unlikely that we will be able to get the Arbitrator to reverse his decision.
We will ask the Arbitrator to clarify several issues in the draft decision.
We do not see any grounds to appeal his decision to federal court.
Given the very recent receipt of the decision and the delicate procedural stage, we do not want to discuss this any further at this point, but we will give more detail after the Executive Session has taken place and the final decision has been issued, at which time the entire record will be immediately made available to all pilots.
Despite justifiable disappointment with the apparent rejection of the Union's grievance in LOA-93, we caution that no pilot may engage in any slowdown or other interference with normal operations. The injunction issued by the United States District Court remains in effect and continues to prohibit each pilot from engaging in any slowdown, strike, work stoppage, sick-out, work to rule campaign, or any other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the RLA. The injunction does not diminish or interfere with the duty of a pilot in command to insure the safety of his or her passengers and equipment, but safety concerns may not be used as an excuse to engage in any slowdown or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations.

captfred

Kasher is a senile old man just like Nicholai. He will never understand. How about a do-over? Binding arbitration? Best 2 out ot 3? A wager on LSU and Alabama?

If only we had paid Lee Seham the full 7 million he is owed to fight those rookie pilots this never would have happened. What is that phone number for IBT anyway?

cactiboss

Another shining example of the east mentality. surprised they aren't screaming for the moderators to move the thread so the rest of the industry doesn't see their true colors. Can't wait to see what new innovative douche baggary they come up with, my money is on a new union in short order. Oh yeah they do have that lawsuit against the pbgc where they are going to get their pensions re-instated, heck they have already spent $4 million of the east pilot's money chasing that.

Fishfreighter

It is amazing the denial the Pickleballers exhibit. It's over.

justjack

Speaking of showing one's true colors- your utter delight is no surprise to anyone- but fill up a blog with it. Keep on shining. Also I think that it is pertinent to remember that ALPA negotiated LOA 93.

Cactusone

Yeah it's ALPA's fault lol. Your own east brothers that negotiated it didn't want anything to do with the LOA93 grievance (refused to be deposed), they new it was DOA. Yet USAPA sold it as a slam dunk, money in the bank, please keep supporting us will get it all back bs, lol suckers.

cactiboss

How much pension are you going to get back for your $1600 assessed to each and every east pilot? Don't look now but they just asked for double the money with 100% chance of not getting a penny back. The west celebrates today, not for your pathetic loss, but for the fact another east lie is put to bed and usapa and the east are closer to collapse.

justjack

You celebrate because you think that this puts you another step closer to cashing in your lottery ticket. At least we agree that you celebrate.

sailingfun

USAIR losing this grievance is a big loss for all pilots at all airlines. In very contract negotiation ongoing their 125 dollar an hour Captains are dragging things down.
It was at best a very long shot. I read the section in question and I would not have ruled for them based on the wording. I never saw a snapback that did not state it was a snapback. Still I was hoping they would prevail. It would have been a big boost to the profession.

Carl Spackler

What's getting lost in all the typical name calling is the statement that ALPA had ONE person testify at the hearing. That ONE person had no notes and no proof for the arbitrator to decide the case on the side of ALPA. The company had numerous people, all with their negotiators notes to "prove" the company position.

Question: Is THIS the kind of "representation" we would all hope for from ALPA?

Carl