Neutral opinion needed on east/west
10-11-2012, 08:46 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Here are some of the crucial points she made:
'But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context
of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any
time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Doc. 156-3 at 38).
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new
collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US
Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the
Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.”
The whole thing really needs to be read to get the full view. My take on it she was saying:
"USAPA, I think you are screwing the west pilots, but you have the law on your side. You might want to come up with a better case because even though you can do it, looks like you might have to answer to it again. US Airways, you're pretty much off the hook. You have to negotiate, but you don't have to say yes to just anything."
10-11-2012, 08:47 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: Doing what you do, for less.
Posts: 1,792
Looks like everyone loses. Loses all the time and money they've dedicated to their respective causes and it seems further from being settled now. You're all at a legally determined stalemate.
USAPA is free to do as it chooses and all parties are free to sue if they feel wronged and all parties have pretty strong potential cases.
Nobody is going to win this unless people work together and constructively reach a solution. Until that almost unimaginable event happens, all of you will continue to be working under the worst contract and lowest pay of all non-regional airline pilots.
It really is unfortunate.
USAPA is free to do as it chooses and all parties are free to sue if they feel wronged and all parties have pretty strong potential cases.
Nobody is going to win this unless people work together and constructively reach a solution. Until that almost unimaginable event happens, all of you will continue to be working under the worst contract and lowest pay of all non-regional airline pilots.
It really is unfortunate.
10-11-2012, 08:47 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by lolwut
So did she just rule that USAPA is free to do a DOH list?
10-11-2012, 08:53 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by R57 relay
No, that they are free to propose and negotiate any list they want, they just better have a good reason for it.
10-11-2012, 08:59 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Good summary. The term she used is legitimate union purpose. We have in evidence from the Wake trial (Addington) what the purpose of USAPA is. Heck, all we have to do is show the UOM (union operating manual).
I think this would be a good time for both sides to step back, look at what has been lost and reconsider their positions. I have little hope of that happening.
10-11-2012, 09:05 PM
#16
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by R57 relay
"USAPA, I think you are screwing the west pilots, but you have the law on your side. You might want to come up with a better case because even though you can do it, looks like you might have to answer to it again. US Airways, you're pretty much off the hook. You have to negotiate, but you don't have to say yes to just anything."
The primary focus of the parties’ summary judgment filings is whether the Transition
Agreement is “binding” on USAPA. According to USAPA, it is “not ‘contractually’ bound
by any of ALPA’s agreements,” including the Transition Agreement. (Doc. 160 at 10). But
the West Pilots, as well as US Airways, cite a variety of authority supporting the position that
the “decertification of ALPA and the certification of USAPA did not change the binding
nature of the Transition Agreement.” (Doc. 164 at 7). The West Pilots and US Airways are
correct.
When USAPA became the pilots’ new collective bargaining representative, it
succeeded “to the status of the former representative without alteration in the contract terms.”
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 1983). As
there does not appear to be any dispute that the Transition Agreement was part of the contract
between the pilots and US Airways, the Transition Agreement applies to USAPA. Even the
case which USAPA relies upon states there is a “general principle that collective bargaining
agreements survive a change in representative.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v.
USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432, 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Thus, just as ALPA would have been
bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is
bound by the Transition Agreement.2
Agreement is “binding” on USAPA. According to USAPA, it is “not ‘contractually’ bound
by any of ALPA’s agreements,” including the Transition Agreement. (Doc. 160 at 10). But
the West Pilots, as well as US Airways, cite a variety of authority supporting the position that
the “decertification of ALPA and the certification of USAPA did not change the binding
nature of the Transition Agreement.” (Doc. 164 at 7). The West Pilots and US Airways are
correct.
When USAPA became the pilots’ new collective bargaining representative, it
succeeded “to the status of the former representative without alteration in the contract terms.”
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 1983). As
there does not appear to be any dispute that the Transition Agreement was part of the contract
between the pilots and US Airways, the Transition Agreement applies to USAPA. Even the
case which USAPA relies upon states there is a “general principle that collective bargaining
agreements survive a change in representative.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v.
USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432, 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Thus, just as ALPA would have been
bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is
bound by the Transition Agreement.2
10-11-2012, 09:07 PM
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by R57 relay
I think you guys are forgetting the claim that a joint contract cannot be affected with the Nicolau award in it. The years of lost wages fighting against the Nic may be to USAPAs favor. Something to consider.
I think this would be a good time for both sides to step back, look at what has been lost and reconsider their positions. I have little hope of that happening.
I think this would be a good time for both sides to step back, look at what has been lost and reconsider their positions. I have little hope of that happening.
10-11-2012, 09:09 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by cactiboss
I agree but when she says "law" she means the 9th ruling, a ruling she doesn't agree with and it is that ruling that kept her from deciding the case. Also another thing that I think is huge, for the first time usapa was told they inherited the nicolau award.:
10-11-2012, 09:10 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by cactiboss
There is much case law that says the majority can't change the seniority of a minority. Only Rakestraw allowed a seniority to be changed, you should read it.
10-11-2012, 09:16 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by R57 relay
I think you guys are forgetting the claim that a joint contract cannot be affected with the Nicolau award in it. The years of lost wages fighting against the Nic may be to USAPAs favor. Something to consider.
I think this would be a good time for both sides to step back, look at what has been lost and reconsider their positions. I have little hope of that happening.
I think this would be a good time for both sides to step back, look at what has been lost and reconsider their positions. I have little hope of that happening.
I don't think the second sentence is true. You guys are losing money and the upgrades are not really compensating for the dollars lost. Starting in December we will have upgrades again for attrition and maybe I can go back to holding a line on the 757 again.
As far as stepping back and looking at this? Sure, we will see what USAPA comes up with. It will be without West input because we have none. All we can do is watch and see how negotiations go. I think USAPA will come up with something that harms the West and we will be back in court again. But remember, we are not holding up the process. This is between USAPA and the company. The West is a minority here. We have nothing that prevents the negotiatig process from going forward.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
