Neutral opinion needed on east/west
10-11-2012, 09:24 PM
#21
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by R57 relay
I have and it did allow it to be changed because they had a 'legitimate union objective" right?
Unlike the Rakestraw case, as we get this threat,
3 we're fully aware that the DFR argument that Mr. Harper's
4 clients want to make was presented in a nine-day trial to a
5 jury and to Judge Wake. We're fully aware that the facts that 02:25:16
6 were presented caused a jury to find that the proposal made by
7 the union breaches its duty of fair representation.
8 On remand, we have that proposal on our negotiating
9 table knowing full well that a jury has already found that in
10 the jury's view, and per Judge Wake's follow-up remedial order, 02:25:39
11 violated the DFR.
12 We're now being asked by the union, being demanded
3 we're fully aware that the DFR argument that Mr. Harper's
4 clients want to make was presented in a nine-day trial to a
5 jury and to Judge Wake. We're fully aware that the facts that 02:25:16
6 were presented caused a jury to find that the proposal made by
7 the union breaches its duty of fair representation.
8 On remand, we have that proposal on our negotiating
9 table knowing full well that a jury has already found that in
10 the jury's view, and per Judge Wake's follow-up remedial order, 02:25:39
11 violated the DFR.
12 We're now being asked by the union, being demanded
10-11-2012, 09:27 PM
#22
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by R57 relay
She didn't agree, but felt obligated to follow.
I'm not sure why USAPA argued that either, and actually didn't remember that they did. We are operating under the T/A and it's why we haven't shrunk anymore. Either way, she said that didn't matter, that were in the process of negotiating a complete new agreement and could change anything, with a good reason. Sort of like the min fleet.
10-12-2012, 05:52 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
It's on cactuspilot.com. Let's see if this works:
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Decl...c193_Order.pdf
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Decl...c193_Order.pdf
10-12-2012, 06:24 AM
#28
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: CRJ 200/700
Posts: 34
The way I read the judge's decision, is USAPA is free to negotiate for either the Nicolau award or something else that is fair to the west pilots.
If it is not the Nic or something fair to west pilots, the company should not accept the list. If they do accept something not fair to west pilots, then the west has a case to sue USAPA and the company.
If it is not the Nic or something fair to west pilots, the company should not accept the list. If they do accept something not fair to west pilots, then the west has a case to sue USAPA and the company.
10-12-2012, 06:27 AM
#29
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by cactiboss
So fellas the latest judgement is in and I am curious to see how you neutral guys intrepet what the judge said(usapa reads it as a huge victory and so does the west) So if you have a second, read this order and let us know what you think it means.
"In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could."
No kidding. She didn't provide any guidance.
I think the judge dropped back and punted.
She talked for 9 pages and didn't say anything. You guys are right back where you were.
The 9th Circuit ruling stands. USAPA can do whatever they want but as soon as they do it the litigation will commence.
The company didn't get any guidance either. They "need not insist on any particular seniority regime" but they better be damn sure it is reasonable and serves a legitimate union purpose or they will also be open to lawsuits. That "ruling" (if you can call it that) is totally useless. It doesn't help at all.
The only people who won a "huge victory" are the lawyers.
10-12-2012, 06:36 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by cactiboss
So fellas the latest judgement is in and I am curious to see how you neutral guys intrepet what the judge said(usapa reads it as a huge victory and so does the west) So if you have a second, read this order and let us know what you think it means.
AWAPPA Members Forum
PS If you don't care to read it, don't and save your bandwith.
AWAPPA Members Forum
PS If you don't care to read it, don't and save your bandwith.
1. USAPA has tried to pretend that there is no seniority list at the merged company and they get to start anew with no reference to the Nicolau list as an established list created by a mutually agreed to "fair and equitable" process. The Judge states unequivocally that there is a list and USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement.
2. It is allowable to change a seniority list as it is a negotiable item in the contract. However, it is super duper extremely hard to change it. By definition, for every pilot that gains a number another pilot loses a number. In order for a union to change a seniority list they have to present an overriding union objective that benefits the entire list. You can't just exchange one unhappy group of pilots for another unhappy group of pilots simply because you have the votes. That is why you almost never hear about a seniority list being changed, ever. The Judge tried to make this point abundantly clear to USAPA but they have in the past ignored all common sense and legal precedent and seem determined to take this all the way until they lose in court.
The bottom line is that US Airways management now has a built in excuse to never negotiate with USAPA until USAPA accepts the Nicolau award. They have numerous legal opinions from federal judges that spell out explicitly the danger to US Airways if they aid and abet USAPA in changing the seniority list. The NMB will see this danger and will not move the process forward until USAPA quits trying to make US Airways a co-conspirator in a DFR lawsuit.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
