What a lot of armchair attorneys don't realize is that status quo prevails. You're going to have an easier time defending the status quo than defending drastic change that is a windfall for one party and a huge loss for the other. THAT is how the court system works.

Bit it seems we both agree it isn't going to come to that.

 

ALPA National is an association, not a union. ALPA National has a duty to represent the interests of the pilot group actively bargaining in each bargaining instance, not represent any and all groups within the association in each bargaining agreement. In a collective bargaining agreement between the pilots of 'new UAL' and the representatives of UAL the company, the interests of the ASA pilots are not considered, as they are not a party to the agreement, nor governed by any parts of it, just as the ASA pilot agreement does not govern any pilot group, ALPA or otherwise, other than the ASA pilot group, including the pilots of 'new UAL'.

The current contract @ UAL is between:
ASA pilots are not 'air line pilots in the service of United Air Lines, Inc.', but rather 'air line pilots in the service of ASA Inc.'. Unless ASA ALPA is invited to participate, ASA ALPA will not be a party to a future UAL agreement, and thus has no rights to claim damages. ALPA National is a representative of the UAL pilots, not a party to the agreement, and again, this will likely not change.

There is no right to claim damages under an agreement through membership in a common association of representation. This part of contract law is pretty established. If ALPA pilots were all members of the same union, then the facts would be different. In an association, the ties that bind the groups together do not include party status in all agreements between individual groups of the association that the association assisted in representing.

Think of ALPA like the AAA or the ARP or the ABA (American Bar Association) - an association, not a union. Ever heard of a lawyer sue the ABA for DFR?

 

Sniper is correct to the best of my knowledge. UALPA could negotiate UAX out of existence and there would not be good legal basis for a claim against ALPA by regional pilots.

 

Like I said, armchair attorneys. If pilots weren't such know-it-alls we wouldn't even have internet message boards. I wonder if other professions have these things where everyone trips all over themselves to prove to their peers how smart they are... better yet "anonymously"! LOL!

 

The piloting profession is unusual...we have a lot of guys who don't anything more about business, law, etc than the average plumber. But we also have more than a few folks with education and experience in other fields. No harm in sharing and clearing up misconceptions.

 

This entire thread has developed based on the presumption of a single poster that ASA ALPA has reasonable grounds to bring a DFR suit against ALPA National for the actions of UAL and CAL ALPA. No support is provided for this reasoning, and all who question the reasoning are labeled as 'armchair attorneys'. This appears to be an ad hominem disagreement.

Getting out of my 'armchair' for a moment to sit in my 'JD admitted to the bar' chair . . .

The American Bar Association has a brief on Duty of Fair Representation, which states the following, in part:

UAL ALPA and CAL ALPA are not acting at the direction of ALPA National - it is, in fact, the other way around. ALPA National acts on the direction of UAL and CAL ALPA in collective bargaining with UAL, Inc. (See Article I, Section 6.B.15. of ALPA's Constitution and By Laws).

Assuming UAL and CAL ALPA were acting at the behest of ALPA National (ALPA National violating its own by laws), would ALPA National's conduct in a UAL/CAL ALPA member ratified contract be found “so far outside a `wide range of reasonableness,’... that it is wholly `irrational’ or ‘arbitrary,’” to ASA ALPA?

As an aside, ASA ALPA bringing a DFR suit against ALPA National would likely violate Article IV, Section 2.C. of ALPA's By Laws.

If there is a case here (not saying there isn't), it's going to take more than "because I said so", or accusations of 'armchair lawyering'. Perhaps this whole discussion of ASA ALPA bringing suit is nothing more than the musings of an 'armchair attorney', and my response to it is totally unnecessary?

'rickair' is right - not all of us are plumbers in armchairs.

 

*YAWN* You know nothing about me, "Esquire".

Hey! I'm a Supreme Court Justice! Really! I swear!!! I can use big words too! On an anonymous message board!

But with that said, it would be individuals bringing the suit (class action), not the MEC (duh). Obviously you aren't aware that everything you just said can't be done already WAS done in 2002!

 

Ford v. ALPA and Cooksey v. ALPA were both settled Oct. 23, 2007, no? The settlement included adding new language to ALPA policy, including:

• scope review between mainline and regional negotiating committees
• required discussion of goals by both mainline and regional prior to bargaining
• review by the national committee of scope goals

ALPA would have to violate their own rules for this line of reasoning to have merit. ASA ALPA has been, and continues, to review its scope goals between themselves and mainline groups. UAL and CAL ALPA have been, and continue to, review their scope goals with regional groups. Currently, ALPA's Collective Bargaining Committee and ALPA's Fee For Departure Committee preform some of this work. I know you know this, just reviewing it for everyone on the forum who isn't familiar.

I suspected the "I'm a Supreme Court Justice" line, or "I'm the Solicitor General" (Funny, I even put it in my response, at first, to beat you to it, but didn't think you'd take it that far - should have known, huh?). Alas, even armchair attorneys such as myself know that no sitting justice is an active pilot for ASA (one of many other claims you've made).

So, first it was 'status quo wins in court'. Then it was 'everyone is an armchair lawyer'. Now it's 'repeat the RJDC strategy'.

Good luck with your litigation.

 

Served!

Thank you for taking the time to serve our local regional cheerleader.

 

You're taking a risk as it is by staying at the regional level regardless of your seniority. If you think you're safe where you're at, I suggest you take a page from history. There's absolutely nothing that says that Skywest won't retire existing frames at the new improved ASA post CPA, and give the growth to non-union cheaper Skywest labor. While that scenario might be years away baring the current protections that the XJT MEC is negotiating for the joint company, it's still a very vivid option.

Reality check here: You (like many of us) work for a contractor, and you're at just as much risk sitting here at the top of the B scale, as you are at the bottom of the A scale.

The word is risk, if you believe you're impervious, then I suggest you try a different line of work as you will probably hurt yourself. Someone with the degree of experience you claim to have would know better.