04-23-2021i never had a problem with the "crawl backs." They were pretty badly beaten. For the sake of history....
By then, ALPA was broken, and no one was representing the CAL pilots. Those guys believed ALPA was: In the right, and Going to beat Frank Lorenzo. When it was apparent that ALPA was beaten in 1985 after Lorenzo's bankruptcy and voiding of the contract, a 2 year war with a variety of suits and some rather audacious acts of violence, some guys decided to crawl back. Initially, about 1800 pilots out of the 2000 supported the strike. The company notified ALPA they were not going to recognize ALPA as their bargaining agent for the pilots. Lorenzo gave the pilots only 9 days to insert their bid in supplemental bid 85-5. This was a completely new strategy. Normally CAL would run one or two bids a year. Contractually, they ran a system bid annually. But, only giving pilots 9 days to insert a bid, and if they didn't they were screwed. So, those crawling back in bid 85-5 all had a gun to their head and no protective helmet. Essentially, ALPA sealed their fate by "authorizing" the pilots to submit their bids. In essence, ALPA facilitated this round of crawl-backs. By doing so, they really gave grace to anyone who crawled back begging for their jobs back. In October 1985 ALPA went to court again to settle all outstanding legal matters in this case. The resulting negotiations came up with 3 options for pilots: participate in 85-5 bid, accept a severance package, or striking pilots can return to work after all first option pilots are reinstated.
The legal going's on and appeals lasted for years. Ultimately a DFR claim was made against ALPA by the striking pilots. These appeals resulted in some final language that essentially came up with a "compromise." That compromise essentially legalized "super seniority" for the Scabs. Years later we can all agree that the scabs have indeed benefited from the super-seniority afforded to them by crossing the picket line and bid 85-5. The language in this opinion is quite old, but relevant... "The suggestion that the "discrimination" between striking and working pilots represented a breach of the duty of fair representation also fails. If we are correct in our conclusion that it was rational for ALPA to accept a compromise between the claims of the two groups of pilots to the 85-5 bid positions, some form of allocation was inevitable."
There are 10 legal footnotes in the ALPA v. Oneil DFR lawsuit re. CAL strike. The 10th and final footnote is noteworthy because it has tentacles into United Airlines labor issues. "Even if the Seventh Circuit had already affirmed the District Court's holding in the United Air Lines case, the Court of Appeals would have erred in its conclusion that the law was so assuredly in ALPA's favor that the settlement was irrational. First, a Seventh Circuit case would not have controlled the outcome in this dispute, which arose in the Fifth Circuit. Second, even if the United Air Lines decision had been a Fifth Circuit case, it was factually distinguishable and therefore might not have dictated the outcome regarding the 85-5 bid positions. In United Air Lines, the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the basis of the District Court's finding that the carrier's action was taken in bad faith, motivated by antiunion animus. 802 F. 2d, at 898; 614 F. Supp., at 1046. An equivalent finding was by no means certain in this case."
In my opinion, AlPA came up with the compromise that was legally agreed to by all parties, and thus ALPA gave grace to the entire crawl back community by singing the agreement. If ALPA is cool with it, so am I. To me this is an entirely different issue than "forgiving the scabs."
AIRLINEPILOT CENTRAL
