AOL update
06-04-2013, 11:08 AM
#1181
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
And the -- particularly where there are
allegations of irreparable harm?
And, of course, the Rules of Evidence don't really apply
other than the facts that are presented have to be
reliable. So that makes it a lot easier for this Court to give
all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
But as I said, that's for another day. And as I also
mentioned, and I want to hear from Mr. Siegel on this, is
whether or not things have changed in terms of ripeness because
that made a big difference to me. I have been trying at
length, as I think everybody knows, to try to figure out why
the Ninth Circuit did what it did on ripeness but understanding
full well this process of negotiations for Collective
Bargaining Agreement. So I accepted that -- wait a minute.
I accepted that and then I read the MOU. It's quite
clear to me that the corporation is standing back and they are
saying just tell us what to do. Just solve this seniority
issue. And I had mentioned I think before that this whole
process of seniority could be resolved because the companies
may say, look, we're going to give everybody a huge raise so
let's just go with date of hire and everybody accepts that.
Well, that's not what they are saying.
They are saying -- they are saying you resolve it so
here we are. As far as I'm concerned, at some point, the new
allegation that occurred subsequent has created ripeness. So
we're -- and you have not persuaded me otherwise.
Last edited by cactiboss; 06-04-2013 at 11:47 AM.
06-04-2013, 12:14 PM
#1185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Sorry, didn't see the quote before.
I'm not sure what to make of Judge Silver. She seems to be thinking out loud. You see in the passage above that she says "that is for another day" and "not sure about the 9th." If you look at what the 9th said on the first trial, and can't say the events changed them, then by that standard it is still not ripe. They said that it could not be contingent and that there had to be a final SLI in place.
What if the merger fails? What if we went to a 3 way and the west group ended up with a much better SLI? How do you determine that before hand?
That was the problem before.
I'm not saying that she won't rule it ripe, or that she won't rule in your favor. I think she favors your side. Just can't see it, at this time, but I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not sure what to make of Judge Silver. She seems to be thinking out loud. You see in the passage above that she says "that is for another day" and "not sure about the 9th." If you look at what the 9th said on the first trial, and can't say the events changed them, then by that standard it is still not ripe. They said that it could not be contingent and that there had to be a final SLI in place.
What if the merger fails? What if we went to a 3 way and the west group ended up with a much better SLI? How do you determine that before hand?
That was the problem before.
I'm not saying that she won't rule it ripe, or that she won't rule in your favor. I think she favors your side. Just can't see it, at this time, but I'm not a lawyer.
06-04-2013, 01:26 PM
#1187
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Sorry, didn't see the quote before.
I'm not sure what to make of Judge Silver. She seems to be thinking out loud. You see in the passage above that she says "that is for another day" and "not sure about the 9th." If you look at what the 9th said on the first trial, and can't say the events changed them, then by that standard it is still not ripe. They said that it could not be contingent and that there had to be a final SLI in place.
What if the merger fails? What if we went to a 3 way and the west group ended up with a much better SLI? How do you determine that before hand?
That was the problem before.
I'm not saying that she won't rule it ripe, or that she won't rule in your favor. I think she favors your side. Just can't see it, at this time, but I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not sure what to make of Judge Silver. She seems to be thinking out loud. You see in the passage above that she says "that is for another day" and "not sure about the 9th." If you look at what the 9th said on the first trial, and can't say the events changed them, then by that standard it is still not ripe. They said that it could not be contingent and that there had to be a final SLI in place.
What if the merger fails? What if we went to a 3 way and the west group ended up with a much better SLI? How do you determine that before hand?
That was the problem before.
I'm not saying that she won't rule it ripe, or that she won't rule in your favor. I think she favors your side. Just can't see it, at this time, but I'm not a lawyer.
06-04-2013, 01:52 PM
#1188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Yes she doesn't "get" how the 9th could have ruled the way they did. The 9th said it wouldn't be ripe until bargaining was complete, the bargaining they refer to is between the company and usapa. So the company/usapa bargaining for seniority is complete making the case ripe ( that was her reasoning).
I agree, but I seem to remember that the 9th was talking about a JCBA being complete because that is where the final SLI would reside in our situation, so it really wasn't a JCBA that triggered it, but an implemented SLI. Even if the MOU was a JCBA, it does not integrate OUR listS. And again, they said it couldn't be contingent on anything else. I concede that I may not remember it correctly. If I have time I will try and review the ruling.
Last edited by R57 relay; 06-04-2013 at 02:09 PM.
06-04-2013, 02:17 PM
#1189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
And I had mentioned I think before that this whole
process of seniority could be resolved because the companies
may say, look, we're going to give everybody a huge raise so
let's just go with date of hire and everybody accepts that.
process of seniority could be resolved because the companies
may say, look, we're going to give everybody a huge raise so
let's just go with date of hire and everybody accepts that.
06-04-2013, 02:21 PM
#1190
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Here's what I found:
"A question is fit for decision when it can be decided
without considering "contingent future events that may or
may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.""
Our merger is not certain. Our 2000 merger with UA took a year or more to die. Most of us think it will close, but many thought the UA/US was a "done deal."
"Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a "final product" has been
reached."
Our "final product" is a SLI. We have no idea that will be as we agreed in the MOU to stay on our present seniority listS, and go into the MB process.
Again, she may certainly say it's ripe. Everybody wants it to be except USAPA and they may want it to be, but just feel that it would be irresponsible to not argue the point.
"A question is fit for decision when it can be decided
without considering "contingent future events that may or
may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.""
Our merger is not certain. Our 2000 merger with UA took a year or more to die. Most of us think it will close, but many thought the UA/US was a "done deal."
"Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a "final product" has been
reached."
Our "final product" is a SLI. We have no idea that will be as we agreed in the MOU to stay on our present seniority listS, and go into the MB process.
Again, she may certainly say it's ripe. Everybody wants it to be except USAPA and they may want it to be, but just feel that it would be irresponsible to not argue the point.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
