AOL update
10-26-2013, 04:58 PM
#1601
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
The question I think is whether that binding arbitration is still binding. USAPA says no because they formed a union to disregard the ALPA seniority integration. We say yes because we have a transition agreement, an arbitrated seniority list accepted by the company and, now, ripeness. But then the question comes up if our TA was supplanted by the MOU without the requirement to use the Nic. These are the questions Judge Silver will be ruling on.
Next, a document designed to hide its intent of terminating a groups rights is on its face unlawful and if this is usapa's argument why then are the AOL attorneys not pressing this issue. Its a document that 3 parties had a hand in LCC, USAPA and APA. If this document does what usapa says it does then fraud has taken place.
WD at AWA
10-27-2013, 07:09 AM
#1602
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Bigg Bird!!
Posts: 599
Ok it is unlawful for any entity to change its name in an effort to avoid litigation. Usapa came to life as an organization using is majority status in a effort to bring significant harm to the minority class. What they fail to realize is that in any new merger they are now the minority and they have designed the blueprints for their own demise under that situation.
Next, a document designed to hide its intent of terminating a groups rights is on its face unlawful and if this is usapa's argument why then are the AOL attorneys not pressing this issue. Its a document that 3 parties had a hand in LCC, USAPA and APA. If this document does what usapa says it does then fraud has taken place.
WD at AWA
Next, a document designed to hide its intent of terminating a groups rights is on its face unlawful and if this is usapa's argument why then are the AOL attorneys not pressing this issue. Its a document that 3 parties had a hand in LCC, USAPA and APA. If this document does what usapa says it does then fraud has taken place.
WD at AWA
10-27-2013, 08:11 AM
#1603
Cactus Aviator
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Learning to fly with my left hand.
Posts: 250
Yes! You get it. There is zero impact for me, unless somebody manages to derail the whole merger. With all the ridiculousness going on between the east and west, why can't the 3rdies throw a little sass? I don't need to upgrade out of seniority order. You all are going to age out before anyone figures out a seniority list and I will simply upgrade in turn. The recent APA letter said it best, no one is ever happy with seniority integration and now with our litigation-happy society, this thing will be tied up for years.
10-27-2013, 08:41 AM
#1604
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
The real bottom line is most arbitration is considered binding: parties who agree to arbitration are bound to that agreement and also bound to satisfy any award determined by the arbitrator. Courts in most jurisdictions enforce awards. Moreover, they allow little or no option for appeal, expecting parties who arbitrate to assume the risks of the process. In addition, arbitration is subject to the legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which together strictly curtail the option of bringing suits based on issues that were or could have been raised initially.
This is the reason why the courts (Silver) needs to define binding arbitration in this case. This will never reach the supreme court as they have already defined binding arbitration many years ago with the Taft Hartley act.
WD at AWA
This is the reason why the courts (Silver) needs to define binding arbitration in this case. This will never reach the supreme court as they have already defined binding arbitration many years ago with the Taft Hartley act.
WD at AWA
10-27-2013, 09:51 AM
#1605
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
The real bottom line is most arbitration is considered binding: parties who agree to arbitration are bound to that agreement and also bound to satisfy any award determined by the arbitrator. Courts in most jurisdictions enforce awards. Moreover, they allow little or no option for appeal, expecting parties who arbitrate to assume the risks of the process. In addition, arbitration is subject to the legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which together strictly curtail the option of bringing suits based on issues that were or could have been raised initially.
This is the reason why the courts (Silver) needs to define binding arbitration in this case. This will never reach the supreme court as they have already defined binding arbitration many years ago with the Taft Hartley act.
WD at AWA
This is the reason why the courts (Silver) needs to define binding arbitration in this case. This will never reach the supreme court as they have already defined binding arbitration many years ago with the Taft Hartley act.
WD at AWA
Let's say you are correct about all the above. What you are avoiding is the fact that there was a prerequisite for using the results of binding arbitration-a JCBA between east and west through the TA. We never got there. As of today we are not there, so the binding part is irrelevant as a contract says it cannot yet be used. You consistently put the cart before the horse.
Now, lets say the AA merger doesn't happen and we go back to square one. And then the east and west pilots never come to an agreement. Does binding arbitration keep us from coming to another solution that serves the group better? The answer from the court is that we can. Whether we did that with the MOU is still in question.
10-27-2013, 09:53 AM
#1606
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
I
I firmly believe that at the end of the day should the merger fall thru which I don't believe it will the company is going to need the answer to the arbitration definition. LCC will not be able to continue along the path its going and they know it. The two separate companies operating under one banner has run its course and is no longer viable. How long before ****ed off pilots start really disrupting the system here causing problems?
WD at AWA
I firmly believe that at the end of the day should the merger fall thru which I don't believe it will the company is going to need the answer to the arbitration definition. LCC will not be able to continue along the path its going and they know it. The two separate companies operating under one banner has run its course and is no longer viable. How long before ****ed off pilots start really disrupting the system here causing problems?
WD at AWA
If the merger fails it's time for US management to make a stand and come up with a solution.
10-27-2013, 12:41 PM
#1607
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
For once I completely agree with you and add another reason the company needs to finally step up and end this-Safety. This has caused major distraction and that puts us all at risk.
If the merger fails it's time for US management to make a stand and come up with a solution.
If the merger fails it's time for US management to make a stand and come up with a solution.
WD at AWA
10-27-2013, 02:49 PM
#1608
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
It has been a multi million dollar success for mgt to do what they have done. No new merger means you keep going as you have and hope that you can survive in the shark tank. Distractions are of little to no concern because there have been no incidents that would cause concern for the company thus far. Now if there is a merger then the final hurdle was met with the MOU that is indeed a new contract.
WD at AWA
WD at AWA
10-27-2013, 04:11 PM
#1609
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
WD at AWA
10-27-2013, 05:10 PM
#1610
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Seems pretty clear to me, but I've never claimed to be unbiased.
From the ACTUAL MOU:
"Accordingly, except
for those terms specifically identified in Paragraph 3, the Parties agree that each term of the MTA
shall be applicable to all US Airways pilots at the earliest practicable time for each such term, and
such terms, when applicable, shall govern and displace any conflicting or wholly or partially
inconsistent provision of the former US Airways pilot agreements or the status quo arising thereunder.
Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior
collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising
thereunder."
From the ACTUAL MOU:
"Accordingly, except
for those terms specifically identified in Paragraph 3, the Parties agree that each term of the MTA
shall be applicable to all US Airways pilots at the earliest practicable time for each such term, and
such terms, when applicable, shall govern and displace any conflicting or wholly or partially
inconsistent provision of the former US Airways pilot agreements or the status quo arising thereunder.
Once the MTA has been fully implemented, it shall fully displace and render a nullity any prior
collective bargaining agreements applicable to US Airways pilots and any status quo arising
thereunder."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
