AOL update
06-13-2014, 09:47 AM
#3061
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Well, the east pilots being who they are and not living up to their agreements, sued arbitrator Kasher when he didn't rule their way during "binding arbitration" a few months back. Here is the decision from the court:
Any questions why I call them a scum scab group?
Grievance Committee Update - 3% Decision
Late yesterday we received a disappointing decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding our motion to vacate the Kasher decision on the 3% raises due each May 1 beyond the amendable date of our East Collective Bargaining Agreement. I had asked our attorney from Pittsburgh, Steve Petrikis, who led our efforts in this case, to summarize the Court’s decision which is printed below. The full decision is available on the USAPA website under the Grievance Library (BPR 09-06-02 East) or by clicking here.
I can’t say enough about the positive support we have received from the line pilots over the years as we fought this injustice. The facts of this case on the 3% raises, as well as the termination of our DB Pension, are welded in the pilot’s minds who have lived these events. We will continue to evaluate our position and whether to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I will have more on the issue in the coming weeks.
Thanks again for your continued support,
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
USAPA Grievance Chairman
From Attorney Steve Petrikis:In a twenty-five page Memorandum Opinion and Order, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Complaint of the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) which sought to vacate the Arbitration Award denying annual 3% raises to the pilots commencing on May 1, 2010.
In its Complaint, USAPA contended that the Arbitrator had ignored express and unequivocal contract language granting the 3% raise effective May 1, 2010. USAPA further argued that subsequent amendments to the contract never modified the pay raise provision and that, again, express and unequivocal contract language preserved it. Judge Robert C. Mitchell, emphasizing the narrow standard of review of an Arbitrator’s decision, nonetheless determined that the Arbitrator’s decision was “rationally inferable” from the parties’ agreements.
"The question before this Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher’s decision was correct or well-reasoned, but only whether it was “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements. “Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Central of Ga. R.y. Co., 415 F. 2d 403, 412 (5th Cir. 1969). Put another way, “as long as [an honest] arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (citation omitted). Because the Award is “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements and Arbitrator Kasher was arguably construing the parties’ agreements, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he acted outside of the SBA’s jurisdiction or ignored the plain language of the agreements."
With respect to USAPA’s argument that the award should be vacated and remanded because the Arbitrator was not even aware that the 3% raise issue was before him at the time of the February, 2010 grievance hearings, and then refused to hold additional hearings, Judge Mitchell held:
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA. For all of the reasons explained above, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he did.
Late yesterday we received a disappointing decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding our motion to vacate the Kasher decision on the 3% raises due each May 1 beyond the amendable date of our East Collective Bargaining Agreement. I had asked our attorney from Pittsburgh, Steve Petrikis, who led our efforts in this case, to summarize the Court’s decision which is printed below. The full decision is available on the USAPA website under the Grievance Library (BPR 09-06-02 East) or by clicking here.
I can’t say enough about the positive support we have received from the line pilots over the years as we fought this injustice. The facts of this case on the 3% raises, as well as the termination of our DB Pension, are welded in the pilot’s minds who have lived these events. We will continue to evaluate our position and whether to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I will have more on the issue in the coming weeks.
Thanks again for your continued support,
Captain Dave Ciabattoni
USAPA Grievance Chairman
From Attorney Steve Petrikis:
In its Complaint, USAPA contended that the Arbitrator had ignored express and unequivocal contract language granting the 3% raise effective May 1, 2010. USAPA further argued that subsequent amendments to the contract never modified the pay raise provision and that, again, express and unequivocal contract language preserved it. Judge Robert C. Mitchell, emphasizing the narrow standard of review of an Arbitrator’s decision, nonetheless determined that the Arbitrator’s decision was “rationally inferable” from the parties’ agreements.
"The question before this Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher’s decision was correct or well-reasoned, but only whether it was “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements. “Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Central of Ga. R.y. Co., 415 F. 2d 403, 412 (5th Cir. 1969). Put another way, “as long as [an honest] arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (citation omitted). Because the Award is “rationally inferable” based on the parties’ agreements and Arbitrator Kasher was arguably construing the parties’ agreements, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he acted outside of the SBA’s jurisdiction or ignored the plain language of the agreements."
With respect to USAPA’s argument that the award should be vacated and remanded because the Arbitrator was not even aware that the 3% raise issue was before him at the time of the February, 2010 grievance hearings, and then refused to hold additional hearings, Judge Mitchell held:
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA. For all of the reasons explained above, Plaintiff cannot state a claim that he did.
06-13-2014, 10:55 AM
#3062
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Sigh.
Cacti, I get that you are an angry guy and that ANYTHING USAPA does, but have you actually followed this Kasher mess? It's a great example of what is wrong with the RLA. USAPA tried to do something about it, but it failed. Most of us expected it to. Airline managers like Hemmingway and Glass have the RLA figured out and until we find a different strategy, we are pretty much along for the ride with them. We just had a grievance win that was over ten years old!
I get why you are mad about the Nic, but I can't understand why you cannot separate it from everything else.
Thanks for putting it on this thread and not starting another one.
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA.
In other words "It's doesn't matter if he is wrong, he followed the rules."
Cacti, I get that you are an angry guy and that ANYTHING USAPA does, but have you actually followed this Kasher mess? It's a great example of what is wrong with the RLA. USAPA tried to do something about it, but it failed. Most of us expected it to. Airline managers like Hemmingway and Glass have the RLA figured out and until we find a different strategy, we are pretty much along for the ride with them. We just had a grievance win that was over ten years old!
I get why you are mad about the Nic, but I can't understand why you cannot separate it from everything else.
Thanks for putting it on this thread and not starting another one.
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA.
In other words "It's doesn't matter if he is wrong, he followed the rules."
06-13-2014, 11:07 AM
#3063
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Kind of like the west did huh? Yet you took it upon yourselves to union bust to get out of that agreement. That is the point this post makes, you agreed to have Kasher hear your grievance but when he didn't rule your way you sued him. Reminds you of anything your scab union is doing now? Oh yeah they are suing the APA because they don't want to live up to the MOU. As there ever been a union that has been in the courts more? You scab union spent $4 Million of my money to get your pension back(i couldn't make this one up), it sued the west pilots for racketeering and it goes on and on. The scab union has the highest dues while having accomplished absolutely nothing for it's pilots but keeping them without a contract for 10 years. Fckin scabs, it took the apa to bring this group a single benefit.
06-13-2014, 02:17 PM
#3064
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Kind of like the west did huh? Yet you took it upon yourselves to union bust to get out of that agreement. That is the point this post makes, you agreed to have Kasher hear your grievance but when he didn't rule your way you sued him. Reminds you of anything your scab union is doing now? Oh yeah they are suing the APA because they don't want to live up to the MOU. As there ever been a union that has been in the courts more? You scab union spent $4 Million of my money to get your pension back(i couldn't make this one up), it sued the west pilots for racketeering and it goes on and on. The scab union has the highest dues while having accomplished absolutely nothing for it's pilots but keeping them without a contract for 10 years. Fckin scabs, it took the apa to bring this group a single benefit.
How about a group voting 90%+ on an agreement only to turn around and Sue in federal court, claiming the deal it just voted for was illegal? Like that?
06-13-2014, 04:48 PM
#3068
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: AB 320 Captain
Posts: 355
Sigh.
Cacti, I get that you are an angry guy and that ANYTHING USAPA does, but have you actually followed this Kasher mess? It's a great example of what is wrong with the RLA. USAPA tried to do something about it, but it failed. Most of us expected it to. Airline managers like Hemmingway and Glass have the RLA figured out and until we find a different strategy, we are pretty much along for the ride with them. We just had a grievance win that was over ten years old!
I get why you are mad about the Nic, but I can't understand why you cannot separate it from everything else.
Thanks for putting it on this thread and not starting another one.
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA.
In other words "It's doesn't matter if he is wrong, he followed the rules."
Cacti, I get that you are an angry guy and that ANYTHING USAPA does, but have you actually followed this Kasher mess? It's a great example of what is wrong with the RLA. USAPA tried to do something about it, but it failed. Most of us expected it to. Airline managers like Hemmingway and Glass have the RLA figured out and until we find a different strategy, we are pretty much along for the ride with them. We just had a grievance win that was over ten years old!
I get why you are mad about the Nic, but I can't understand why you cannot separate it from everything else.
Thanks for putting it on this thread and not starting another one.
"Again the question before the Court is not whether Arbitrator Kasher handled this matter in the best was [sic] possible, or even whether he “should have” convened a supplement hearing in 2013, only whether he violated the procedural requirements of the RLA.
In other words "It's doesn't matter if he is wrong, he followed the rules."
06-14-2014, 08:44 AM
#3070
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Unions often spend money on things that only benefit a part of their group. But in this case, since it would only benefit the east and there was such a small chance of return, I think it should have been funded by the east.
Of course it wouldn't have mattered if it was, you guys would have still complained. You did before, when it was paid for by special assessment of the east.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
