Nic ...
09-22-2014, 07:30 AM
#531
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Again, we disagree. I think each SLI has its own factors and EVERY aspect of the UAL-CAL is not necessarily applicable to this one. You feel comfortable sharpshooting that particular basis and I'm saying it's not a guarantee. I understand though Leonidas is committed to a position of absolute certainty that the Nic is the only valid US Airways list as to even hint at it being optional tanks their very argument as to its validity.
As for the first arbitration, I don't think the issue of the Nic is even part of that per se. That argument will center around the Wests legal right to be a part of the SLI process as a recognized party in the first place. The arbitrators considering that question may maintain a narrow view of that question in strictly legal terms. Right now, the West doesn't exist and the train has already left the station with only two passengers, APA and USAPA. The PA provides for the 2 passengers to compile, quantify and clarify data of pilots from 3 SEPARATE LISTS (not two). Additionally, it was only those two passengers that picked the 3 conductors (arbitrators) on this train to steer them to the most proper destination of a final ISL. If the PAB denies the request of West pilots to activate their own NC, then that is final and binding and the train doesn't stop in PHX. If they do, the final arbitration will still have the 3 quantified lists presented and I suppose the Nic will be included as a side consideration.
We should know within a couple of months if the SLI train stops in PHX.
As for the first arbitration, I don't think the issue of the Nic is even part of that per se. That argument will center around the Wests legal right to be a part of the SLI process as a recognized party in the first place. The arbitrators considering that question may maintain a narrow view of that question in strictly legal terms. Right now, the West doesn't exist and the train has already left the station with only two passengers, APA and USAPA. The PA provides for the 2 passengers to compile, quantify and clarify data of pilots from 3 SEPARATE LISTS (not two). Additionally, it was only those two passengers that picked the 3 conductors (arbitrators) on this train to steer them to the most proper destination of a final ISL. If the PAB denies the request of West pilots to activate their own NC, then that is final and binding and the train doesn't stop in PHX. If they do, the final arbitration will still have the 3 quantified lists presented and I suppose the Nic will be included as a side consideration.
We should know within a couple of months if the SLI train stops in PHX.
(i.e., American, US Airways (East), US Airways (West)); provided, that this will be without prejudice to any Merger Committee’s position on the appropriate “snapshot” or “constructive notice” date.
The status quo is the status quo.
Any argument that the status quo is unfair would be frivolous and outside the scope of the arbitration.
But if the West gets a seat at the table, they can argue that constructive notice for the merger was 2004. "Snapshot" for all three lists... 2004!
09-22-2014, 07:37 AM
#532
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I bolded the part above because it makes my point exactly. Judge Silver had no new seniority regime to measure against when she ruled. If you look at an extreme example, the new list at AMR could have all the West pilots stapled to the TOP of the list. If that occurs, then what would the West pilots have to complain about, what would their damages be?
The new list does not have to be the exact Nicolau. That is why I say "as good or better" for the West pilots. There was an agreement to merge the AAA/AWA lists through ALPA merger policy. That was done and the list was accepted by the company per the negotiated agreement. Now a new agreement is negotiated where the West pilots are in the minority. The company and the APA must have an "objective justification for its conduct". That is what the courts say.
So you are right, seniority lives in the contract. Contracts have to be fair to the minority as well as the majority. At some point there will be a list to measure that fairness. If that is not the Nicolau list then people are going to have some 'splainin to do. Maybe the courts will buy whatever story they come up with. Maybe this will drag out for another decade of court actions. Or, everyone can just use the Nicolau award, "strong evidence of a fair result" (as said by Judge Silver) and avoid this mess.
My guess is that "strong evidence of a fair result" will win.
The new list does not have to be the exact Nicolau. That is why I say "as good or better" for the West pilots. There was an agreement to merge the AAA/AWA lists through ALPA merger policy. That was done and the list was accepted by the company per the negotiated agreement. Now a new agreement is negotiated where the West pilots are in the minority. The company and the APA must have an "objective justification for its conduct". That is what the courts say.
So you are right, seniority lives in the contract. Contracts have to be fair to the minority as well as the majority. At some point there will be a list to measure that fairness. If that is not the Nicolau list then people are going to have some 'splainin to do. Maybe the courts will buy whatever story they come up with. Maybe this will drag out for another decade of court actions. Or, everyone can just use the Nicolau award, "strong evidence of a fair result" (as said by Judge Silver) and avoid this mess.
My guess is that "strong evidence of a fair result" will win.
Arbitration is a "strong evidence of fairness." That is what Judge Silver said.
MB arbitration is a "super-duper-strong evidence of fairness."
No splainin' necessary.
09-22-2014, 07:43 AM
#533
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I certainly don't have the answers to those questions in the context of how the arbitrators will actually weigh them. As for the PAB, it really doesn't sound like a Nic argument (which depending on if and how it is separated from the question of participatory legality in the process) will be the focus. It may just be that the PAB will simply answer a narrow legal question about legality and not moral compunction. It is possible the West would be denied that opportunity for separate status due to strict legal determination of a narrow question which essentially would result in them (unfortunately) "falling through the cracks"....or they may get a free ticket to board the SLI train, but still at that point should that occur, the focus as per the PA is on 3 separate lists, with the Nic being strictly a West assertion to the arbitrators for consideration. West or no West, the PA principally is centered around the concept of the 3 separate lists.
Will the final arbitrators turn them into two before forming their integration model ?
I don't think even the arbitrators know that at this point.
Will the final arbitrators turn them into two before forming their integration model ?
I don't think even the arbitrators know that at this point.
09-22-2014, 07:48 AM
#534
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
I bolded the part above because it makes my point exactly. Judge Silver had no new seniority regime to measure against when she ruled. If you look at an extreme example, the new list at AMR could have all the West pilots stapled to the TOP of the list. If that occurs, then what would the West pilots have to complain about, what would their damages be?
The new list does not have to be the exact Nicolau. That is why I say "as good or better" for the West pilots. There was an agreement to merge the AAA/AWA lists through ALPA merger policy. That was done and the list was accepted by the company per the negotiated agreement. Now a new agreement is negotiated where the West pilots are in the minority. The company and the APA must have an "objective justification for its conduct". That is what the courts say.
So you are right, seniority lives in the contract. Contracts have to be fair to the minority as well as the majority. At some point there will be a list to measure that fairness. If that is not the Nicolau list then people are going to have some 'splainin to do. Maybe the courts will buy whatever story they come up with. Maybe this will drag out for another decade of court actions. Or, everyone can just use the Nicolau award, "strong evidence of a fair result" (as said by Judge Silver) and avoid this mess.
My guess is that "strong evidence of a fair result" will win.
The new list does not have to be the exact Nicolau. That is why I say "as good or better" for the West pilots. There was an agreement to merge the AAA/AWA lists through ALPA merger policy. That was done and the list was accepted by the company per the negotiated agreement. Now a new agreement is negotiated where the West pilots are in the minority. The company and the APA must have an "objective justification for its conduct". That is what the courts say.
So you are right, seniority lives in the contract. Contracts have to be fair to the minority as well as the majority. At some point there will be a list to measure that fairness. If that is not the Nicolau list then people are going to have some 'splainin to do. Maybe the courts will buy whatever story they come up with. Maybe this will drag out for another decade of court actions. Or, everyone can just use the Nicolau award, "strong evidence of a fair result" (as said by Judge Silver) and avoid this mess.
My guess is that "strong evidence of a fair result" will win.
Of course I don't have the expertise, but didn't the UAL law suit come about due to the changes of seniority list on the second contract since the replacements were on property? Hence the original seniority list was codified within a ratified CBA. Where the problem came was when UAL mgmnt tried to appease UAL ALPA in '91 and agreed to subsequently change the order of the seniority lists.
Quite a bit different from what we have here as US/AWA never had a CBA. For the NIC to have life given to it. It's still waiting for the JCBA. Now the MOU agreed to by the representatives and company agreed to change terms and was voted overwhemingly in the positive.
Now I can see if we had a JCBA. Then decided with APA. To reorder the list from there, They would have a case
09-22-2014, 08:00 AM
#535
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
TO what degree, if any, do those aspects impact the pre-merger career expectations, fleet make-ups and bidding patterns of pre-AA merger U pilots, both East and West ?
Would a passenger who bought a ticket to destination X even HAVE the ability switch from PHL or CLT to PHX or vise-versa in their travels ?
Have those been considered factors in SLI's of other employee groups in this merger ?
I'm sure there are others.
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
A. A true operationally combined pilot group based on the Nic that can only be quantified now by applying assumptions and hypotheticals (AKA "guessing"), or B. Taking a known quantity snapshot of pre-merger reality of where the pilots were and where they were likely going based on their unfortunate AA pre-merger separation ?
The Nic does indeed "list" pilots based on an integration that occurred almost a decade ago, but few if any of those pilots true career expectations could be accurately quantified from it because no one actually exercised any bidding pattern. It's provisions remain hypothetical. In opposition, the arbitrators CAN quantify the present state of U pilots based on the reality of separate lists and the limitations that have resulted (unfortunate as they are).
So do the arbitrators begin to assume and guess as might be necessary should they have to decide how to feather in a Nic-based U pilot group into the AA group or do they instead revert to known quantifiable data that is bolstered by the consideration the Nic list had no real timetable for future implementation as a result of the equally weighed stalemate of the two groups ?
That's the question.
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
No, just expressing an opposing view.
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
emotion creeping in, so I'll just move on........... So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
Do you have a friend or loved one you are supporting ?
Nothing wrong with that, but considering where this post of yours has morphed and what it reveals (to me anyway), I see bias. Nothing personal, but I simply do.
It's OK...........we airline pilots aren't known for our astute observations.
Last edited by eaglefly; 09-22-2014 at 08:25 AM.
09-22-2014, 08:09 AM
#536
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Er...You just might want to investigate just who "Alfaromeo" really is, just how much experience he has in these matters, and just who might be "employing" him on their SLI team, before you casually dismiss his opinions!
I'm just sayin'.............................
I'm just sayin'.............................
He (or anyone else) certainly doesn't have to agree with me, but he didn't convince me of anything other then the West is committed to quashing any opposing argument of the Nic (let's face it.........it's really all on the line now and it's now or never). I doubt his threats against "deep pockets" AAG and the APA will gain any more traction with them then they did with me. I'm sure those entities are lawyered up to the max with a high priority of successfully defending themselves against the West or Leo should the Nic die on the vine.
09-22-2014, 08:16 AM
#537
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
He's a pilot !
He's also stated he's not a lawyer and so, really now..............considering the dozens of high-powered and CONNECTED $1000 suits that will also be playing, just how much influence will any "pilot-helpers" bring to the table ?
He'll have no more influence then say Mitch Vasin and actually less (and I like Mitch.......I always thought he was an upstanding guy). Again, I support their right to make their arguments, it's just I don't think the Nic will see the light of day in its pure form. I'm not for or against it per se. Apparently that opinion is unacceptable to some and so it draws emotional attack, which BTW is usually among the ingredients in failure.
09-22-2014, 08:20 AM
#538
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
The certified seniority lists will reflect the status quo of the three seniority lists in effect at the carriers on December 9, 2013
(i.e., American, US Airways (East), US Airways (West)); provided, that this will be without prejudice to any Merger Committee’s position on the appropriate “snapshot” or “constructive notice” date.
The status quo is the status quo.
Any argument that the status quo is unfair would be frivolous and outside the scope of the arbitration.
But if the West gets a seat at the table, they can argue that constructive notice for the merger was 2004. "Snapshot" for all three lists... 2004!
(i.e., American, US Airways (East), US Airways (West)); provided, that this will be without prejudice to any Merger Committee’s position on the appropriate “snapshot” or “constructive notice” date.
The status quo is the status quo.
Any argument that the status quo is unfair would be frivolous and outside the scope of the arbitration.
But if the West gets a seat at the table, they can argue that constructive notice for the merger was 2004. "Snapshot" for all three lists... 2004!
09-22-2014, 08:32 AM
#539
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
The East guys have placed way too much emphasis on the economic factors in the award, and frankly the West tries to place too much emphasis on that also.
Nicolau mentioned the financial conditions of the companies briefly. If he had truly bought off on the idea that US Airways was worthless to the merged entity and brought nothing to the merger, he would have stapled the East pilots to the bottom of the list. Right, that is what you would have expected, if the East had nothing to offer the merger they would be treated as if they were already unemployed and could be new hires at America West; stapled onto the bottom of their list.
But Nicolau didn't buy it. He recognized that both carriers needed each other. The top of the list was 500+ US Air pilots. Both Delta and Northwest and United and Continental were equal in financial health and the lists were feathered together top to bottom. If Nicolau had truly bought into the financial arguments, then why didn't he put the East pilots much further down the list. In contrast, they owned the top of the list.
So Nicolau might have stated it differently than Bloch did but you can't find the difference in how they formed the lists. No matter what you believe about the chance of US Airways liquidating in 2005, it is clear that in order to survive the airline would continue to shrink. There was a clear schedule of aircraft reductions already through the court system. Despite the attrition at US Air, there was little hope that the furloughed pilots would come back to fly in the near future; in fact it was more likely that further furloughs would have followed there. That made a difference.
I have always maintained that the East pilots blew it big time by not offering an alternative solution to Nicolau. He told them that Date of Hire (LOS) was not fair and the East would not get it. He gave them three weeks to think about it and then come back. Instead of making a tough call for their pilots and thinking of a Plan B, the East MEC punted and just stuck with their politically popular position. If you don't want to leave your fate to the gods, then figure out what you want it to be and make it happen. If you just stamp your feet and leave it up to the arbitrator, then you deserve anything that comes out of that process.
The United MEC faced similar problems in their integration. Instead of making a chest thumping, politically popular position like Date of Hire, they came up with a Plan B for the arbitrators. Not only that, but they showed how their proposal could be modified if the arbitrators didn't like their initial proposal. That was a courageous thing to do and it paid off for them. It would have been easy for them to pound their chests and then blame it on the arbitrators. Instead, they made the tough choice and represented their pilots much, much, much better than the East MEC. That is the true lesson to learn here. If you leave it up to the arbitrator to come up with a new solution, then be prepared to live with whatever happens. Don't quit in the middle of the game, no matter how easy that makes life for you in the short term. Long term, the East has paid for their MEC's failures.
Nicolau mentioned the financial conditions of the companies briefly. If he had truly bought off on the idea that US Airways was worthless to the merged entity and brought nothing to the merger, he would have stapled the East pilots to the bottom of the list. Right, that is what you would have expected, if the East had nothing to offer the merger they would be treated as if they were already unemployed and could be new hires at America West; stapled onto the bottom of their list.
But Nicolau didn't buy it. He recognized that both carriers needed each other. The top of the list was 500+ US Air pilots. Both Delta and Northwest and United and Continental were equal in financial health and the lists were feathered together top to bottom. If Nicolau had truly bought into the financial arguments, then why didn't he put the East pilots much further down the list. In contrast, they owned the top of the list.
So Nicolau might have stated it differently than Bloch did but you can't find the difference in how they formed the lists. No matter what you believe about the chance of US Airways liquidating in 2005, it is clear that in order to survive the airline would continue to shrink. There was a clear schedule of aircraft reductions already through the court system. Despite the attrition at US Air, there was little hope that the furloughed pilots would come back to fly in the near future; in fact it was more likely that further furloughs would have followed there. That made a difference.
I have always maintained that the East pilots blew it big time by not offering an alternative solution to Nicolau. He told them that Date of Hire (LOS) was not fair and the East would not get it. He gave them three weeks to think about it and then come back. Instead of making a tough call for their pilots and thinking of a Plan B, the East MEC punted and just stuck with their politically popular position. If you don't want to leave your fate to the gods, then figure out what you want it to be and make it happen. If you just stamp your feet and leave it up to the arbitrator, then you deserve anything that comes out of that process.
The United MEC faced similar problems in their integration. Instead of making a chest thumping, politically popular position like Date of Hire, they came up with a Plan B for the arbitrators. Not only that, but they showed how their proposal could be modified if the arbitrators didn't like their initial proposal. That was a courageous thing to do and it paid off for them. It would have been easy for them to pound their chests and then blame it on the arbitrators. Instead, they made the tough choice and represented their pilots much, much, much better than the East MEC. That is the true lesson to learn here. If you leave it up to the arbitrator to come up with a new solution, then be prepared to live with whatever happens. Don't quit in the middle of the game, no matter how easy that makes life for you in the short term. Long term, the East has paid for their MEC's failures.
You make assumptions about US that you are in no position to make. You weren't here and you obviously have missed a lot. Yes, we were scheduled to lose more aircraft(and did-about 50 vs. 20 on the west) to get the merger done. But go back and look at the staffing number in the Nicolau Award. Did you ever do the math on that and ask why the west had so many more pilots per aircraft? The answer is that we were massively understaffed(again to get the merger done). We parked 50+ aircraft and STILL brought back 300 formerly furloughed pilots. How was that? Charity? No, return to proper staffing, attrition and some increase in management pilots and IRO staffing for more international flying that went east.
There were other offers for US, but Lakefield saw the AWA merger as best for everyone. That's why he worked to make that happen and why our LOA 93 was patterned after the AW contract. We don't know what have happened absent the merger.
It's pretty clear that the east merger committee/MEC blew it, but my question is why was it up to them? Why does Nicolou get off the hook? We had already shown that we(the west proposal was no where near fair) couldn't come up with a solution, and he was tasked with coming up with a FAIR one. If there could have been a more fair with with east input, there should have been one available without them. At that point, that was HIS job. FAIL.
Now, want to answer my other questions? I thought you were a west guy because of the passion you have when you write about this. You write as if you have a personal connection. What is it?
09-22-2014, 08:51 AM
#540
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
From AOL:
Tuesday, September 16, 2014, USAPA was terminated as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the US Airways pilots – West and East, and the APA was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for all New American pilots. Within hours of this announcement, USAPA filed yet another lawsuit (click here) against West pilots and in particular, Roger Velez who was officially “served” on Saturday.
USAPA left the world of certified collective bargaining agents exactly as it arrived - by filing a lawsuit against West Pilots. This is the fifth time USAPA has brought a lawsuit against West pilots in a little over six years. In May of 2008, less than six weeks after it was certified by the NMB, USAPA sued 24 “named” West pilots and 100 “John/Jane Doe” West pilots under the Federal RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). This lawsuit was promptly dismissed “with prejudice.” Undeterred, USAPA then appealed and the dismissal ruling was upheld. Subsequently, USAPA initiated another lawsuit (accompanied by a smear and misinformation campaign) against three West pilots for alleged identity theft. This lawsuit (and related efforts to have any and every state Attorney Generals take action on USAPA's behalf) did not progress, as the allegations were clearly baseless and aimed at illegally silencing dissent within USAPA. Later, USAPA filed another lawsuit in American’s bankruptcy court in an attempt to stop West pilots from pursing their seniority rights. This lawsuit was promptly dismissed as well. Now, USAPA has expressly named Roger Velez, the Certified West Pilot class, and Leonidas, LLC in another lawsuit asking the court to determine USAPA’s responsibility for dues disgorgement to all USAPA Members.
It seems as though USAPA holds strong animus towards Roger in addition to others who would stand up to it, like Eric Ferguson. Roger has been directly named in two of the five suits so far, and Eric has been named directly or implicitly in all of USAPA's lawsuits. Eric and Roger, among many others, have been selfless pilot advocates for a number of years while standing up for West pilots' rights in many different areas including plaintiff class representative, domicile vice-chairman, and most recently, both have been named members of the pending West Merger Committee. Just a few days before USAPA became the former bargaining agent (FBA), Roger sent a demand letter (click here) to the FBA's officers. This letter was written on behalf of ALL US Airways pilots seeking our rightful refund of dues. For some reason, this time USAPA chose to sue only Roger by name and Eric as a manager of Leonidas LLC. Let’s not forget for a second that the sole reason for the formation of USAPA was to abrogate the Nicolau Award (Addington vs. USAPA I, Exhibit 14). It begs the question that most everyone will quickly realize: Are Roger and Eric being targeted by USAPA in its continued quest to abrogate the Nicolau Award so it can replace it with the East’s own extreme and unyielding seniority list? This is the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the FBA’s action.
Let’s face some facts here and now: As of last Tuesday morning, all US Airways pilots are represented exclusively by the Allied Pilots Association. It is clear the USAPA officers are confused and/or delusional as to their rights, duties, obligations and limitations as they have already clearly exceeded any “authority” they might have to act on behalf of their “members.” Current USAPA officer (and USAPA founder) Stephen Bradford again wasted no time squandering money by suing former America West pilots and using our own money against us. The officers must be keenly aware that they would be unable to raise funds for such a purpose (unlike the West pilots’ robust voluntary fundraising), forcing them to take the risky move of using funds they have no clear and ongoing right to use to for their own nefarious purposes. Remember, USAPA obtained its treasury surplus while acting as the legal administrator of US Airways pilots under Section 29 (Union Security Clause) of both contracts. What zealot believes he could then convert these compulsory dues for voluntary purposes unrelated to collective bargaining and contract enforcement on behalf of the members? We wonder how long APA will stand by and allow one subset of its membership to sue another subset. Say it isn’t so, but that sure looks like dual unionism and has the potential of creating a DFR violation for APA.
The latest lawsuit is, without question, the continuation of Bradford's deep-seated hostility toward the AWA pilots and yet another attack on the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) process. This was the very reason for USAPA’s creation and remains the very reason for its continued existence. Now as a FBA, USAPA is again aiming to stop the Nicolau Award by using monies it received from all US Airways pilots by way of collecting compulsory dues to harass West pilots and limit our ability to prosecute our legal rights. It's the same as it ever was, but we believe the realization that USAPA's Officers now lack any protection under the RLA will catch up with them harshly. USAPA's long history of being hostile to a number of arbitrators and judges when a decision didn’t comport with their overly-ambitious and unrealistic expectations will likewise come back to haunt them some day soon too. The former CBA’s arbitration track record includes recently suing an arbitrator in Federal Court to vacate a decision. Dismissal was the predictable outcome of that lawsuit which did nothing to help USAPA's abysmal reputation among the small community of arbitrators. Likewise, USAPA and many East pilots accused Judge Wake of bias and George Nicolau of being old and senile!
Whether a particular pilot, or group of pilots, likes or dislikes an arbitrator’s award is really irrelevant. Once two parties agree that an arbitration is to occur, the resulting decision is sacrosanct. USAPA's biggest supporters now fear, more than anything else, the APA doing to it what it has sought to do to West pilots all along. Fortunately for them, West pilots haven't caved to their bullying and harassment so Bradford's perverse theory of changing the name of your bargaining agent to evade the result of an arbitration remains unproven. This is exactly why Roger’s ongoing advocacy for a particular arbitration (with the unwavering support of all AWA pilots) is the penultimate example of being “good union pilots.” We are protecting the arbitration process now, and into the future. The former bargaining agent has been acting to destroy the sanctity of arbitration for all union members (and labor as a whole), not enhancing arbitration as they should have.
This lawsuit, like all the other USAPA lawsuits, is designed to specifically stop West pilots from pursuing their arbitrated seniority rights, and to intimidate and oppress West pilots into giving up their rights, as well as to deplete the West pilots’ finances via ongoing litigation fees and expenses. It hasn't worked before, and it won't work now. It's just another example of poor judgment and wishful thinking on their part and it is our expectation that it will make for a redoubling of commitment from West pilots to see justice prevail.
Is USAPA attacking Roger because he has volunteered to be a member of the West Merger Committee? Appointing a West merger committee is an obligation that APA asserts is their right and responsibility as the exclusive bargaining agent to provide the fair seniority integration process required by McCaskill-Bond (M/B), a fair seniority process USAPA has always opposed since its inception. Now, USAPA seeks to interfere with APA’s duty to fairly represent all pilots by undermining the ability of a West Merger Committee to adequately represent the West pilots in a preliminary arbitration and subsequent SLI arbitration.
While all of this is going on, the SLI process is moving forward. Last Thursday, USAPA and APA announced the arbitrator selection for the SLI. Dana Eischen, Ira Jaffe, and M. David Vaughn. On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, the selection of arbitrators by USAPA and APA for the Preliminary Arbitration is expected to be announced.
Regarding the current lawsuit, our attorneys are reviewing USAPA’s DJ filing and will ensure the best course of action and most effective response. In the meantime, it is recommended that no one makes any changes regarding USAPA membership and that we remain focused on the Preliminary Arbitration.
All this activity requires continued funding for the attorneys and the West Merger Committee in preparation for the M/B arbitration. Continued contributions are essential to this effort. While we hope for some funding assistance one day, the other parties have made it clear that West pilots are on our own financially for the foreseeable future. We are participants in a process that was forced upon us which purports to be “fair and equitable” despite the other parties awareness of the disparate facts outlined herein.
Thank you for your ongoing support. We will succeed so long as we do not waiver or quit.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
.........
Tuesday, September 16, 2014, USAPA was terminated as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the US Airways pilots – West and East, and the APA was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for all New American pilots. Within hours of this announcement, USAPA filed yet another lawsuit (click here) against West pilots and in particular, Roger Velez who was officially “served” on Saturday.
USAPA left the world of certified collective bargaining agents exactly as it arrived - by filing a lawsuit against West Pilots. This is the fifth time USAPA has brought a lawsuit against West pilots in a little over six years. In May of 2008, less than six weeks after it was certified by the NMB, USAPA sued 24 “named” West pilots and 100 “John/Jane Doe” West pilots under the Federal RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). This lawsuit was promptly dismissed “with prejudice.” Undeterred, USAPA then appealed and the dismissal ruling was upheld. Subsequently, USAPA initiated another lawsuit (accompanied by a smear and misinformation campaign) against three West pilots for alleged identity theft. This lawsuit (and related efforts to have any and every state Attorney Generals take action on USAPA's behalf) did not progress, as the allegations were clearly baseless and aimed at illegally silencing dissent within USAPA. Later, USAPA filed another lawsuit in American’s bankruptcy court in an attempt to stop West pilots from pursing their seniority rights. This lawsuit was promptly dismissed as well. Now, USAPA has expressly named Roger Velez, the Certified West Pilot class, and Leonidas, LLC in another lawsuit asking the court to determine USAPA’s responsibility for dues disgorgement to all USAPA Members.
It seems as though USAPA holds strong animus towards Roger in addition to others who would stand up to it, like Eric Ferguson. Roger has been directly named in two of the five suits so far, and Eric has been named directly or implicitly in all of USAPA's lawsuits. Eric and Roger, among many others, have been selfless pilot advocates for a number of years while standing up for West pilots' rights in many different areas including plaintiff class representative, domicile vice-chairman, and most recently, both have been named members of the pending West Merger Committee. Just a few days before USAPA became the former bargaining agent (FBA), Roger sent a demand letter (click here) to the FBA's officers. This letter was written on behalf of ALL US Airways pilots seeking our rightful refund of dues. For some reason, this time USAPA chose to sue only Roger by name and Eric as a manager of Leonidas LLC. Let’s not forget for a second that the sole reason for the formation of USAPA was to abrogate the Nicolau Award (Addington vs. USAPA I, Exhibit 14). It begs the question that most everyone will quickly realize: Are Roger and Eric being targeted by USAPA in its continued quest to abrogate the Nicolau Award so it can replace it with the East’s own extreme and unyielding seniority list? This is the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the FBA’s action.
Let’s face some facts here and now: As of last Tuesday morning, all US Airways pilots are represented exclusively by the Allied Pilots Association. It is clear the USAPA officers are confused and/or delusional as to their rights, duties, obligations and limitations as they have already clearly exceeded any “authority” they might have to act on behalf of their “members.” Current USAPA officer (and USAPA founder) Stephen Bradford again wasted no time squandering money by suing former America West pilots and using our own money against us. The officers must be keenly aware that they would be unable to raise funds for such a purpose (unlike the West pilots’ robust voluntary fundraising), forcing them to take the risky move of using funds they have no clear and ongoing right to use to for their own nefarious purposes. Remember, USAPA obtained its treasury surplus while acting as the legal administrator of US Airways pilots under Section 29 (Union Security Clause) of both contracts. What zealot believes he could then convert these compulsory dues for voluntary purposes unrelated to collective bargaining and contract enforcement on behalf of the members? We wonder how long APA will stand by and allow one subset of its membership to sue another subset. Say it isn’t so, but that sure looks like dual unionism and has the potential of creating a DFR violation for APA.
The latest lawsuit is, without question, the continuation of Bradford's deep-seated hostility toward the AWA pilots and yet another attack on the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) process. This was the very reason for USAPA’s creation and remains the very reason for its continued existence. Now as a FBA, USAPA is again aiming to stop the Nicolau Award by using monies it received from all US Airways pilots by way of collecting compulsory dues to harass West pilots and limit our ability to prosecute our legal rights. It's the same as it ever was, but we believe the realization that USAPA's Officers now lack any protection under the RLA will catch up with them harshly. USAPA's long history of being hostile to a number of arbitrators and judges when a decision didn’t comport with their overly-ambitious and unrealistic expectations will likewise come back to haunt them some day soon too. The former CBA’s arbitration track record includes recently suing an arbitrator in Federal Court to vacate a decision. Dismissal was the predictable outcome of that lawsuit which did nothing to help USAPA's abysmal reputation among the small community of arbitrators. Likewise, USAPA and many East pilots accused Judge Wake of bias and George Nicolau of being old and senile!
Whether a particular pilot, or group of pilots, likes or dislikes an arbitrator’s award is really irrelevant. Once two parties agree that an arbitration is to occur, the resulting decision is sacrosanct. USAPA's biggest supporters now fear, more than anything else, the APA doing to it what it has sought to do to West pilots all along. Fortunately for them, West pilots haven't caved to their bullying and harassment so Bradford's perverse theory of changing the name of your bargaining agent to evade the result of an arbitration remains unproven. This is exactly why Roger’s ongoing advocacy for a particular arbitration (with the unwavering support of all AWA pilots) is the penultimate example of being “good union pilots.” We are protecting the arbitration process now, and into the future. The former bargaining agent has been acting to destroy the sanctity of arbitration for all union members (and labor as a whole), not enhancing arbitration as they should have.
This lawsuit, like all the other USAPA lawsuits, is designed to specifically stop West pilots from pursuing their arbitrated seniority rights, and to intimidate and oppress West pilots into giving up their rights, as well as to deplete the West pilots’ finances via ongoing litigation fees and expenses. It hasn't worked before, and it won't work now. It's just another example of poor judgment and wishful thinking on their part and it is our expectation that it will make for a redoubling of commitment from West pilots to see justice prevail.
Is USAPA attacking Roger because he has volunteered to be a member of the West Merger Committee? Appointing a West merger committee is an obligation that APA asserts is their right and responsibility as the exclusive bargaining agent to provide the fair seniority integration process required by McCaskill-Bond (M/B), a fair seniority process USAPA has always opposed since its inception. Now, USAPA seeks to interfere with APA’s duty to fairly represent all pilots by undermining the ability of a West Merger Committee to adequately represent the West pilots in a preliminary arbitration and subsequent SLI arbitration.
While all of this is going on, the SLI process is moving forward. Last Thursday, USAPA and APA announced the arbitrator selection for the SLI. Dana Eischen, Ira Jaffe, and M. David Vaughn. On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, the selection of arbitrators by USAPA and APA for the Preliminary Arbitration is expected to be announced.
Regarding the current lawsuit, our attorneys are reviewing USAPA’s DJ filing and will ensure the best course of action and most effective response. In the meantime, it is recommended that no one makes any changes regarding USAPA membership and that we remain focused on the Preliminary Arbitration.
All this activity requires continued funding for the attorneys and the West Merger Committee in preparation for the M/B arbitration. Continued contributions are essential to this effort. While we hope for some funding assistance one day, the other parties have made it clear that West pilots are on our own financially for the foreseeable future. We are participants in a process that was forced upon us which purports to be “fair and equitable” despite the other parties awareness of the disparate facts outlined herein.
Thank you for your ongoing support. We will succeed so long as we do not waiver or quit.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
