En Banc Denied!
08-26-2015, 12:20 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
And you didn't bother to read the 9th Opinion... Relative to the Protocol Agreement.. They affirmed it!!
"We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2036 & n.11 (2011) (vacating only a portion of the lower court’s judgment). The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilots separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus, the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought...."
08-26-2015, 12:30 PM
#72
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
You don't even remember your own lawsuit. You did not sue about the Protocol Agreement. Your suit was about paragraph 10 h. of the MOU.
And you didn't bother to read the 9th Opinion... Relative to the Protocol Agreement.. They affirmed it!!
"We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2036 & n.11 (2011) (vacating only a portion of the lower court’s judgment). The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilots separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus, the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought...."
And you didn't bother to read the 9th Opinion... Relative to the Protocol Agreement.. They affirmed it!!
"We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2036 & n.11 (2011) (vacating only a portion of the lower court’s judgment). The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilots separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus, the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought...."
08-26-2015, 12:39 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
You haven't posted one reference to your big win. Not a single quote. Just west dreams and unicorns.
All you have are assumptions and questions. Yet you pretend you are in the know. "Boss"..
Let's see if Silver rewrites the Protocol Agreement. She won't fook it up if she cares about letting things move ahead. We will see.
All you have are assumptions and questions. Yet you pretend you are in the know. "Boss"..
Let's see if Silver rewrites the Protocol Agreement. She won't fook it up if she cares about letting things move ahead. We will see.
08-26-2015, 02:02 PM
#74
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
You haven't posted one reference to your big win. Not a single quote. Just west dreams and unicorns.
All you have are assumptions and questions. Yet you pretend you are in the know. "Boss"..
Let's see if Silver rewrites the Protocol Agreement. She won't fook it up if she cares about letting things move ahead. We will see.
All you have are assumptions and questions. Yet you pretend you are in the know. "Boss"..
Let's see if Silver rewrites the Protocol Agreement. She won't fook it up if she cares about letting things move ahead. We will see.
08-26-2015, 09:29 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
I have been reading these exchanges and I cannot find any reference to support those who state the Nicolau list is “the list” to be used in the current MB proceedings
There have been three judicial awards/opinions (Addington twice and Silver once). In each case the judges made it very clear about their personal negative views of USAPA’s actions but in no case did they conclude they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award. Based on their statements about USAPA it is clear had they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award they would have done so. In fact, in the last Addington they were very clear they were not ordering an issuance to enjoin the use of the Nicolau award in the current seniority integration as requested by the West pilots (see below) and acknowledged it may have never been implemented.
What Addington v. USAPA did was to find that USAPA violated its DFR during the construction of the MOU. That’s all. Up until the development of the MOU in the current seniority integration no court had found USAPA to have violated its DFR.
To provide injunctive relief for this breach by USAPA they ordered that the district court enjoin USAPA from participating in the MB proceedings unless they advocate the Nicolau Award (this creates further problems). Once again that’s all. I cannot find the facts to support what many of you seem to have concluded from this award from the 9th circuit.
Obviously, we will see what Silver says, but based on the many statements in the 9th’s award and Silver’s past award it appears it would be very unlikely that she would have legal grounds to require the implementation of the Nicolau Award in this MB process.
Can anyone show me in the award below (Addington V. USAPA) where the award requires that the Nicolau Award be implemented in the current MB process as some state?
Can anyone find any award/opinion over the past 10 years that shows that any legislative or judicial branch has found that USAPA’s actions are illegal AND as a result require as a means of their legal powers that the Nicolau Award be binding and fully and finally implemented?
I am not trying to look at the emotional aspect or the benefits that flow to one pilot group or another as a result of the Nicolau implementation. I am trying to understand the legal aspects that many of you are stating, as I cannot find any to support those who argue the Nicolau list is the “only” list or is “the” list.
Please see Addington Award below to explain how you conclude your opinion.
ADDINGTON V. USAPA
“We conclude that injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate in this case to prevent the East Pilots from continuing to enjoy the benefits of USAPA’s breach at the expense of the West Pilots. Although there remains some ambiguity over whether the Nicolau Award would have been adopted in toto, to conclude, as does the dissent, that the West Pilots may not obtain any relief at all is to grant USAPA the benefit of doubt that USAPA itself created. We thus remand this case with instructions to the district court to enter an order enjoining USAPA from participating in the McCaskill- Bond seniority integration proceedings, including any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, at 217–18 (affirming preliminary injunction compelling a union to negotiate a new integrated seniority agreement in accordance with its own internal procedures). This remedy adequately accounts for our uncertainty over whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented because it allows for the possibility that the SLI arbitration panel might not ultimately use the Nicolau Award in its final integration of the US Airways and American Airlines Pilots. It also limits USAPA’s participation in the seniority integration proceedings, but does not prohibit USAPA from advocating the seniority position of the East and West Pilots, collectively, as against the American Airlines pilots. Nor is USAPA barred from participating, to the extent it is otherwise permitted, in negotiations regarding other labor matters. At the same time, our injunction has the benefit of alleviating the West Pilots’ hardship of fighting on two fronts and ensuring that the East Pilots cannot exploit the benefits of USAPA’s breach any longer.
We decline to order the issuance of the West Pilots’ requested injunction “that an unmodified Nicolau Award must be used to order the seniority of the East and West pilots in the pending McCaskill-Bond process.” Although we have approved injunctions against nonparties, see SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1980), we decline to do so here, where USAPA is a party to this suit and enjoining it alone will provide effective relief to the West Pilots.
CONCLUSION
Since Steele, “the duty of fair representation has stood as a bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.” Vaca, 386 U.S. at 182. USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’ exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them constitutes a clear breach of duty. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s conclusion that USAPA did not breach its duty of fair representation and remand with instructions to enjoin USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings except to the extent that USAPA will advocate the Nicolau Award. On remand, the district court should consider the West Pilots’ claim for attorneys’ fees.
We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilot separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought and “there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).
Finally, we dismiss USAPA and US Airways’ cross- appeals for failure to present an argument. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). The judgment of the district court is REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal are awarded to Plaintiffs- Appellants. “
There have been three judicial awards/opinions (Addington twice and Silver once). In each case the judges made it very clear about their personal negative views of USAPA’s actions but in no case did they conclude they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award. Based on their statements about USAPA it is clear had they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award they would have done so. In fact, in the last Addington they were very clear they were not ordering an issuance to enjoin the use of the Nicolau award in the current seniority integration as requested by the West pilots (see below) and acknowledged it may have never been implemented.
What Addington v. USAPA did was to find that USAPA violated its DFR during the construction of the MOU. That’s all. Up until the development of the MOU in the current seniority integration no court had found USAPA to have violated its DFR.
To provide injunctive relief for this breach by USAPA they ordered that the district court enjoin USAPA from participating in the MB proceedings unless they advocate the Nicolau Award (this creates further problems). Once again that’s all. I cannot find the facts to support what many of you seem to have concluded from this award from the 9th circuit.
Obviously, we will see what Silver says, but based on the many statements in the 9th’s award and Silver’s past award it appears it would be very unlikely that she would have legal grounds to require the implementation of the Nicolau Award in this MB process.
Can anyone show me in the award below (Addington V. USAPA) where the award requires that the Nicolau Award be implemented in the current MB process as some state?
Can anyone find any award/opinion over the past 10 years that shows that any legislative or judicial branch has found that USAPA’s actions are illegal AND as a result require as a means of their legal powers that the Nicolau Award be binding and fully and finally implemented?
I am not trying to look at the emotional aspect or the benefits that flow to one pilot group or another as a result of the Nicolau implementation. I am trying to understand the legal aspects that many of you are stating, as I cannot find any to support those who argue the Nicolau list is the “only” list or is “the” list.
Please see Addington Award below to explain how you conclude your opinion.
ADDINGTON V. USAPA
“We conclude that injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate in this case to prevent the East Pilots from continuing to enjoy the benefits of USAPA’s breach at the expense of the West Pilots. Although there remains some ambiguity over whether the Nicolau Award would have been adopted in toto, to conclude, as does the dissent, that the West Pilots may not obtain any relief at all is to grant USAPA the benefit of doubt that USAPA itself created. We thus remand this case with instructions to the district court to enter an order enjoining USAPA from participating in the McCaskill- Bond seniority integration proceedings, including any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, at 217–18 (affirming preliminary injunction compelling a union to negotiate a new integrated seniority agreement in accordance with its own internal procedures). This remedy adequately accounts for our uncertainty over whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented because it allows for the possibility that the SLI arbitration panel might not ultimately use the Nicolau Award in its final integration of the US Airways and American Airlines Pilots. It also limits USAPA’s participation in the seniority integration proceedings, but does not prohibit USAPA from advocating the seniority position of the East and West Pilots, collectively, as against the American Airlines pilots. Nor is USAPA barred from participating, to the extent it is otherwise permitted, in negotiations regarding other labor matters. At the same time, our injunction has the benefit of alleviating the West Pilots’ hardship of fighting on two fronts and ensuring that the East Pilots cannot exploit the benefits of USAPA’s breach any longer.
We decline to order the issuance of the West Pilots’ requested injunction “that an unmodified Nicolau Award must be used to order the seniority of the East and West pilots in the pending McCaskill-Bond process.” Although we have approved injunctions against nonparties, see SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1980), we decline to do so here, where USAPA is a party to this suit and enjoining it alone will provide effective relief to the West Pilots.
CONCLUSION
Since Steele, “the duty of fair representation has stood as a bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.” Vaca, 386 U.S. at 182. USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’ exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them constitutes a clear breach of duty. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s conclusion that USAPA did not breach its duty of fair representation and remand with instructions to enjoin USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings except to the extent that USAPA will advocate the Nicolau Award. On remand, the district court should consider the West Pilots’ claim for attorneys’ fees.
We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilot separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought and “there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).
Finally, we dismiss USAPA and US Airways’ cross- appeals for failure to present an argument. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). The judgment of the district court is REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal are awarded to Plaintiffs- Appellants. “
08-26-2015, 09:58 PM
#77
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
I have been reading these exchanges and I cannot find any reference to support those who state the Nicolau list is “the list” to be used in the current MB proceedings
There have been three judicial awards/opinions (Addington twice and Silver once). In each case the judges made it very clear about their personal negative views of USAPA’s actions but in no case did they conclude they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award. Based on their statements about USAPA it is clear had they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award they would have done so. In fact, in the last Addington they were very clear they were not ordering an issuance to enjoin the use of the Nicolau award in the current seniority integration as requested by the West pilots (see below) and acknowledged it may have never been implemented.
What Addington v. USAPA did was to find that USAPA violated its DFR during the construction of the MOU. That’s all. Up until the development of the MOU in the current seniority integration no court had found USAPA to have violated its DFR.
To provide injunctive relief for this breach by USAPA they ordered that the district court enjoin USAPA from participating in the MB proceedings unless they advocate the Nicolau Award (this creates further problems). Once again that’s all. I cannot find the facts to support what many of you seem to have concluded from this award from the 9th circuit.
Obviously, we will see what Silver says, but based on the many statements in the 9th’s award and Silver’s past award it appears it would be very unlikely that she would have legal grounds to require the implementation of the Nicolau Award in this MB process.
Can anyone show me in the award below (Addington V. USAPA) where the award requires that the Nicolau Award be implemented in the current MB process as some state?
Can anyone find any award/opinion over the past 10 years that shows that any legislative or judicial branch has found that USAPA’s actions are illegal AND as a result require as a means of their legal powers that the Nicolau Award be binding and fully and finally implemented?
I am not trying to look at the emotional aspect or the benefits that flow to one pilot group or another as a result of the Nicolau implementation. I am trying to understand the legal aspects that many of you are stating, as I cannot find any to support those who argue the Nicolau list is the “only” list or is “the” list.
Please see Addington Award below to explain how you conclude your opinion.
ADDINGTON V. USAPA
“We conclude that injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate in this case to prevent the East Pilots from continuing to enjoy the benefits of USAPA’s breach at the expense of the West Pilots. Although there remains some ambiguity over whether the Nicolau Award would have been adopted in toto, to conclude, as does the dissent, that the West Pilots may not obtain any relief at all is to grant USAPA the benefit of doubt that USAPA itself created. We thus remand this case with instructions to the district court to enter an order enjoining USAPA from participating in the McCaskill- Bond seniority integration proceedings, including any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, at 217–18 (affirming preliminary injunction compelling a union to negotiate a new integrated seniority agreement in accordance with its own internal procedures). This remedy adequately accounts for our uncertainty over whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented because it allows for the possibility that the SLI arbitration panel might not ultimately use the Nicolau Award in its final integration of the US Airways and American Airlines Pilots. It also limits USAPA’s participation in the seniority integration proceedings, but does not prohibit USAPA from advocating the seniority position of the East and West Pilots, collectively, as against the American Airlines pilots. Nor is USAPA barred from participating, to the extent it is otherwise permitted, in negotiations regarding other labor matters. At the same time, our injunction has the benefit of alleviating the West Pilots’ hardship of fighting on two fronts and ensuring that the East Pilots cannot exploit the benefits of USAPA’s breach any longer.
We decline to order the issuance of the West Pilots’ requested injunction “that an unmodified Nicolau Award must be used to order the seniority of the East and West pilots in the pending McCaskill-Bond process.” Although we have approved injunctions against nonparties, see SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1980), we decline to do so here, where USAPA is a party to this suit and enjoining it alone will provide effective relief to the West Pilots.
CONCLUSION
Since Steele, “the duty of fair representation has stood as a bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.” Vaca, 386 U.S. at 182. USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’ exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them constitutes a clear breach of duty. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s conclusion that USAPA did not breach its duty of fair representation and remand with instructions to enjoin USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings except to the extent that USAPA will advocate the Nicolau Award. On remand, the district court should consider the West Pilots’ claim for attorneys’ fees.
We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilot separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought and “there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).
Finally, we dismiss USAPA and US Airways’ cross- appeals for failure to present an argument. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). The judgment of the district court is REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal are awarded to Plaintiffs- Appellants. “
There have been three judicial awards/opinions (Addington twice and Silver once). In each case the judges made it very clear about their personal negative views of USAPA’s actions but in no case did they conclude they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award. Based on their statements about USAPA it is clear had they had the judicial means to force implementation of the Nicolau Award they would have done so. In fact, in the last Addington they were very clear they were not ordering an issuance to enjoin the use of the Nicolau award in the current seniority integration as requested by the West pilots (see below) and acknowledged it may have never been implemented.
What Addington v. USAPA did was to find that USAPA violated its DFR during the construction of the MOU. That’s all. Up until the development of the MOU in the current seniority integration no court had found USAPA to have violated its DFR.
To provide injunctive relief for this breach by USAPA they ordered that the district court enjoin USAPA from participating in the MB proceedings unless they advocate the Nicolau Award (this creates further problems). Once again that’s all. I cannot find the facts to support what many of you seem to have concluded from this award from the 9th circuit.
Obviously, we will see what Silver says, but based on the many statements in the 9th’s award and Silver’s past award it appears it would be very unlikely that she would have legal grounds to require the implementation of the Nicolau Award in this MB process.
Can anyone show me in the award below (Addington V. USAPA) where the award requires that the Nicolau Award be implemented in the current MB process as some state?
Can anyone find any award/opinion over the past 10 years that shows that any legislative or judicial branch has found that USAPA’s actions are illegal AND as a result require as a means of their legal powers that the Nicolau Award be binding and fully and finally implemented?
I am not trying to look at the emotional aspect or the benefits that flow to one pilot group or another as a result of the Nicolau implementation. I am trying to understand the legal aspects that many of you are stating, as I cannot find any to support those who argue the Nicolau list is the “only” list or is “the” list.
Please see Addington Award below to explain how you conclude your opinion.
ADDINGTON V. USAPA
“We conclude that injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate in this case to prevent the East Pilots from continuing to enjoy the benefits of USAPA’s breach at the expense of the West Pilots. Although there remains some ambiguity over whether the Nicolau Award would have been adopted in toto, to conclude, as does the dissent, that the West Pilots may not obtain any relief at all is to grant USAPA the benefit of doubt that USAPA itself created. We thus remand this case with instructions to the district court to enter an order enjoining USAPA from participating in the McCaskill- Bond seniority integration proceedings, including any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, at 217–18 (affirming preliminary injunction compelling a union to negotiate a new integrated seniority agreement in accordance with its own internal procedures). This remedy adequately accounts for our uncertainty over whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented because it allows for the possibility that the SLI arbitration panel might not ultimately use the Nicolau Award in its final integration of the US Airways and American Airlines Pilots. It also limits USAPA’s participation in the seniority integration proceedings, but does not prohibit USAPA from advocating the seniority position of the East and West Pilots, collectively, as against the American Airlines pilots. Nor is USAPA barred from participating, to the extent it is otherwise permitted, in negotiations regarding other labor matters. At the same time, our injunction has the benefit of alleviating the West Pilots’ hardship of fighting on two fronts and ensuring that the East Pilots cannot exploit the benefits of USAPA’s breach any longer.
We decline to order the issuance of the West Pilots’ requested injunction “that an unmodified Nicolau Award must be used to order the seniority of the East and West pilots in the pending McCaskill-Bond process.” Although we have approved injunctions against nonparties, see SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1980), we decline to do so here, where USAPA is a party to this suit and enjoining it alone will provide effective relief to the West Pilots.
CONCLUSION
Since Steele, “the duty of fair representation has stood as a bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.” Vaca, 386 U.S. at 182. USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’ exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them constitutes a clear breach of duty. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s conclusion that USAPA did not breach its duty of fair representation and remand with instructions to enjoin USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings except to the extent that USAPA will advocate the Nicolau Award. On remand, the district court should consider the West Pilots’ claim for attorneys’ fees.
We vacate as moot the portion of the district court’s decision denying the Plaintiffs separate representation in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, with instructions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); see Camreta v. Greene, 131 The Preliminary Arbitration Board’s order granted the West Pilot separate representation in the SLI arbitration. Thus the West Pilots have obtained the remedy they sought and “there is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).
Finally, we dismiss USAPA and US Airways’ cross- appeals for failure to present an argument. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). The judgment of the district court is REVERSED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Costs on appeal are awarded to Plaintiffs- Appellants. “
Last edited by cactiboss; 08-26-2015 at 10:23 PM.
08-26-2015, 11:24 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
You make the same mistake eagle fly and the turtle make. The mou was illegal "but for" usapas dfr the nic would be the list. The 9th didn't order the nic to leave the boa hands free, but there are contractual rights (the nic implemented at single contract) held by the west that are now due the west pilots and are separate from the ski proceedings. Our contract required the nic be the list at jcba the east dfr prevented said contract from triggering the nic. The millisecond Silvers order drops the west needs to have its union live up to said contract or start saving for damages. Now like the new nic's in aapsic you can try and have the arbs redo a legal binding arbitration that has been found as fair and reasonable and see where that gets you.
The 9th found USAPA lacked its DFR when USAPA required paragraph 10 h. be in the MOU.
"h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10"
You stated, "The mou was illegal "but for" usapas dfr the nic would be the list."
While I agree the 9th found USAPA violated its DFR the 9th very clearly stated that they did not know if the Nic would ever be the list. How did you conclude the Nic "would" be the list if the 9th did not? Why didn't the 9th just rule that the Nic list should be implemented since there is a common JCBA?
You stated, "The 9th didn't order the nic to leave the boa hands free, but there are contractual rights (the nic implemented at single contract) held by the west that are now due the west pilots and are separate from the ski proceedings."
Are you saying that the 9th found USAPA guilty of DFR and had the legal authority to enforce the Nic but didn't so that they would not tie the hands of the boa? Leave the boa's hands free to do what?
You stated, "Our contract required the nic be the list at jcba the east dfr prevented said contract from triggering the nic. The millisecond Silvers order drops the west needs to have its union live up to said contract or start saving for damages."
Are you saying Silver will have the legal jurisdiction to require the implementation of the Nic and will award the West such an award?
If the 9th does not require enforcement of the Nic and Silver does not require enforcement of the Nic then what obligation does the boa have in addressing the Nic? They are bound by the statutes of MB not to address any arbitrations that occurred prior to December 2007.
"Application- This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act."
Unless you are stating Silver will have the legal authority to require that the Nic be implemented (outside the process of the current MB SLI) I am not understanding your position.
08-26-2015, 11:47 PM
#79
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Cactiboss,
The 9th found USAPA lacked its DFR when USAPA required paragraph 10 h. be in the MOU.
"h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10"
You stated, "The mou was illegal "but for" usapas dfr the nic would be the list."
While I agree the 9th found USAPA violated its DFR the 9th very clearly stated that they did not know if the Nic would ever be the list. How did you conclude the Nic "would" be the list if the 9th did not? Why didn't the 9th just rule that the Nic list should be implemented since there is a common JCBA?
You stated, "The 9th didn't order the nic to leave the boa hands free, but there are contractual rights (the nic implemented at single contract) held by the west that are now due the west pilots and are separate from the ski proceedings."
Are you saying that the 9th found USAPA guilty of DFR and had the legal authority to enforce the Nic but didn't so that they would not tie the hands of the boa? Leave the boa's hands free to do what?
You stated, "Our contract required the nic be the list at jcba the east dfr prevented said contract from triggering the nic. The millisecond Silvers order drops the west needs to have its union live up to said contract or start saving for damages."
Are you saying Silver will have the legal jurisdiction to require the implementation of the Nic and will award the West such an award?
If the 9th does not require enforcement of the Nic and Silver does not require enforcement of the Nic then what obligation does the boa have in addressing the Nic? They are bound by the statutes of MB not to address any arbitrations that occurred prior to December 2007.
"Application- This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act."
Unless you are stating Silver will have the legal authority to require that the Nic be implemented (outside the process of the current MB SLI) I am not understanding your position.
The 9th found USAPA lacked its DFR when USAPA required paragraph 10 h. be in the MOU.
"h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in this Paragraph 10"
You stated, "The mou was illegal "but for" usapas dfr the nic would be the list."
While I agree the 9th found USAPA violated its DFR the 9th very clearly stated that they did not know if the Nic would ever be the list. How did you conclude the Nic "would" be the list if the 9th did not? Why didn't the 9th just rule that the Nic list should be implemented since there is a common JCBA?
You stated, "The 9th didn't order the nic to leave the boa hands free, but there are contractual rights (the nic implemented at single contract) held by the west that are now due the west pilots and are separate from the ski proceedings."
Are you saying that the 9th found USAPA guilty of DFR and had the legal authority to enforce the Nic but didn't so that they would not tie the hands of the boa? Leave the boa's hands free to do what?
You stated, "Our contract required the nic be the list at jcba the east dfr prevented said contract from triggering the nic. The millisecond Silvers order drops the west needs to have its union live up to said contract or start saving for damages."
Are you saying Silver will have the legal jurisdiction to require the implementation of the Nic and will award the West such an award?
If the 9th does not require enforcement of the Nic and Silver does not require enforcement of the Nic then what obligation does the boa have in addressing the Nic? They are bound by the statutes of MB not to address any arbitrations that occurred prior to December 2007.
"Application- This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act."
Unless you are stating Silver will have the legal authority to require that the Nic be implemented (outside the process of the current MB SLI) I am not understanding your position.
Last edited by cactiboss; 08-27-2015 at 12:31 AM.
08-27-2015, 04:45 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
You are looking at this as a layman not a legal professional. The 9th and Silver don't need to order the Nic. to make it so. A contract term is ILLEGAL, the aggrieved party (the west) will demand its representative (the apa)correct the contract they signed that was found illegal I.e remove 10h. Now an upstanding union would do that automatically, we are giving the apa the benefit of the doubt and waiting until Silvers mandate. Now the company ran to Silver and filed a suit claiming they were "neutral" and would accept whatever seniority list she told them was the legal list, the 9th just said the Nic should have been the list(lus side), the company has their answer. Follow me here, the contract requires the nic. now because what usapa did was illegal. The west has a lot of legal and arbitration firepower with the 9ths decision but that is not all, dfr 1 and company dj are all part of the record. You have to separate the sli and contract requirements.
I do not see how you conclude that the 9th "just said the Nic should be the list". In the 9th's award they do not state that the JCBA ratification constitutes the final requirement for implementation as you do. Can you show me how you can conclude that in their opinion?
Read the 9th's award below:
The harm resulting from USAPA’s violation is the persisting absence of an integrated seniority list. Permitting USAPA to go forward in the SLI arbitration process effectively ratifies USAPA’s past violations of its duty of fair representation. It allows USAPA to take advantage of the absence of an integrated list—the direct result of its own misconduct—to advocate a brand new list unfettered by its obligations under the ALPA Merger Policy and Transition Agreement. We cannot countenance such a result. Nevertheless, we also recognize that it is not certain whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented fully but for USAPA’s breach. Because a good faith attempt to implement the Nicolau Award would have ultimately required a ratification vote by all the pilots, and we cannot know what the results of such a vote would have been, we can never be certain whether efforts to implement the Nicolau Award through a collective bargaining agreement with US Airways would have succeeded. See Addington I, 606 F.3d at 1179.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
