EMBFlyer

FM: Part I 4.3.1 D

Patriotic neckties purchased in the employee uniform store may be worn in support of our armed forces.

GrapeNuts

Holy Cow!
Are you gonna turn me in???

Route66

Already have.

EMBFlyer

No.

Just reminding you that integrity matters...or not.

GrapeNuts

You two make quite a team! Like Batman and Robin!

cactusboy53

IF the BOA issues a seniority list that first begins with the Nicolau List as the beginning point for the LUS, and IF they use something close to what the WPSIC opined, and IF the BOA chooses to fence B787 (as requested by APASIC)/A350's, then MOST (if not ALL) of the now chosen PHX Check Airmen would most certainly be able to hold group 4 with NO trouble what so ever.

There are NO check airmen that were involved in the "Ansett" deal, and there really aren't that many remaining here (LESS than 1%)....so you might want to get over that.

Remember, the former Merger Committee for US Air opined the following in a "US AIRWAVES" publication:

“…The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.” No ALPA seniority integration arbitration result has ever been set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied pilots have challenged the award before administrative agencies and the courts.”


US Airwaves June/July 2000
US Air Merger Committee Members: Todd Cardoza (PIT), Mike Cleary (BOS),Randy Mowery (PIT)

eaglefly

Well, to be clear, in this case it isn't a "court" being handed the new consideration of the Nicolau, it's an NMB arbitration panel who was specifically instructed BY a court that the Nicolau award is NOT binding on them in their consideration of this integration. That being the case, I suppose one could now argue that the Nicolau WAS set aside by a court (and I guess that would be a first), as it had the opportunity to require it, but passed. If the present situation was only as simple as the West committee wants it to be...............

ATR35

Standard crying and whining....
You guys are great at claiming victory early.
The debate about implementing RR to the east was the latest.

cactusboy53

Hmmmmm. There are so many court directives... Here's a couple:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT: BYBEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

Here, the absence of a CBA is itself powerful evidence of a DFR violation. As set forth quite fairly in the majority opinion and in a lengthy and careful opinion by the district court, the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”) was decertified and a new union, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA”), certified precisely to frustrate implementation of the Nicolau Agreement and to negotiate a CBA with U.S. Airways that favors the East Pilots. As the district court found, “USAPA’s sole objective in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal to the Airline was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining union as a whole.” Thus, “the terms of USAPA’s seniority proposal are substantially less favorable to West Pilots than the Nicolau Award” made through binding arbitration, an award that “USAPA concedes that it will never bargain for.”




US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26 June 2015

“…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..”

cactusboy53

Here's what the NMB says about changing CBA's:

The National Mediation Board on the subject of contract continuity:

"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement”

Would an "existing agreement" mean a Letter of Agreement? Would it mean a contract addendum? Would it not also mean the product of a mutually agreed upon ARBITRATION?

Here's what esteemed arbitrator Nicolau said about the final list:

“In this instance, despite a year of negotiating efforts, there was no agreement on a list. Subsequently, the Representatives choose the Undersigned as Board Chairman and opted for the Med-Arb process. Those mediation efforts, held over the course of five days in October 2006, were similarly unsuccessful. Thereafter, the Parties agreed on the arbitration ground rules, and, pursuant to the Policy, each chose a Pilot Neutral from ALPA's Pilot Neutral Master List as a nonvoting member of the Arbitration Board.”

further....:
The Board shall retain jurisdiction in accordance with Section H. 5 .b. of the ALPA Merger Policy to resolve any disputes over the meaning or interpretation of this Award. This retention of jurisdiction shall terminate when all provisions of the Award have been satisfied. In the event the Chairman becomes unavailable or unwilling to serve to resolve such disputes, the Merger Committees will agree on a replacement Chairman or will select one by the alternate strike method from the most recent ALPA list of seniority integrations arbitrators. In the event one of the Pilot Neutrals becomes unable or unwilling to serve on the Arbitration Board to resolve such disputes, the Chairman, after consultation with the Parties, shall decide how to proceed. In any such arbitration, if there is a dispute between the methodology contained in the Award and the accompanying Integrated Seniority List or any other list purportedly using such methodology, the Seniority List prevails.

George Nicolau, Mediator
AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007