SO - Where's the SLI?
09-01-2016, 05:52 PM
#1872
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 CAPT
Posts: 93
Did you bother to ever read any of your lawsuits? Seriously...
The West has implicitly assumed the courts have an obligation to protect the Nic and to insert the Nic into a contract. The courts have repeatedly explained they have no obligation to impose the Nic on anyone for anything.
The courts made it clear that the BOA is free to ignore the Nic. Did they mean it?
The West has implicitly assumed the courts have an obligation to protect the Nic and to insert the Nic into a contract. The courts have repeatedly explained they have no obligation to impose the Nic on anyone for anything.
The courts made it clear that the BOA is free to ignore the Nic. Did they mean it?
3. The West Committee understands that, despite the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding USAPA’s conduct in negotiating the MOU, there is no legal argument to be made that the Nicolau Award is now binding in this SLI proceeding as a consequence of the terms of the America West-US Airways Transition Agreement. Nonetheless, as an equitable matter—and this proceeding is at heart an equitable one—the East Committee is wrong to assert that using the Nicolau Award as the starting point for the integration would deny the East pilots their “true” seniority equities. What the foregoing demonstrates is that for the past nine years, the East pilots did not exercise “true seniority equities” that they owned outright, but rather that they exercised seniority rights in an East-only list that always remained—up until USAPA’s final unlawful act in negotiating the MOU—subject to divestment upon the achievement of a JCBA.
In other words, after Arbitrator Nicolau settled the equities between East and West pilots arising out of the US Airways-America West merger through a contractually binding and final arbitral process, the East pilots no longer had “true seniority equities” in the operation of an East-only seniority list that were independent from the Transition Agreement and the Nicolau Award; rather, the East pilots were exercising seniority by virtue of an unlawful course of conduct by USAPA on their behalf that has robbed West pilots of their rightful career expectations established in 2007 through the processes established through the Transition Agreement, ALPA Merger Policy, and the ISL contained in the Nicolau Award.
In other words, after Arbitrator Nicolau settled the equities between East and West pilots arising out of the US Airways-America West merger through a contractually binding and final arbitral process, the East pilots no longer had “true seniority equities” in the operation of an East-only seniority list that were independent from the Transition Agreement and the Nicolau Award; rather, the East pilots were exercising seniority by virtue of an unlawful course of conduct by USAPA on their behalf that has robbed West pilots of their rightful career expectations established in 2007 through the processes established through the Transition Agreement, ALPA Merger Policy, and the ISL contained in the Nicolau Award.
09-01-2016, 05:53 PM
#1873
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
I think you missed what I was saying, It's not about the courts protecting the previous award. It's about MB and its inability to reach retroactively. The board was free to ignore anything it wish but what mechanism would it come up with for ignoring a previous award? The "we didn't like defense" was never a good move however it has served the east well and time will certainly tell in the end if it was in deed a grand move or not.
WD
WD
Total delusion. You seem to understand that MB can't go back and change the past, but you think NIC was in place, so you are saying that they can't go back and "undo" the NIC. Is that correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-01-2016, 05:56 PM
#1874
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 CAPT
Posts: 93
The Ninth Circuit’s holding, that the denial of the Nicolau Award in Paragraph 10.h. of theMOU brea ched USAPA’s duty of fair representation....
All the time the USAPA lawyer claiming that the MOU was "seniority neutral"....
09-01-2016, 06:19 PM
#1876
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
WD
09-01-2016, 06:24 PM
#1877
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Actually here's what the West Merger Committee said about the Nicolau List:
3. The West Committee understands that, despite the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding USAPA’s conduct in negotiating the MOU, there is no legal argument to be made that the Nicolau Award is now binding in this SLI proceeding as a consequence of the terms of the America West-US Airways Transition Agreement. Nonetheless, as an equitable matter—and this proceeding is at heart an equitable one—the East Committee is wrong to assert that using the Nicolau Award as the starting point for the integration would deny the East pilots their “true” seniority equities. What the foregoing demonstrates is that for the past nine years, the East pilots did not exercise “true seniority equities” that they owned outright, but rather that they exercised seniority rights in an East-only list that always remained—up until USAPA’s final unlawful act in negotiating the MOU—subject to divestment upon the achievement of a JCBA.
In other words, after Arbitrator Nicolau settled the equities between East and West pilots arising out of the US Airways-America West merger through a contractually binding and final arbitral process, the East pilots no longer had “true seniority equities” in the operation of an East-only seniority list that were independent from the Transition Agreement and the Nicolau Award; rather, the East pilots were exercising seniority by virtue of an unlawful course of conduct by USAPA on their behalf that has robbed West pilots of their rightful career expectations established in 2007 through the processes established through the Transition Agreement, ALPA Merger Policy, and the ISL contained in the Nicolau Award.
In other words, after Arbitrator Nicolau settled the equities between East and West pilots arising out of the US Airways-America West merger through a contractually binding and final arbitral process, the East pilots no longer had “true seniority equities” in the operation of an East-only seniority list that were independent from the Transition Agreement and the Nicolau Award; rather, the East pilots were exercising seniority by virtue of an unlawful course of conduct by USAPA on their behalf that has robbed West pilots of their rightful career expectations established in 2007 through the processes established through the Transition Agreement, ALPA Merger Policy, and the ISL contained in the Nicolau Award.
09-01-2016, 06:39 PM
#1878
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I think you missed what I was saying, It's not about the courts protecting the previous award. It's about MB and its inability to reach retroactively. The board was free to ignore anything it wish but what mechanism would it come up with for ignoring a previous award? The "we didn't like defense" was never a good move however it has served the east well and time will certainly tell in the end if it was in deed a grand move or not.
WD
WD
09-01-2016, 06:54 PM
#1879
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Those are the points I'm trying to understand from your (West) perspective.
1.) The award was never implemented because (ii) in the US Airways America West Transition agreement was never reached as a result of "that integration".
2.). MB specifically prohibits BOA from addressing integrations that were conducted "prior to the establishment of the MB legislation" (the US/AWA merger).
3.). The West Pilots Merger Committee Counsel, Freund and Harper, were signatories to the "Procedural Ground Rules" which specifically called for the use of the "Protocol Agreement" that stated there were "three" lists.
For the BOA to implement the NIC list they would have to implement a list that was never contractually implemented because the triggers to implement it in a previous merger (pre-MB) were never met.
They would then have to act contrary to specific language contained in MB, the act they are bound by.
They would then have to ignore the language of the "Protocol Agreement/Procedural Ground Rules" addressing the use of three lists.
If they ignored the language of the "Protocol/Procedural Agreements" and just used two lists, NIC and LAA, they would not have complied with the "Protocol/Procedural" agreements.
If they used three lists but came up with the exact same ordering as the NIC list then they would have to use the facts of this merger (not a merger that was accomplished prior to the establishment of the MB)
to defend their award as being fair and equatable pertaining to this merger and to explain their methodolgy for concluding a list in this merger that reflected the exact same list from a previous merger that contained different facts.
Can you guys take a moment to step
through these to explain to those of us that can't conclude your reasoning how these are wrong? It would be a lot more beneficial to help us understand your views than to continue to read this constant back and forth bickering that you are spending your time on.
09-02-2016, 03:52 AM
#1880
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
More psychological projection, Whiskey. You really ought to have that checked out, although it might be too much for Project Wingman. Eventually, Pro Standards will get involved though. You simply can't run around accusing others of all your own faults without it causing issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
