Crzipilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,057
[8] Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953))).
Page 13 of 26 of the decision....
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-
nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA. See Diss op. at 8021-22.
Seems as though the court recognizes the fact, that negotiating for a contract including the NIC is useless. They task USAPA with negotiating within their DFR for a contract, with the fact in mind that ripeness will be reached WHEN A CONTRACT IS RATIFIED.
this does NOT mean, if the NIC isn't used, USAPA has failed it's DFR.
In Addition once a CBA is voted in, as long as what is contained within it, Including Section 22, is within a wide range of reasonableness (not the narrow band width of West pilots Ideas) that is wholly not irrational or arbitrary, the union will be determined to have upheld it's DFR.
so those of you that say this is BS blah blah, I guess you don't agree with the court system as a remedy to problems?
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953))).
Page 13 of 26 of the decision....
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.
3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-
nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA. See Diss op. at 8021-22.
Seems as though the court recognizes the fact, that negotiating for a contract including the NIC is useless. They task USAPA with negotiating within their DFR for a contract, with the fact in mind that ripeness will be reached WHEN A CONTRACT IS RATIFIED.
this does NOT mean, if the NIC isn't used, USAPA has failed it's DFR.
In Addition once a CBA is voted in, as long as what is contained within it, Including Section 22, is within a wide range of reasonableness (not the narrow band width of West pilots Ideas) that is wholly not irrational or arbitrary, the union will be determined to have upheld it's DFR.
so those of you that say this is BS blah blah, I guess you don't agree with the court system as a remedy to problems?
