Win for Jetblue pilots

[pilotchick]

Found this on the internet and plan on finding out more information. I might need to join the group. Any JB pilots have the scoop?


http://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/279409/jetblue-loses-round-in-arbitration-row-with-pilots

 

[scoreboardII]

how about post the whole article.

 

[pilotchick]

so

Sorry I am a major pilot that use to be a JB pilot. I did not know I posted in the wrong area. I asked my question under LCC and posted the whole thing and not just the link.

 

[a320drivr]

From Law360:

Law360, New York (October 20, 2011, 7:03 PM ET) -- A New York appeals court on Thursday denied a request by JetBlue Airways Corp. to compel a potential class of its pilots to arbitrate individually over claims that the airline failed to award the pilots a contractually assured salary increase.

Judge Eileen Bransten remanded the dispute to the American Arbitration Association, stating that arbitrators, and not the court, should decide whether the arbitration over the pilots' claims should be collective or individual.

“Here, there is only one straightforward question that needs to be answered by the arbitration panel, and its disposition will equally affect each and every pilot,” Judge Bransten said in her decision.

The plaintiff class, a group of 746 past and current JetBlue pilots, had entered into standardized employment agreements in which the contested provisions were identical, according to the order. The pilots had claimed that JetBlue was contractually bound to increase their base salary by the same percentage by which the base salary offered to new hires increases.

The pilots filed a single demand for arbitration with the AAA, arguing that their employment contracts, which said any dispute should be submitted to an arbitrator, did not expressly bar collective arbitration, the order said.

JetBlue filed a motion in June 2010 to compel individual arbitration according to Federal Arbitration Act rules, arguing that each pilot had signed a unique employment contract, which restricts arbitration to only one pilot at a time and before an arbitrator in the city of the pilot’s base of operation.

The pilots disagreed, saying FAA rules did not apply to them, since their job description fell under an exemption for “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” and that it was “wasteful” to demand hundreds of individual proceedings.

Judge Bransten found that FAA rules did apply to the dispute, because the pilots primarily move passengers and the exemption applies only to workers who primarily transport goods.

But she said the issue of whether collective or individual arbitration should apply should be decided by arbitrators, saying it was a “procedural” matter over the manner in which the arbitration should take place, and not a question about whether the parties had decided to arbitrate in the first place.

Attorneys for JetBlue and the plaintiffs could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday.

JetBlue is represented by Marisa A. Marinelli of Holland & Knight LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert M. Stephenson of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

The case is JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Robert M. Stephenson et al., case number 650691/10, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

--Editing by Jocelyn Allison and John Williams.
_________________

 

[DonVersteed]

From Law360:

Law360, New York (October 20, 2011, 7:03 PM ET) -- A New York appeals court on Thursday denied a request by JetBlue Airways Corp. to compel a potential class of its pilots to arbitrate individually over claims that the airline failed to award the pilots a contractually assured salary increase.

Judge Eileen Bransten remanded the dispute to the American Arbitration Association, stating that arbitrators, and not the court, should decide whether the arbitration over the pilots' claims should be collective or individual.

“Here, there is only one straightforward question that needs to be answered by the arbitration panel, and its disposition will equally affect each and every pilot,” Judge Bransten said in her decision.

The plaintiff class, a group of 746 past and current JetBlue pilots, had entered into standardized employment agreements in which the contested provisions were identical, according to the order. The pilots had claimed that JetBlue was contractually bound to increase their base salary by the same percentage by which the base salary offered to new hires increases.

The pilots filed a single demand for arbitration with the AAA, arguing that their employment contracts, which said any dispute should be submitted to an arbitrator, did not expressly bar collective arbitration, the order said.

JetBlue filed a motion in June 2010 to compel individual arbitration according to Federal Arbitration Act rules, arguing that each pilot had signed a unique employment contract, which restricts arbitration to only one pilot at a time and before an arbitrator in the city of the pilot’s base of operation.

The pilots disagreed, saying FAA rules did not apply to them, since their job description fell under an exemption for “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” and that it was “wasteful” to demand hundreds of individual proceedings.

Judge Bransten found that FAA rules did apply to the dispute, because the pilots primarily move passengers and the exemption applies only to workers who primarily transport goods.

But she said the issue of whether collective or individual arbitration should apply should be decided by arbitrators, saying it was a “procedural” matter over the manner in which the arbitration should take place, and not a question about whether the parties had decided to arbitrate in the first place.

Attorneys for JetBlue and the plaintiffs could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday.

JetBlue is represented by Marisa A. Marinelli of Holland & Knight LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert M. Stephenson of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

The case is JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Robert M. Stephenson et al., case number 650691/10, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

--Editing by Jocelyn Allison and John Williams.
_________________

If I read this correctly. The pilots won the right to argue this particular thing as a group and not individuals. They did not win what the lawsuit was originally filed for. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Of course, arguing as a group is deffinetely a win for the pilots in general as per any future legal issues.....

 

[St. Nic]

It would be an internal union affair except the JB pilots decided their own fate signing a contract for themselves and now are mired in arbitration hell. Good luck!!!

 

[sayagain?]

I might need to join the group.

Give me a break!

 

[Fins Up]

It would be an internal union affair except the JB pilots decided their own fate signing a contract for themselves and now are mired in arbitration hell. Good luck!!!

58% of the group decided our fate. 42% of us disagreed.

On a related topic, 68% or thereabouts recently voted to forfeit their right to seek resolution of any disagreements with the company as a collective entity. They'd rather have to do it all individually. Still can' figure out why. 32% or so of us disagreed.

 

[AKAAB]

Update - Yesterday, the Arbitrator, George C. Pratt, denied JetBlue's attempt to force individual arbitration and ruled the 878 pilots seeking collective arbitration for the same contract issue will go forward as one joined case.

The two-year delaying game has just ended.

Interesting snippets from the ruling:

"In other words since 1977, when County of Sullivan was decided, New York law has required that silence in an arbitration agreement be construed to permit consolidation."

"JetBlue seeks to have its addition of Section 15(G) to the Agreement in February 2009 control and limit the meaning and application of Section 12 of the Agreement, whose language had remained unchanged since its initial adoption by JetBlue many years earlier. Accepting such a principle of construction would offend both logic and common sense."

"There also is a “common legal issue” in interpreting Section 3A, which is an apparently unambiguous contract provision"

Wow...just wow...

 

[Lake Alice]

The judge was very specific about a time frame going forward. Though Jetblues arguments have consistently lacked substance their lawyers have excelled in delay tactics. It will be interesting to see if a resolution is reached this year.

 

[Smarta$$]

The judge was very specific about a time frame going forward. Though Jetblues arguments have consistently lacked substance their lawyers have excelled in delay tactics. It will be interesting to see if a resolution is reached this year.

I am new-er to JetBlue. I would like an explanation for this lawsuit. From the description I get from a few captains, this lawsuit came about because the company raised the rediculously low E90 pay up to a more appropriate rate for a 100 seat mainline airplane, and to give E90 drivers some parity with airbus drivers.

The E90 came later in the game to jetblue, and had an artificially low rate intially as a new fleet type. The airbus pay was already MUCH closer to industry average. So when the company raised E90 pay to something close to industry average, the airbus drivers wanted the same percentage raise, even though it would bring the rates WAY above industry average. So basically, airbus pilots want to use a clause in our PEA to make sure that E90 pilots NEVER get pay parity with airbus pilots, since there is no mathematical way to raise the VERY LOW E90 pay to parity while (and industry average for 100 seat narrow body mainline pay rates) while keeping the airbus at the industry average...

This looks to me like airbus pilots trying to strong arm huge raises while keeping their E90 brothers paid significantly less.

If not, how sould the E90 pilots ever get industry average pay for 100 seat mainline aircraft while keeping the airbus at industry average pay for airbus's?

This isn't a discussion about how we are not truely industry average, this about parity and equity with YOUR OWN pilots.

 

[Lake Alice]

Here is my opinion. 3A is about raising one group and not another as per our PEA. That's it. 190 were grossly underpaid. At the same time 320 pilots were also under paid but to be honest that is irrelevant. The contract states raise one raise all. As a new-er Jetblue pilot I respect your opinion and question. This is more about violating the contract, er, PEA.

 

[SWA717]

So 58% are still drinking the blue Koolaid? I figured they had ran out of that by now.

 

[Blue Dude]

Smarta$$, things are not always as they seem. You ask 800+ pilots why they filed for mediation then arbitration (which is what this is, not a lawsuit), you'll get 800+ different answers. For many, it's not about the money (not that they'd not cash a check!), certainly not about keeping 190 pilots from pay parity. It's more about making sure the PEA is worth anything when JetBlue really doesn't want to address an issue that might cost them money. So much of this could have been avoided if JetBlue had simply addressed the issue earlier, but they've become so committed to delaying action and denying responsibility for their own contract language that they're now facing binding arbitration. This is a very good thing for you too.

In a sense, the pilots have already won. An arbitrator has decided that the pilots can join cases in similar circumstances. JetBlue, by filing suit and then losing, has inadvertently allowed this and all future joined arbitration cases to be fully supported under NY state law, with precedent set by a NY court and the NY appellate court. This does not address the merits of the case, or the strength of the PEA language, but does grease the skids for a swift resolution when it may really matter.

Merger, anyone?

 

[Fins Up]

I am new-er to JetBlue. I would like an explanation for this lawsuit. From the description I get from a few captains, this lawsuit came about because the company raised the rediculously low E90 pay up to a more appropriate rate for a 100 seat mainline airplane, and to give E90 drivers some parity with airbus drivers.

The E90 came later in the game to jetblue, and had an artificially low rate intially as a new fleet type. The airbus pay was already MUCH closer to industry average. So when the company raised E90 pay to something close to industry average, the airbus drivers wanted the same percentage raise, even though it would bring the rates WAY above industry average. So basically, airbus pilots want to use a clause in our PEA to make sure that E90 pilots NEVER get pay parity with airbus pilots, since there is no mathematical way to raise the VERY LOW E90 pay to parity while (and industry average for 100 seat narrow body mainline pay rates) while keeping the airbus at the industry average...

This looks to me like airbus pilots trying to strong arm huge raises while keeping their E90 brothers paid significantly less.

If not, how sould the E90 pilots ever get industry average pay for 100 seat mainline aircraft while keeping the airbus at industry average pay for airbus's?

This isn't a discussion about how we are not truely industry average, this about parity and equity with YOUR OWN pilots.

The company did the right thing by raising 190 rates up to something respectable. However they stupidly did not fix paragraph 3a so, as you said, the paragraph cannot mathematically equal the new (2010 that is) pay scale.

One way to look at it is that the 3a pilots are exploiting a loophole in the contract. Another is that they are holding the company to the contract to which it agreed.

I've heard numerous reasons for why folks signed on for the 3a proceedings. Some are just trying to stick it to the company. Some really don't know what it is all about but they were told they could make some money. Some feel they were wronged in other ways so they are using 3a to "get what they deserve". The best reason I have heard is that if there was a mistake and the company gave you too much money, they would take it back so why not hold them to the same standards? or something like that.

The company is trying to stick with the "intent" of the paragraph, while the 3a group is going for what is in black and white.

That's one guy's interpretation of the situation. I'm sure there are about a thousand more to come.

 

[Lake Alice]

In my opinion all you have is a contract as airline pilots. At Jetblue all we have is a PEA. Since it's inception Jetblue has changed, altered, adjusted, or any other adjective you can think of, the documents defining our working conditions. For many pilots signing on for 3A it's about forcing Jetblue to abide by a document it writes for us. Make no mistake, the pilots did not write this document. Jetblue did.
And if you are going to force pilots to sign a document in order to be initial employed then you should abide by the document.

But as BD stated this initial victory is huge. A court has decided we have the right to act collectively. This redefines our relationship with management.

 

[linepilot]

I am new-er to JetBlue. I would like an explanation for this lawsuit. From the description I get from a few captains, this lawsuit came about because the company raised the rediculously low E90 pay up to a more appropriate rate for a 100 seat mainline airplane, and to give E90 drivers some parity with airbus drivers.

The E90 came later in the game to jetblue, and had an artificially low rate intially as a new fleet type. The airbus pay was already MUCH closer to industry average. So when the company raised E90 pay to something close to industry average, the airbus drivers wanted the same percentage raise, even though it would bring the rates WAY above industry average. So basically, airbus pilots want to use a clause in our PEA to make sure that E90 pilots NEVER get pay parity with airbus pilots, since there is no mathematical way to raise the VERY LOW E90 pay to parity while (and industry average for 100 seat narrow body mainline pay rates) while keeping the airbus at the industry average...

This looks to me like airbus pilots trying to strong arm huge raises while keeping their E90 brothers paid significantly less.

If not, how sould the E90 pilots ever get industry average pay for 100 seat mainline aircraft while keeping the airbus at industry average pay for airbus's?

This isn't a discussion about how we are not truely industry average, this about parity and equity with YOUR OWN pilots.

When the 190 was introduced by Dave, David, and Al to the pilot group in the crew lounge at JFK, the question was asked: "so we're going to have a single rate of pay right?"

..."well, of course not, we need time to let the plane prove itself and of course you're flying much fewer seats.....hummunahummanahummana..."

"OK, what are you paying the flight attendants and the mechanics?"

..."well, that's a different story, they don't have the opportunity to earn.....hummanahummanahummana..."

You wanna know why the 190 came out with such ridiculously low rates?

Because Ford&Harrison told them to. It was a strategy any "flexible" company would try out on its eager young work force.

Now later, when jetblue decided to "do the right thing" they could pat themselves on the back and...

wait for it

wait for it

Tell the pilots that all the money for COLA or raises on the bus has been spent helping our brothers on the 190.

So we all stagnated (some would say we went backwards) for five years while we worked out our 190 issues.

The absolutely insane thing is that this pilot group bought it hook-line-and-sinker. Even to this day.

Benevolent jetblue was able to find a way to bring our brothers to parity, pay for HUDs, and endure the worst dispatch reliability in history by gutting our health insurance, gutting our premium pay, taking away premium PTS, gutting our work rules, and gutting our pairings.

Now, several years later the subject of 321 pay is being floated.

"So, we're gonna pay more being that there are more seats and THIS airplane has ALREADY proven itself."

"....well, looking at the landscape and considering that it's manufactured by the same company, we couldn't possibly......hummanahummanahummana..."

This has NOTHING to do with brotherhood and unity and EVERYTHING to do with stupid pilots who nod their heads up and down every time they get cheated.

I want my back pay with penalties.

It IS about the money for this airline pilot.

 

[Smarta$$]

Smarta$$, things are not always as they seem. You ask 800+ pilots why they filed for mediation then arbitration (which is what this is, not a lawsuit), you'll get 800+ different answers. For many, it's not about the money (not that they'd not cash a check!), certainly not about keeping 190 pilots from pay parity. It's more about making sure the PEA is worth anything when JetBlue really doesn't want to address an issue that might cost them money. So much of this could have been avoided if JetBlue had simply addressed the issue earlier, but they've become so committed to delaying action and denying responsibility for their own contract language that they're now facing binding arbitration. This is a very good thing for you too.

In a sense, the pilots have already won. An arbitrator has decided that the pilots can join cases in similar circumstances. JetBlue, by filing suit and then losing, has inadvertently allowed this and all future joined arbitration cases to be fully supported under NY state law, with precedent set by a NY court and the NY appellate court. This does not address the merits of the case, or the strength of the PEA language, but does grease the skids for a swift resolution when it may really matter.

Merger, anyone?

I agree that it is great precedent that we can argue as a group. No doubt.

But, assuming the pilots win, and the airbus gets a huge raise, how do we obtain reasonable parity between the E90 and the bus. So the bus gets a huge raise, and then if they try and raise E90 pay to 90% parity, they will just get sued again....

So really, 3A pilots are DEMANDING that E90 pay remain low. Or be sued.

 

[ultrarunner]

So much of this could have been avoided if JetBlue had simply addressed the issue earlier, but they've become so committed to delaying action and denying responsibility for their own contract language that they're now facing binding arbitration....

I'm going out on a limb and argue the precedent has been set that "binding" really isn't binding anymore....

If two pilot groups cannot be forced to negotiate a 'single list' based on a 'binding arbitration award', who's to say a company can be compelled.....

Ultra

 

[Smarta$$]

When the 190 was introduced by Dave, David, and Al to the pilot group in the crew lounge at JFK, the question was asked: "so we're going to have a single rate of pay right?"

..."well, of course not, we need time to let the plane prove itself and of course you're flying much fewer seats.....hummunahummanahummana..."

"OK, what are you paying the flight attendants and the mechanics?"

..."well, that's a different story, they don't have the opportunity to earn.....hummanahummanahummana..."

You wanna know why the 190 came out with such ridiculously low rates?

Because Ford&Harrison told them to. It was a strategy any "flexible" company would try out on its eager young work force.

Now later, when jetblue decided to "do the right thing" they could pat themselves on the back and...

wait for it

wait for it

Tell the pilots that all the money for COLA or raises on the bus has been spent helping our brothers on the 190.

So we all stagnated (some would say we went backwards) for five years while we worked out our 190 issues.

The absolutely insane thing is that this pilot group bought it hook-line-and-sinker. Even to this day.

Benevolent jetblue was able to find a way to bring our brothers to parity, pay for HUDs, and endure the worst dispatch reliability in history by gutting our health insurance, gutting our premium pay, taking away premium PTS, gutting our work rules, and gutting our pairings.

Now, several years later the subject of 321 pay is being floated.

"So, we're gonna pay more being that there are more seats and THIS airplane has ALREADY proven itself."

"....well, looking at the landscape and considering that it's manufactured by the same company, we couldn't possibly......hummanahummanahummana..."

This has NOTHING to do with brotherhood and unity and EVERYTHING to do with stupid pilots who nod their heads up and down every time they get cheated.

I want my back pay with penalties.

It IS about the money for this airline pilot.

Ok, I get it. You want money by any means necessary. And you have had many broken promises and lost some pay and benefits to pay for other pay issues within your pilot group.

I am NOT a blue tampon. Period. However, how can the company ever bring E90 pay to parity with the airbus? You will sue them again if they try, and you probably won't sign a PEA amendment that allows them to bring pay on the E90 up to parity, just to stick it to them...

So, in typical pilot fashion, as long as you get yours, you don't care.

Yeah, you can tell the story of how the company introduced the pay rates artificially low, and that it is their fault the rates were so low. Fine, but you are basically mandating that the rates remain artificailly low which only hurts hundreds of your own pilots. Not that you care. And many of those pilots are NOT the nod-your-head and worship at the JB alter types, like myself. But again you don't care.

You can tell the stories about simply wanting them to honor the contract, but the truth is you want MONEY. No matter what.

So what is the go-forward compromise that you (and your buddies) will accept to make sure there is not a permenant second class B scale at JetBlue?