Well actually I didn't put that beautiful organizational outline together, ALPA did. Each MEC governs its own affairs and is given considerable autonomy in its own negotiations.
The analogy that ALPA acts as a single attorney representing both parties in a divorce might sound good to those trying to rally support for the RJDC crowd, but it is a flawed analogy. In a divorce two parties argue over shared property. For example, that is not at all the case with DAL and ASA/CMR. Neither the ASA or CMR pilots have a contract with DAL or any contractual scope over a single hour of DAL flying. On the other hand, the DAL pilots do have a contract with DAL and have had contractual language over all DAL flying since before the acquisition of ASA/CMR.
Having a conflict of interest as a union has never been test for a failure of the duty of fair representation. A unions actions need to be discriminatory, in bad faith or so ourside the bounds of reason as to be irrational in order for a union to breach its duty of fair representation. As an example, given ALPA's stated position that each MEC is given considerable autonomy in governing its own affairs and negotiating its own contract, and the fact that unions are given considerable latitude in interpretting their own constitution and by-laws, the argument that ALPA failed to fairly represent the interests of the ASA/CMR pilots,who have never had a contract with DAL or scope over a single hour of DAL flying, during the DAL MEC's negotiations with DAL, falls flat. Even judge Glasser noted that the RJDC allegations fall short of "Atkins", the precedent setting case he referred to in his recent decision. By the way, the plaintiffs lost in the "Atkins" case as a matter of law.
