ALPA/TWA Duty of Fair Representation Award

[FDJ2]

The judge could have overturned it already. He hasn't. He's letting it go forward. There is a TON of weight when a jury convicts. Especially 12-0. They've heard all the evidence and ruled. Very, very rarely will any verdict of this magnatude get completely overturned.

Spellacy v. ALPA, overturned as a matter of law.

 

[SWA Bubba]

When you sue your insurance company, you aren't suing your union brothers and sisters. That should mean something. Sorry, but I don't feel it's right to take money out of your fellow union members' pockets.

Ahhh... here's the crux of the matter. If an entity screws you financially, you can have that addressed. ..... unless, of course, it's an entity composed of pilots--then, if you have been screwed, you should just stay screwed. Because asking them to repay their theft just isn't right. I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up, PCL.


By the way, if it isn't right to "take money out of your fellow union members' pockets," how do you feel about those "fellow union members" who took money out of THEIR pockets in the first place (at least according to the jury)?


And besides, those guys are part of APA now, not ALPA. So while it may be damages from a pilot union that their seeking, it's not from their "fellow union members." Or did you just mean from YOUR union? You know, whether people agree with you or not on your union positions, you're ususally pretty consistent with your principles. However, here your hypocracy is astounding.


Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

Spellacy v. ALPA, overturned as a matter of law.

While certainly true in this particular case, this almost never happens (and in Spellacy, as in most of these cases, it was the trial judge who set aside the verdict, something this particular trial judge neglected to do). Damages get changed all the time--for lots of reasons--but when a jury says you're guilty, 99% of the time, you stay guilty.

Bubba

 

[FDJ2]

While certainly true in this particular case, this almost never happens (and in Spellacy, as in most of these cases, it was the trial judge who set aside the verdict, something this particular trial judge neglected to do).

The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment of the district court. As you know, under the de novo review the case is effectively retried. In Spellacy's case by the Second Circuit.

The standards for dismissal as a matter of law are difficult, but exist because juries can get it wrong, particularly with complex legal questions.

A grant of judgment as a matter of law when “(1) there is such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise or conjecture, or (2) there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded [jurors] could not arrive at a verdict against [it].”

Courts as you know give a wide degree of latitude to unions with regards to their duty of fair representation. DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment of the district court. As you know, under the de novo review the case is effectively retried. In Spellacy's case by the Second Circuit.

Here you're making it seem like someone else overturned the verdict. As I said, the trial judge himself (Weinstein, I believe) set aside the verdict on a matter of law. The Court of Appeals only affirmed his actions after the plaintiffs appealed that decision. As I said, this is how it usually goes, and it didn't happen in the ALPA/TWA verdict.

Courts as you know give a wide degree of latitude to unions with regards to their duty of fair representation. DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%.

Here you're mixing apples with oranges to further muddle the argument. "DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%," is what you said, implying that ALPA has a 95% chance of overturning this verdict. Baloney. Even if your 5% number is true (personally, I've never seen such a statistic), that would refer to the total cases initiated, NOT cases already won at a jury trial and then later overturned.

Is it still possible that ALPA will prevail and get the verdict set aside? I suppose it's possible. However, it's not anywhere near as likely as you and PCL seem to think.

Bubba

 

[dicko]

Here you're making it seem like someone else overturned the verdict. As I said, the trial judge himself (Weinstein, I believe) set aside the verdict on a matter of law. The Court of Appeals only affirmed his actions after the plaintiffs appealed that decision. As I said, this is how it usually goes, and it didn't happen in the ALPA/TWA verdict.



Here you're mixing apples with oranges to further muddle the argument. "DFR cases rarely succeed, about 5%," is what you said, implying that ALPA has a 95% chance of overturning this verdict. Baloney. Even if your 5% number is true (personally, I've never seen such a statistic), that would refer to the total cases initiated, NOT cases already won at a jury trial and then later overturned.

Is it still possible that ALPA will prevail and get the verdict set aside? I suppose it's possible. However, it's not anywhere near as likely as you and PCL seem to think.

Bubba

The end is near - I agree with Bubba.

The end result will be as shady as the circumstances that started this unseemly circus. ALPA will settle quietly for a great deal of money. It will be a fraction of the amount that is asked for.

"Not with a bang, but a whimper" - Eliot.

 

[SWA Bubba]

The end is near - I agree with Bubba.

....

Hmmm...

Maybe the Mayans were correct after all.

Bubba

 

[Jim]

Reminds me of Baghdad Bob!

Once again I will point out you and your union's lack of integrity. Baghdad Bob? Pot met kettle.

 

[PCL_128]

Ahhh... here's the crux of the matter. If an entity screws you financially, you can have that addressed. .....

Even with "entities," I'm generally very opposed to these sorts of suits. For example, I absolutely despise suits against doctors and hospitals for malpractice. It's the incredibly rare case where it's actually justified. I prefer government regulation to avoid these sorts of problems in the first place, rather than relying upon citizens suing corporations and relying upon the courts to sufficiently punish companies and organizations enough to discourage behavior.

 

[igneousy2]

Even with "entities," I'm generally very opposed to these sorts of suits. For example, I absolutely despise suits against doctors and hospitals for malpractice. It's the incredibly rare case where it's actually justified. I prefer government regulation to avoid these sorts of problems in the first place, rather than relying upon citizens suing corporations and relying upon the courts to sufficiently punish companies and organizations enough to discourage behavior.

What are you talking about...how would regulations help in either case.

There was a doctor in Hawaii that cut out a piece of a screwdriver and inserted it in someone's spine in place of the titanium rods they forgot to order. He was surprised that a stainless steel screwdriver shaft with the same diameter as a titanium rod intended to be inserted into spines did not have the same strength. What regulation could possibly have been in place without the benefit of hind-site.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1630844

There is a law that says unions owe members fair representation. How is this any different from what a regulation would say. What Woerth did was not only a civil DFR, but was borderline criminal. If a lawyer who represented you was secretly informing the other party about you for "a cut" from the other side, wouldn't that constitute some sort of criminal fraud?

Call me crazy, but I am embareassed at the behavior of the union I belong to, I hope it stings because I don't want it to ever happen again.

 

[PCL_128]

Call me crazy, but I am embareassed at the behavior of the union I belong to, I hope it stings because I don't want it to ever happen again.

Well, you're in luck then, because it never even happened the first time!

 

[ualdriver]

Just curious.....have any of the people on this thread telling us about all the evils ALPA supposedly committed against the TWA pilots even read the court transcript in its entirety?

 

[PCL_128]

Just curious.....have any of the people on this thread telling us about all the evils ALPA supposedly committed against the TWA pilots even read the court transcript in its entirety?

Probably none. Most of them probably only read that crap briefing written by Seham that was posted ages ago and wasn't even allowed to be admitted by the judge because it was clear that he wasn't an "expert" as he claimed.

 

[ualdriver]

Probably none. Most of them probably only read that crap briefing written by Seham that was posted ages ago and wasn't even allowed to be admitted by the judge because it was clear that he wasn't an "expert" as he claimed.

After having read the case when it was posted on that TWA website (maybe a year or two ago?), it just reinforced my hope that I never have to have my fate determined by a "jury of my peers." I'll take a panel of judges any day of the week.

 

[LJDRVR]

Even with "entities," I'm generally very opposed to these sorts of suits. For example, I absolutely despise suits against doctors and hospitals for malpractice. It's the incredibly rare case where it's actually justified.

Another great example of a pilot who thinks he understands how everything works. Patently wrong. US hospitals are the scene of 100,000 - 150,000 patient deaths every year, caused by error.