Well, I gambled a little and it paid off. You have responded almost exactly as I expected you would.
=FDJ2
Surplus, as I'm sure you are aware the RJDC presented 10 claims, of which 9 were denied and summarily thrown out of court prior to any discovery, six of those RJDC claims were deemed such fabrications that no possible evidence produced by the RJDC could support their claims.
Read the judge's opinion again. He never said that any claim was a fabrication, those are your words, born of your frustration. He dismissed 9 claims, not because the were without merit but because they were all an integral part of the DFR claim, which he found meritorious, and did not need to be treated separately. Win the DFR and you win all the others. Additionally, he recommended that the litigation be expanded into a Class Action suit (which it was) over ALPA's objections. He also made the implication that the DFR claims were not limited to the "wholly owned subsidiary" scenario, but also affected the sub-contractors represented by the ALPA. You can spin it all you want, but the facts remains the same. ALPA's arguments were rejected by the court.
Surplus, you are probably also aware that the judge only ruled that he had subject matter jurisdiction over the last remaining claim and that he made no ruling on the merits of the RJDC claim as you insinuate. Nice try though.
The judge could not make a ruling "on the merits" since they were not at issue and were not being tried. ALPA's argument was that there were no merits and the case should be dismissed.
The judge ruled that there WAS merit and the case would have to be heard, on the merits. It is not I who tries to "insinuate", it is you.
The "merits" of a case are never heard as part of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgement. The "merits" are heard in a trial, and that is what we are going to have, unless of course ALPA comes to its senses and settles.
Now it is up top the RJDC to actually prove that ALPA acted in a manner that is so arbitrary that it was irrational. Given the wide latitude unions are afforded by the courts and the reluctance the courts have in second guessing a unions judgment on such matters, you have your work cut out for you in your efforts to eliminate ALPA scope clauses, which is after all part of what you are asking for in the relief section of your lawsuit.
It has always been up to the RJDC to prove that ALPA violated its Duty of Fair Representation and that is exactly what will be done, in court, not it this forum. Incidentally, ALPA will have to prove that it did not breach its duty. Since with each passing day ALPA adds more fuel to its own pyre it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how the try to quell the flames in the courtroom.
It is no secret at all that DFR cases are among the most difficult to prove. You haven't "discovered" anything and you are not "revealing" anything, we knew that going in. Like you, ALPA thought it could hang its hat on that difficulty and get away with murder. They were confident that the whole thing would just be dismissed and they would get their way and be able to shaft their own members once more. They were wrong. This time, they will have to answer for their actions.
You may want to imply and you have tried to infer that ALPA wins all of its DFR litigation. The fact is they do not. They have lost before and will lose again this time. It's not a coincidence that their last "loss" also involved your pilot group's shenanagins which ultimately cost millions. If they insist on losing this one, it will cost many more millions.
The courts do have a reluctance in second guessing a union's judgement, but they have no problem at all condemning a union's failure to exercise any judgement at all or to violate blatantly its duty to its members. In case you are uncertain as to the definition of
condemning, here it is:
1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation.
You and ALPA apparently think that your money and your power give you largess to trample on the rights of those members against whom you chose to descriminate. Well, you're both wrong. ALPA has crossed the line and violated its fiduciary responsibilities to certain of the membership, and it is by no means limited to Comair and ASA pilots. It is time that the courts intervene to correct the errors to which you fein blindness. They will.
Normal scope clauses will not be eliminated. What
will be eliminated is ALPA's (at with it yours) ability to act as a predator against its own with impunity. That part of your "scope clause" violates the law and it needs to be eliminated and thrown out with the rest of your garbage. Our union has no right to permit you to negotiate our work nor to limit it without our consent. Your continuous efforts to do so will be estopped.
I don't give a hoot if it deflates your supercilious egos for they deserve to be deflated. So yes, we are asking for the reversal of your predatory scope clauses and the rest of those that emulate them.
You are well aware of what you all (ALPA) have been trying to do. You're angry because you've been caught with your hands in the cookie jar and you've been confronted by a group of people that are not afraid of your threats or your political power. You are not accustomed to being told that you're wrong and you don't like it.
Well you are wrong, so get used to being told.
ALPA's behavior in this and similar instances stinks to high heaven. It
needs to be exposed for what it is, and the country club that you and your peers have developed in Herndon needs to be restored to the status of a labor union that represents and protects impartially and equally the rights of
ALL of its members. The rotten apples must be removed from the barrell and the Air Line Pilots Association restored to its traditional position. Anyone who loses their usurped power in the process is deserving of the loss.
If you are at all confused as to who that is, it is you and those who think like you.
The era of the Plantation and the "Big House" is ending. I am not sorry if that displeases you. You'll have to adjust.
