Fed Court OK's Comair Pilots Lawsuit

[flaps30]

Federal Court OK's Lawsuit Against Pilots' Union,
Thwarts Union Effort to Preserve Separate Levels of Representation;
Recommends Pilots Seek Class-Action Status

June 25, Cincinnati-- Thwarting plans of the Air Line Pilots Association [ALPA] to continue using "scope" clauses of collective bargaining agreements to create a lower caste of ALPA member, a federal court permitted claims alleging that ALPA breached its duty of fair representation ["DFR"] to go forward. The decision will allow pilots at Comair, Inc., a Delta subsidiary, to make their case that ALPA maintains two levels of representation-- one for the higher-paid "mainline" pilots at such carriers as Delta, and a lower level of representation for pilots at "regional" airlines.

In a lengthy decision in Ford v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, Judge I. Leo Glasser of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York upheld the right of hundreds of Comair pilots to sue their union for working against their interests.

Although Judge Glasser dismissed a range of side claims, the main thrust of the lawsuit, dealing with the duty of fair representation, was allowed to go forward. Specifically, the claim that prevailed against ALPA's motion to dismiss was the one in which plaintiffs sought a myriad of injunctive relief to prevent ALPA from negotiating Delta collective bargaining agreements that wield economic harm upon ALPA's Comair constituency. The claim that was upheld alleges that ALPA uses the scope clause of the Delta collective bargaining agreement as a remote control device to limit flying at Comair, thus limiting the career growth and earning potential of Comair pilots. Judge Glasser's decision is believed to be the first time that a federal court has recognized that ALPA has a potential conflict of interest in representing both "mainline" and "regional" pilots.


A similar lawsuit was filed against ALPA last month by pilots at Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. [ASA]. It is as yet unclear how the court's ruling will impact current bargaining between Delta and its pilots, but Captain Daniel Ford, President of the umbrella organization that is coordinating the Comair and ASA lawsuits, said the decision "ushers in a new era in union representation of pilots at so-called "regional" carriers. Ford, who heads the Regional Jet Defense Coalition, said, "ALPA is going to have to sit up and take notice that it is accountable to all its members and can no longer sacrifice its constituents at smaller carriers to appease its large carrier membership."

Judge Glasser, in a 39-page decision, wrote, "Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim that ALPA breached its duty of fair representation by allegedly negotiating contracts that arbitrarily favor the Delta pilots over the Comair pilots." The Court specifically found invalid ALPA's insistence that the dispute between it and its Comair members should be relegated to the National Mediation Board, which has little if any power to address the dispute.

The Judge also permitted more than 300 additional Comair pilots to join the lawsuit, but strongly suggested that the case be converted into a class action on behalf of all Comair pilots. The Court directed the parties to address that issue within 30 days.

 

[CU@OSHKOSH]

What a great idea! Now everyone at Comair and ASA can have the same representation as the mainline and you can be FURLOUGHED just like us. (1,310 and counting)

JMHO

 

[WhiteCloud]

What a great idea! Now everyone at Comair and ASA can have the same representation as the mainline and you can be FURLOUGHED just like us. (1,310 and counting)

JMHO

So, the representation is different! What a surprise!

 

[CU@OSHKOSH]

Ziggy1,

I have absolutely no idea what the comparative representation is like. I was just responding to the previous post. I guess I just miss flying. Good luck.

 

[General Lee]

CU@oshkosh,

Well, as you know the furloughs have stopped and the union has already filed a grievance to get back the 250 pilots furloughed for the "war emergency" that is obviously over. I hope that you will back sooner than later, and this is a good first step.

As far as the RJDC lawsuit, some things were granted--like this particular part of the lawsuit to continue, and some things were struck down by the judge. Whether or not they will win, I do not know. I know the ALPA lawyers are confident that they will not win (the RJDC)---but that is typical from any lawyer. One thing is for sure, if the RJDC guys do not like ALPA--they should leave and get some other representation. When and if they strike again their checks from the rest of us (all the ALPA members) will not be as big. Remember guys? Remember how ALL of us supported you during your strike? Oh nevermind........


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Catbird]

General Lee- Your statement "One thing is for sure, if the RJDC guys do not like ALPA--they should leave and get some other representation. " Why do that when a criminal fraud is being used to ruin other Alpa pilots careers. The Association is not performing there Duty of Fair Representation and the courts have so far concurred. If fair representation is stated in the Bylaws why would you fault a pilot requesting fair representation for his dues? For the good of the Association? The pilots aren't buying it and neither are the courts so far. That's the reality of the situation irregardless of what Duane, and other pompous fools babble. I gladly donate to Mr. Ford and his brave effort for justice. Mailing my donation today with a little extra for a job well done.

 

[trainerjet]

Conveniently missing from this "news release" were the 6 other claims by the Plaintiffs that Judge Glasser dismissed. Why was this omitted? Shouldn't all the information be posted here, or only what the RJDC would like us to see?

Sad and pathetic.....again and again and again.

Hey Catdick...(Mr 18,000 hr RJ pilot)

Since when do YOU decide when "criminal fraud is being used". What a loser. Go ahead. Send ALL of your money to Mr. Ford. I'm sure he'll use it wisely.

 

[WhiteCloud]

Ziggy1,

I have absolutely no idea what the comparative representation is like. I was just responding to the previous post. I guess I just miss flying. Good luck.

You gotta follow the money. OJ gets a team of top lawyers who drop their other projects for press and cash and some poor slob without cash or a big name gets a public defender with a huge case load. Where do you suppose we (regionals) fit in?

 

[General Lee]

Catbird,

Why shouldn't our Alpa attorney's try to protect our careers during our own contract negotiations? Should we have to check with Comair and ASA pilots before we try to secure our own futures? We have Scope to protect our pilots, otherwise Delta would gladly sell all mainline planes and have guarunteed 100% load factors on 1000 RJ's. That is ridiculous. If you think ALPA is screwing you over, then you should leave. Do you think ALPA was NOT support you during your unsuccessful strike? They did, but LEO was not going to let you win---and we lost $250 Million in the process with another $750 million to get Comair back up to speed after the strike. ALPA was there for you, with $$$ donations, and everything else that was legal---remember Pres Bush was watching and told us (mainline) that we could NOT strike during our negotiations. Also, we weren't negotiating at the same time, and the ALPA attorneys were working on each contract seperately. We finished ours first, and it included the Scope to protect us. Then ALPA went to work on yours. I am sure ALPA has hired some big wig attorneys to fight the RJDC's, and our guys seem pretty confident, at least I hope so.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FLB717]

Some how I knew if i looked the general would be all over this topic like a cheap law suit... sorry couldnt resist. Well if I remember you were not even part of Delta during the strike? Could be wrong if I am I stand corrected. I do know from my experience that ALPA does not represent anyone but thier own bank account, unless you are one of the big 3 or 4. Personaly I feel CoEx, ASA, CMR, AMREagle should leave ALPA. They do not get represented and I believe we as a nation did a little grumbling around 1776 or so about that same sort of thing. As far as Delta Pilots supporting the CMR strike Im not going to go thier for the most part. Some supported us....most didnt. Why? Most people say I got mine so S45ew you! If you want to know in my opinion the next big fight? When Uncle Leo trys to spin Song off on a new certificate you will then have 8 groups fighting for flying. Mr. Lorenzo would be proud. I quess if the DALPA guys have the fortitude to strike when 20%? or so is spun off we will see if you walk the talk. Im thinking it would not last to long. 1,200 a mo. goes a lot less than 10,000 to pay the bills. I do wish DALPA the insight and integrity to beat the monster...I just think few have the ...you know.

And no I dont ever want ALPA at my biz, my in house union responds to our wishes just fine. But I dont get a cool Magazine.

 

[General Lee]

FLB717,

Umm, yes, I was at Delta during the Comair strike. If I wasn't, I would have been furloughed by now. As far as ALPA and "the business side of the union," I agree with you. I also think ALPA has some downfalls, but overall it is better than nothing. I do think they have represented us well, and maybe they haven't been great for others, and I remember that from my own commuter days. But, as far as most Delta guys saying $crew you to the Comair guys and all that, I disagree. I don't know one pilot that wished you to fail during your strike. A lot of us have flown at the regionals and know the harsh conditions. Also, we wanted you to win to help justify our larger salaries. Doesn't that make sense? If you could get paid XXX amount per hour for an RJ and it was high, then our $320 an hour on the 777 didn't look so bad. Also, many of the current furloughs were pilots at Comair or ASA, and they wanted you to win. I have always stated that I wanted you to win, and I always get treated like a "Comair hater." Hey, I feel lucky to be where I am, and I hope everyone gets to do what they want to do. The only thing I am dissapointed at with regards to Comair is the Delta furlough/date of hire issue, and I won't get into that again.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[LowPassBob]

General where did you fly before Delta?

 

[FLB717]

General if you did support Comair I thank you. We got much more support from USAir and United and even American that Delta. I do agree that the best form of scope at CMR/ASA was and still is a great CL65 payrate. Everyone wins. So as far as them taking paycuts it seems stupid, just another way to put more of you on the street. And if it seems you are labeled at RJ hater then maybe you should read your old posts. Many are very hateful in tone. You may not feel that way, but typing does not give the true meaning of your words on the context. Best of luck to ya in 2005 I think you may really need it?!

 

[Looking4Traffic]

Conflict of Interest

From the preceding comments, it remains apparent that many Delta pilots and many Comair pilots share very different views of what is best for our respective futures. That isn't particularly surprising. What is surprising is that these widely divergent views are being represented by one union.

Don't get me wrong. I'm proud to be a member of ALPA and consider myself fortunate to be represented by a strong union. But we are currently in the midst of very unusual circumstances (i.e. two pilot groups employed by the same company with different financial and professional circumstances.) So I offer the following food-for-thought: unless and until Delta pilots and Comair pilots come to an agreement that protects both group's well-beings, it's dangerous for one union to represent both of their interests.

Compare, for example, the very strict rules of ethics governing when law firms are permitted to represent both adversaries in a conflict. Only when firms can demonstrate that a true "Chinese Wall" has been erected -- shielding confidential information of one client from attorneys in the same firm who represent the adversary client -- are they permitted to act as counsel for both sides.

I think that is what the RJDC is saying: it is inappropriate for ALPA to negotiate, for Delta pilots, any term that might affect Comair pilots, unless there are equally zealous ALPA representatives for Comair at the table.

 

[surplus1]

Catbird,

Why shouldn't our Alpa attorney's try to protect our careers during our own contract negotiations?

They should General. The point is those "ALPA attorneys" have the same obligation to protect the careers of ASA and Comair pilots during our own negotiations and during yours as well.

Instead of honoring that legal obligation, they have chosen to protect your careers at the expense of ours. That they may not legally do.

Should we have to check with Comair and ASA pilots before we try to secure our own futures?

No you should not. Should Comair and ASA pilots have to check with the DMEC before we try to secure our own futures? No we should not.

That's the problem that you don't seem to grasp. You have equal rights but you do NOT have superior rights. Your actions and those of the ALPA indicate that you think you do have more rights than we do. That's the problem.

The actions of your leaders (DMEC) and "our" union (ALPA) both indicate clearely that your MEC and the national union both believe that you have more rights than we do. You have both pursued that policy. It is flawed and it also violates the law (DFR).

That is why the union is being sued. When it stops violating its duty of fair representation, the suit will end. Since it will not do so voluntarily, it must be forced to do so by order of a court of law. If this continues, ultimately that order will be forthcoming.

We have Scope to protect our pilots,

Unfortunately, your Scope attempts to go far beyond protecting your own pilots and infringes on the rights of our pilots. No one wants you to give up your Scope. However, it must be confined to your own operations. Your attempt to control our activities, our lives and our futures, through Scope is inappropriate and violates the unions duty to its members.

For as long as we remain "separate" companies, a condition that your group and our union both maintain is desirable, you may not write scope that controls us without our agreement. You have done so and it is being challenged in the right place, a court of law.

You control the union politically and you have abused that control to deny our legal rights. That cannot be allowed to continue. If we wrote Scope clauses that controled your flying, without your consent, you would undoubtedly defend your rights just as we are defending ours.

What you must understand is that "your flying" does not extend to include "our flying". You can negotiate for what is yours but you cannot negotiate for what is ours without our agreement. Until you recognize this reality the conflict will continue.

If you think ALPA is screwing you over, then you should leave.

From our perspective we do not think that ALPA is "screwing" us over, we know that it has and we intend to prove it in court. Leaving the ALPA will not prevent it from attempting to harm us. On the contrary it would only give it a license to do so with impunity. We will not leave. However, we will force the instution of the ALPA to honor its legal obligations to us, just as it honors its legal obligations to you.

Perhaps you believe that you are entitled to more because of what you and the union apparently see as your superior mainline status. That is an error and it must be corrected.

Your job is undoubtedly "better" than our job. However, our status as members of the ALPA is the same. You may be "preferred" in your own mind and that of the union but you are not preferred under the law and the union is not above the law. Since neither you or the union will listen to what we have to say, we have asked the court to order you to comply with the law. I have little doubt that they will do just that.

Do you think ALPA was NOT support you during your unsuccessful strike?

The extent to which the ALPA supported us during our strike is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the "support" that they gave was the absolute minimium that they could give under the ALPA C&BL and the RLA. They did absolutely nothing more. As a matter of fact they did all that they could to prevent us from striking as well as all that they could to make us accept far less than we ultimately did. That included efforts by national officers to bypass our elected leaders and induce us to accept conditions that our MEC had rejected.

You have called our strike "unsuccessful" and perhaps it was. If we had not had to battle both the company and the national union throughout the negotiating and strike process, perhaps we would have achieved a contract without a strike or failing that, we might have had what you would call a "successful" strike.

Also, we weren't negotiating at the same time, and the ALPA attorneys were working on each contract seperately. We finished ours first, and it included the Scope to protect us. Then ALPA went to work on yours.

Your information is not accurate. We were negotiating during the same time frame, we just weren't doing it together. Yes, we were working on each contract separately. Although we knew that we should be coordinating our efforts on Scope, ALPA would have no part of that. The reasons are obvious and will become public during the process of discovery. You did "finish yours first" and that is becasue the national union did what was necessary to ensure that would happen by delaying us. In other words, I am accusing ALPA of deliberately working to provide you with and advantage directly to our detriment. It was no accident of events or timing but a diliberate series of actions.

I am sure ALPA has hired some big wig attorneys to fight the RJDC's, and our guys seem pretty confident, at least I hope so.

Indeed they have. ALPA has assembled its army of legal minds and is using the very best at its disposal; more than a 1/2 dozen. So far they have been unable to prevail against the single, low budget, RJDC attorney. If you haven't figured out why, you will have the opportunity later.

 

[Heavy Set]

Surplus1,

You sure seem cocky. I heard that atleast 6 other motions were dismissed. But, You probably will not advertise that. If ALPA knew they were going to lose, they would probably settle, but I am sure they have things up their sleeves too. Also, there was no ruling here, just the judge allowing the suit to go forward. You still have a large hill to climb, and there will probably be many obstacles along the way. If you guys don't like how ALPA is treating you, I would think you and ASA should leave.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Not ASA!

Surplus is a Comair pilot, not ASA.

 

[Heavy Set]

You (as in Comair) and ASA should leave. If you aren't happy with the representation, then you should go somewhere else. I think a lot of people like to bash ALPA, but don't want to leave it's protective cover. Make the leap and GO.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

No reason

There is no reason at all for Comair, ASA, or any other carrier to leave ALPA.

To even suggest such a thing is foolishness. The, "play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go home!" attitude has no place in union politics.

The fact is that ALPA has a duty of fair representation to ALL of its pilots and carriers. If they are not meeting that obligation as defined by its own bylaws than its members have a RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to force them to do so -- in a court of law if necessary.

I dont pay ALPA dues to get a colorful magazine. I expect fair and equal representation that results in a higher quality of life and better job security than I would have WITHOUT ALPA.

 

[General Lee]

I don't think ALPA likes being sued and might not appreciate going through all of this. Sure, it is hard to get equal representation when two groups (Delta and Comair/ASA) want protection from what the other one wants. It is a difficult situation. Would one list help? Sure, but Delta would not want that and the regional guys seem to not want a staple. Heavy Set is right when he says maybe Comair/ASA should find another union (teamsters etc) who could be more focused on their exact needs. You know ALPA is going to favor Delta mainline versus Comair/ASA because they get more $$$ from the Delta pilots.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[bvt1151]

You know ALPA is going to favor Delta mainline versus Comair/ASA because they get more $$$ from the Delta pilots.

I can't agree with you more, General. And the RJDC exists to make sure ALPA fights for those it pledges to fight for, not just the ones with the most money. In this case, ALPA is scoping the poor to feed the rich. Don't let the fact that your management is not making money, and ours is, jade the fact that ALPA is not living up to its obligations.

ALPA demands the airlines live up to their contractual obligations. God forbid somebody ask ALPA to do the same.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

You sure seem cocky. I heard that atleast 6 other motions were dismissed. But, You probably will not advertise that. If ALPA knew they were going to lose, they would probably settle, but I am sure they have things up their sleeves too. Also, there was no ruling here, just the judge allowing the suit to go forward. You still have a large hill to climb, and there will probably be many obstacles along the way.

No not cocky, merely assertive with respect. ALPA well may offer to settle, not necessarily because they "know they will lose" (one never knows that until the fat lady sings) but also to avoid revelation of the skeletons in its closet during the discovery process and to avoid the establishment of precedent.

You are correct that this is not a verdict on the merits of the case. The decision merely upholds that the allegation of violation of the duty of fair representation is a propersly stated legal claim. We may therefore proceed to trial on the merits of the case.

It is also true, as stated by others, that other counts on the litigation were dismissed. Thinking that to be significant is merely proof of a lack of knowledge and understanding of the legal process.

The key element and most important count in the lawsuit relates to the duty of fair representation That has always been the case and the crux of the issue. If we prevail in trial on the surviving count (DFR claim) whether or not grievances were heard will be irrelevant anyway. To put it simply, where it mattered we prevailed, where it did not matter we lost. Those who think that ALPA won a victory on the dismissed counts, can safely be accused of being "in over their heads" on the significance of this case.

As Winston Churchill said, "The problems of victory are more agreeable than the problems of defeat, but they are no less difficult." We are very much aware that this is only the begining of the end.

If you guys don't like how ALPA is treating you, I would think you and ASA should leave.

Although I'm sure that you, your peers and the ALPA would like to see us leave, I happily inform you that we are here for the duration. If you don't like the outcome, I offer you the same option.

While I think it would be foolish for you to leave the ALPA, and I know it will not protect you from the effects of a final judgement against the ALPA if you take your ball and run, the mere fact that you feel that you would prefer unfair representation and the violation of federal law that it constitutes speaks volumes. I'm quite sure that every convicted thief would prefer that laws against stealing should be abolished, but even attempted robbery is still a crime.

ALPA's breach of the DFR must and will end

 

[WhiteCloud]

Although I'm sure that you, your peers and the ALPA would like to see us leave, I happily inform you that we are here for the duration. If you don't like the outcome, I offer you the same option.

While I think it would be foolish for you to leave the ALPA, and I know it will not protect you from the effects of a final judgement against the ALPA if you take your ball and run, the mere fact that you feel that you would prefer unfair representation and the violation of federal law that it constitutes speaks volumes. I'm quite sure that every convicted thief would prefer that laws against stealing should be abolished, but even attempted robbery is still a crime.

You guys toss around the phrase "if you don't like it, leave" way too much. Everyone knows that individual pilots have virtually no say in these larger union issues. All we can do is work for change within the system. Frankly, it would be my preference that unions were not necessary to secure decent pay and work rules for pilots, but that just isn't going to happen in the airline industry.