Goodbye usapa!!!!!!

[Guppiedriver]

Not quite. That part of the ruling was just her discussion about how she reached her decision. The only part that is "law" is the part at the end. But she certainly handed the APA a great argument on a silver platter.

Apparently, the APA thinks it's the law.



Petition for Single-Carrier Status

Your APA leadership has received several inquiries from members regarding our filing of a petition for single-carrier status with the National Mediation Board (NMB) earlier this week. Some members have also read the update that the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) issued yesterday, which characterized the filing as "premature" and asserted that a single-carrier filing would be timely only after an integrated seniority list is completed.
To be clear, APA's filing complies with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) mutually agreed to by American Airlines, US Airways, APA and USAPA. The MOU stipulates the following:

APA shall file a single carrier petition with the NMB as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, when APA determines that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition but in no event later than four months after the Effective Date.
​

The term "Effective Date" refers to the date of the merger between American Airlines and US Airways, which was Dec. 9, 2013.
Consistent with that provision of the MOU and based on information American Airlines filed with the NMB last week, APA determined that the facts support the legal requirements for the filing of a petition. The completion of an integrated seniority list is not a mandatory pre-condition for a single-carrier finding by the NMB. Actually, in the vast majority of significant airline mergers, the NMB has found a single carrier before the completion of seniority integration.

The USAPA update also asserted that "the McCaskill-Bond Amendment contemplates the continued independent representation of each pre-merger bargaining unit throughout the process of seniority integration." This statement suggests that USAPA would continue to serve in its current capacity even after the NMB certifies a single bargaining representative. However, as Judge Silver notes in her Jan. 10 decision in the Addington case, "when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration."

The APA Seniority Integration Committee will continue to pursue the negotiation of a seniority integration protocol with USAPA and American Airlines, as required by the MOU. This protocol will establish the rules of engagement for APA and USAPA going forward.

APA will provide updates as appropriate during what will likely be a lengthy and complex seniority integration process.

 

[PCL_128]

Apparently, the APA thinks it's the law.

Nowhere in that update does the APA say any such thing.

 

[ALGFLYR]

Apparently, the APA thinks it's the law.

I don't think the APA thinks it Law. But it is an interesting position for them to take. Silver obviously didn't understand the RLA, but she took a quick course and got her ruling right. I still think she is unclear on a few things. Anyway, allow me to highlight a part of your post you didn't put in bold:

"The APA Seniority Integration Committee will continue to pursue the negotiation of a seniority integration protocol with USAPA and American Airlines, as required by the MOU. This protocol will establish the rules of engagement for APA and USAPA going forward."

I think you will find the "protocol" established will remove USAPA from their representational role for the US Airways pilots in everything except the SLI once single carrier status is granted. That's why USAPA is in DFW as we speak...

 

[Guppiedriver]

Nowhere in that update does the APA say any such thing.

Yep, you're right, but why would they quote Judge Silver if they didn't think her opinion was in fact the law in our case?

 

[Guppiedriver]

I don't think the APA thinks it Law. But it is an interesting position for them to take. Silver obviously didn't understand the RLA, but she took a quick course and got her ruling right. I still think she is unclear on a few things. Anyway, allow me to highlight a part of your post you didn't put in bold:

"The APA Seniority Integration Committee will continue to pursue the negotiation of a seniority integration protocol with USAPA and American Airlines, as required by the MOU. This protocol will establish the rules of engagement for APA and USAPA going forward."

I think you will find the "protocol" established will remove USAPA from their representational role for the US Airways pilots in everything except the SLI once single carrier status is granted. That's why USAPA is in DFW as we speak...

I agree that she seems confused on issues concerning RLA and McCaskill/Bond. I am not a lawyer, but it was explained to me by a lawyer that Judge Silver's opinion is the law in our case and that it will stand unless it is successfully appealed or overturned.

I didn't put it in bold because it's irrelevant. They are required to participate, so they are.

 

[Carl S.]

How did that meeting in DFW go, was it truly a meeting of equals as Hummel stated last week or more a sit down?

 

[Andrew_VT]

I am not a lawyer, but it was explained to me by a lawyer that Judge Silver's opinion is the law in our case and that it will stand unless it is successfully appealed or overturned.

How much sense does it make that a judge would get to change the merger process laid out in the M/B act? An act passed by congress.

 

[Boeing747Driver]

How much sense does it make that a judge would get to change the merger process laid out in the M/B act? An act passed by congress.

Laws get challenged in court all the time. Her interpretation is that USAPA can not participate after APA takes over. This is now case law and will stand unless overturned on appeal. I don't agree with her interpretation.

 

[General Lee]

How much sense does it make that a judge would get to change the merger process laid out in the M/B act? An act passed by congress.

You mean like changing a BINDING arbitration award? The Easties changed the meaning of Binding forever. You Easties deserve dog poop.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Old School 737]

You mean like changing a BINDING arbitration award? The Easties changed the meaning of Binding forever. You Easties deserve dog poop.


Bye Bye---General Lee

So true

 

[Turtle21]

What makes an arbitration "binding"... The contract that circumscribes it. Change unions, renegotiate the contract, have membership ratify the new contract that nullifies the previous contract.... No DFR.


Wye River... All the risk....

 

[St. Nic]

What makes an arbitration "binding"... The contract that circumscribes it. Change unions, renegotiate the contract, have membership ratify the new contract that nullifies the previous contract.... No DFR.


Wye River... All the risk....

Very well said! Who was that previous CBA? Lol. Alpo is goooooone. Along with the Nic. Dead dead dead

Really though it comes down to this. Usapa is the legal CBA for ALL usairways pilots and no dingbat desert judge can change that.

 

[Ocity]

Very well said! Who was that previous CBA? Lol. Alpo is goooooone. Along with the Nic. Dead dead dead

Really though it comes down to this. Usapa is the legal CBA for ALL usairways pilots and no dingbat desert judge can change that.

The MOU changed that. Not Silver.

 

[PCL_128]

Yep, you're right, but why would they quote Judge Silver if they didn't think her opinion was in fact the law in our case?

There's a difference between an interpretation in discussion and "law." Judge Silver's ruling that the West pilots didn't have a right to participate in the SLI discussions with their own representatives is "law." It's part of the court order. Her discussion of how she reached that decision is not law. It's just discussion. And the part the APA quotes about how USAPA can't participate after a single carrier determination is just in the discussion section, not in the court order section.

Now, I'm not saying that the interpretation is wrong. It certainly seems correct to me. The MOU is very clear. Which I'm sure is why the APA is quoting her statement. It's a great argument for them. But as of today, it's not law. There has not been any judge that has issued a court order on that subject.

 

[Turtle21]

There's a difference between an interpretation in discussion and "law." Judge Silver's ruling that the West pilots didn't have a right to participate in the SLI discussions with their own representatives is "law." It's part of the court order. Her discussion of how she reached that decision is not law. It's just discussion. And the part the APA quotes about how USAPA can't participate after a single carrier determination is just in the discussion section, not in the court order section.



Now, I'm not saying that the interpretation is wrong. It certainly seems correct to me. The MOU is very clear. Which I'm sure is why the APA is quoting her statement. It's a great argument for them. But as of today, it's not law. There has not been any judge that has issued a court order on that subject.

It was dicta, used in a political rant.

MB is law. USAPA will represent all USAir pilots to completion of SLI.

APA is throwing out negotiating bluster.

 

[PCL_128]

While I agree with you that it was dicta, and doesn't carry the force of law, it was good dicta. The MOU is quite clear, and your representatives should have known better than to sign an MOU that left the APA this opportunity. But as usual, USAPA was incompetent. Enjoy your SLI. It has the potential to be even worse than ours.

 

[General Lee]

While I agree with you that it was dicta, and doesn't carry the force of law, it was good dicta. The MOU is quite clear, and your representatives should have known better than to sign an MOU that left the APA this opportunity. But as usual, USAPA was incompetent. Enjoy your SLI. It has the potential to be even worse than ours.

It couldn't happen to a better group of jackholes...


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Turtle21]

Like you know jack about our MOU.

 

[ackattacker]

It was dicta, used in a political rant.

MB is law. USAPA will represent all USAir pilots to completion of SLI.

APA is throwing out negotiating bluster.

More to the point, APA cannot reach a negotiated SLI with itself. The concept makes the language of M-B and Allegheny nonsensical. I don't know the specific legal terms but it would be akin to entering into a contract with yourself. By definition it requires at least two parties, so I don't think the APA is even trying to do what some people think they are trying to do.

What I'm guessing they are probably trying to do, is get certified as the bargaining agent ahead of time. Then there would be elections for "MEC" type SLI negotiation committees from each side similar to ALPA merger policy. So, the US Air side would still have their own representation but the rules governing the elections and committee process would be APA bylaws. This may satisfy the requirements of M-B since each side would have their own representation, albeit under the same union umbrella.

In the TWA-AMR merger, my understanding is that the APA constitution mandated a staple as the only legitimate SLI method. However I believe that provision has been removed, a browsed through the APA contract and APA bylaws and could find no reference to any particular mandated SLI method.

Prior to Silver's ruling, I would have guessed the APA would have pushed for separate negotiating committees under the umbrella of APA for AMR, LCC, and AWA. Now, Judge Silver's ruling specifically excludes the West pilots from the M-B process. But it doesn't stop APA from setting up an election process for committee representation that enables West pilots to get a seat... for example, they could mandate that the process elects one representative from each domicile. Or something similar. They would control that election process and would naturally try to rig it to their advantage.

This is all speculation, and I am far from convinced that they will succeed in being granted Single Carrier in time. The SLI process is on an MOU mandated timeline and the NMB is not.

 

[PCL_128]

Like you know jack about our MOU.

I know how to read, which seems to be beyond your capabilities.