Goodbye usapa!!!!!!

[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.