Re: RJDC Ruling - The Truth or his versi
PCL_128 said:
I just finished reading the entire ruling from Judge Leo Glasser on the RJDC case. Dispite the propaganda that the RJDC is spreading, this was not a huge victory for them.
This excerpt is especially noteworthy:
You may be asking: what are the different claims? Claim I deals with the DFR claim. The proposed relief would require DALPA to allow CMR and ASA reps to be present during all negotiations between DALPA and Delta. It would also stop ALPA from attempting to help the DAL MEC negotiate further scope language limiting Comair.
Claims II-X were all dismissed by the judge. These were the claims that asked for monetary compensation from ALPA.
What does all this mean? It means that even if the RJDC wins their lawsuit, they will receive no money from ALPA!!! All monetary claims were dismissed by the judge. Good luck finding any RJDC "Updates" that state that for you.
Not exactly sure which version of the ruling that you read, since I couldn't find any excerpt where the judge said
You may be asking: what are the different claims? but let's clarify shall we.........
Claim II-III were DFR regarding state's labor laws, dismissed because they were the same as claim I and the judge did not feel that ALPA should have to worry about the varying laws of each of the 50 states. No monetary claim was made for these two counts.
Claims IV-IX were related to the RJDC claim that grievances filed to ALPA National were not responded to and that a hearing was not granted by ALPA National to discuss these grievances regarding the Delta CBA and it's impact on Comair flying. These were the
only claims made for a monetary decision, just as if you filed a grievance against the company for contract violations you usually would ask for monetary compensation. The judge stated that the "broad ( his words) language of the ALPA by-laws and constitution preclude the claim that ALPA National had to convene a hearing to address the grievances brought forth by the RJDC. While the judge correctly ruled that ALPA National did not have the duty to convene the hearing board, I hope you take comfort in knowing that the union you pay dues to can arbitrarily decide if your grievance has merit and will entertain it only if they feel like it.
Claim X was in relation to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The RJDC offered no opposition to that claim being dismissed.
IT was the claim that would have allowed Comair MEC to present at DALPA negotation meetings and vice versa. As this suit is not brought by any of the ASA pilots, your assertation that claim I would allow Comair and ASA to be present at DALPA negotations is completely wrong and leads me to believe you only read what the ALPA message board's Delta version of events. No monetary claim was made for claim X.
Interestingly enough the judge added a few of his own comments about this case, let me highlight one for you........
Defendant's additonal argument (which is not entirely clear to the Court) is that the Delta CBA actually benefits Comair pilots........ p. 23 of the ruling.
You are concerned that the RJDC website won't give you the "facts" ( as you see them), conversely, why haven't we ever seen anything on the ALPA National home site that ALPA won this "huge" victory. After all we are kept updated to the minute when the Czech airline pilots ask for mutual assistance and when they cancelled their request.
PCL-- we all know where your loyalty lies, your avatar makes that abundantly clear, but if the judge isn't drinking Duane's kool-aid, why are you????
Just an aside for you PCL, since you are an ALPA web page devotee, more concerning to me and what should be to you, than the RJDC lawsuit, is Duane's "spooge-fest" that Dick Gephardt appeared before them. You PAC money and indirectly your dues will go to support a candidate that believes...
“When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.”
Pardon my history lesson, perhaps you were taught the PC version in school, but the Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constituion of the United States, not the President-- that would be a dictatorship.
Have a peace-filled day
