MK82Man
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Posts
- 210
Reference the hearing in Judge Wake’s courtroom today 7/16/09.
The following summary is by a HP-FA. A former AWA FA. He was also at everyday of the trial. Plus a former paralegal. He has excellent summaries. This is his take on the hearing today.
I am back from the court hearing.
First, the injunction [against USAPA] will be issued by the close of business tomorrow. It was not stated but I also expect that the formal entry of judgment will be made at the same time. If so, USAPA's appeal clock will begin its 30-day countdown.
Now to my notes. As a preface I would expect that one side or the other will have a transcript available at some point, probably mid-week of next week. So, if you don't believe what I post you are free to fact-check me against the transcript when it becomes available.
The plaintiffs were represented, in person, by Marty Harper, Don Stevens, Katie Brown and Andy Jacob. Defendant USAPA was represented by Nick Grannath and Lucas Middlebrook, both telephonically. US Airways was represented, in person, by Robert Siegel.
The Court opened the discussion with the comment that it was seriously considering granting the plaintiffs relief and started the discussion with a discussion of Section 5(G) of the Transition Agreement. Before this ever really got going Grannath interrupted to lodge a standing objection to this becoming an evidentiary hearing and took a swipe at plaintiffs' counsel and Marty Harper stood and addressed the Court and was clearly upset by Grannath's assertions regarding the plaintiffs' counsel and a document filed earlier in the day. (Harper tends not to get upset but he was clearly irked at Grannath’s comments.)
The discussion again began and Grannath again interrupted the Court. Once that was done the Court asked Siegel about paragraph 5 (G) of the TA and Siegel stated that the paragraph had been added to the TA at the request of ALPA.
The discussion with Siegel continued with a discussion of the Bishop case (Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Association) that USAPA had contended provided a right to separate contracts for the represented group. Siegel, who argued that case to the 9th Circuit, stated that the Bishop holding does not provide a right to separate contracts, but does allow that to occur. Upon further questioning by the Court, Siegel stated that he had read the transcript of the July 7th hearing and that he did not agree with USAPA's counsel Lucas Middlebrook's position taken in connection with Bishopand separate contracts.
Siegel went on to say that when the East contract becomes amenable on 1/1/10, they may petition the NMB to intervene into the proceedings, but that NMB intervention was discretionary and not certain to occur. He also stated that the Company was aware of the draft injunction and had been properly noticed of it and had not objected to the proposed injunction. (This means that the company made a decision to not interject itself into the proposed injunction proceedings and could accept the terms of the proposed injunction.)
Siegel went on to state that the Company's position was that it wanted a single CBA and that it wanted to avoid labor unrest. Also, he stated that the Company accepts the Nicolau seniority list as being the seniority list for any negotiations.
The Court then began a long series of hypothetical questions. Grannath continued to be objectionable through this period. (If you don't believe me, read the transcript when it becomes available.)
Grannath, as USAPA's counsel, was then allowed to present USAPA's position. He stated that he had three areas of concern. Specifically:
1. Court infringement on the jurisdiction of the System Board;
2. Court infringement on the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and,
3. Court infringement upon USAPA by way of the Railway-Labor Act.
Grannath believes that USAPA is at a labor stalemate and that the proposed injunction limits USAPA's potential means to coerce concessions from the Company. Grannath stated that the union wants interim benefit increases from the Company. The Court asked Siegel what the Company's position was regarding that and Siegel stated that the Company is uninterested in interim agreements and wants a sole and single Collective Bargaining Agreement.
(Sometime during this period of time, while Grannath was speaking, Judge Wake shook his head no at what he was hearing from Grannath. Also, the Court seemed to me to be becoming increasingly upset with the arguments put forth by Grannath.)
Grannath then yielded to Lucas Middlebrook who attacked Siegel's view of the Bishop case. (This was laughable considering that Siegel was on the winning side of that case and had argued that case to the 9th Circuit.)
Middlebrook also argued to the Court that the jury verdict and the subsequent Court's view of the actions of USAPA do not allow the Court to infer that broader and/or future misconduct can be inferred by the Court moving forward.
The Court then asked Middlebrook that is a separate agreement was to be hypothetically be reached, who would vote on it, the side it was negotiated for or the entire union. Middlebrook had not ready answer to that question and fumbled trying to come up with an answer, even at one point pointing to the BPR for guidance. Andy Jacob, with the Court's permission, interjected that any such agreement would be required to be voted on by the entire membership.
The Court closed the Hearing and indicated that an Order would be lodged by the end of the day tomorrow.
---------
OK, now a few impressions and observations.
One, at three different times during the Hearing widespread, but muted, laughter broke out in the Court. The Court never admonished quiet, probably because it is hard to not laugh at some of the things that were said today. I doubt that the transcript will note the laughter in the record, but it did happen.
Next, I continue to be amazed at USAPA's counsel and I don't mean this in a good way. Forget for a moment that I have stated that I believe the Addington class and the West as a whole have been victimized and are entitled to equitable relief in conjunction with their DFR case. Forget that I was an employee of AWA. Remember that I once worked in litigation. Seham and the members of his firm are, in my opinion, an embarrassment. They clearly are way outside the mainstream in their views and they are all objectionable in the way they practice law in front of at least this court. I don't know if this is how they practice in New York or Minnesota and I sure hope it isn't. They don't know when to shut up and have, in my opinion, made matters even worse.
I honestly believe that Judge Wake was trying to find any reason for diminishing the injunction that I expect to be issued tomorrow. I doubt that he was simply doing this to make a strong record in the case, but rather to be really, really fair to the defense, perhaps even to the partial detriment of the plaintiffs. However the folks at SSM&P never seemed to grasp that and continued to dig themselves in deeper and deeper. In fact they have now dug themselves in so deep that I honestly don't think that they have any chance to prevail on appeal. The last two Hearings have taken away any and all doubt concerning that and the 9th Circuit will see all the relevant portions of these last two transcripts.
OK, you can now remember that I was an employee of AWA and that I believe the Addington class were victimized in this whole mess.
I strongly suggest that all of the pilots, MIGS or not, get a hold of the transcripts of 7/7/09 and the one from today and read them, as well as the Order that the Court will issue by the end of the day tomorrow. Once you read all of this ask yourself whether or not this is really how union business should be transacted and what do you do going forward.
The following summary is by a HP-FA. A former AWA FA. He was also at everyday of the trial. Plus a former paralegal. He has excellent summaries. This is his take on the hearing today.
I am back from the court hearing.
First, the injunction [against USAPA] will be issued by the close of business tomorrow. It was not stated but I also expect that the formal entry of judgment will be made at the same time. If so, USAPA's appeal clock will begin its 30-day countdown.
Now to my notes. As a preface I would expect that one side or the other will have a transcript available at some point, probably mid-week of next week. So, if you don't believe what I post you are free to fact-check me against the transcript when it becomes available.
The plaintiffs were represented, in person, by Marty Harper, Don Stevens, Katie Brown and Andy Jacob. Defendant USAPA was represented by Nick Grannath and Lucas Middlebrook, both telephonically. US Airways was represented, in person, by Robert Siegel.
The Court opened the discussion with the comment that it was seriously considering granting the plaintiffs relief and started the discussion with a discussion of Section 5(G) of the Transition Agreement. Before this ever really got going Grannath interrupted to lodge a standing objection to this becoming an evidentiary hearing and took a swipe at plaintiffs' counsel and Marty Harper stood and addressed the Court and was clearly upset by Grannath's assertions regarding the plaintiffs' counsel and a document filed earlier in the day. (Harper tends not to get upset but he was clearly irked at Grannath’s comments.)
The discussion again began and Grannath again interrupted the Court. Once that was done the Court asked Siegel about paragraph 5 (G) of the TA and Siegel stated that the paragraph had been added to the TA at the request of ALPA.
The discussion with Siegel continued with a discussion of the Bishop case (Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Association) that USAPA had contended provided a right to separate contracts for the represented group. Siegel, who argued that case to the 9th Circuit, stated that the Bishop holding does not provide a right to separate contracts, but does allow that to occur. Upon further questioning by the Court, Siegel stated that he had read the transcript of the July 7th hearing and that he did not agree with USAPA's counsel Lucas Middlebrook's position taken in connection with Bishopand separate contracts.
Siegel went on to say that when the East contract becomes amenable on 1/1/10, they may petition the NMB to intervene into the proceedings, but that NMB intervention was discretionary and not certain to occur. He also stated that the Company was aware of the draft injunction and had been properly noticed of it and had not objected to the proposed injunction. (This means that the company made a decision to not interject itself into the proposed injunction proceedings and could accept the terms of the proposed injunction.)
Siegel went on to state that the Company's position was that it wanted a single CBA and that it wanted to avoid labor unrest. Also, he stated that the Company accepts the Nicolau seniority list as being the seniority list for any negotiations.
The Court then began a long series of hypothetical questions. Grannath continued to be objectionable through this period. (If you don't believe me, read the transcript when it becomes available.)
Grannath, as USAPA's counsel, was then allowed to present USAPA's position. He stated that he had three areas of concern. Specifically:
1. Court infringement on the jurisdiction of the System Board;
2. Court infringement on the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board; and,
3. Court infringement upon USAPA by way of the Railway-Labor Act.
Grannath believes that USAPA is at a labor stalemate and that the proposed injunction limits USAPA's potential means to coerce concessions from the Company. Grannath stated that the union wants interim benefit increases from the Company. The Court asked Siegel what the Company's position was regarding that and Siegel stated that the Company is uninterested in interim agreements and wants a sole and single Collective Bargaining Agreement.
(Sometime during this period of time, while Grannath was speaking, Judge Wake shook his head no at what he was hearing from Grannath. Also, the Court seemed to me to be becoming increasingly upset with the arguments put forth by Grannath.)
Grannath then yielded to Lucas Middlebrook who attacked Siegel's view of the Bishop case. (This was laughable considering that Siegel was on the winning side of that case and had argued that case to the 9th Circuit.)
Middlebrook also argued to the Court that the jury verdict and the subsequent Court's view of the actions of USAPA do not allow the Court to infer that broader and/or future misconduct can be inferred by the Court moving forward.
The Court then asked Middlebrook that is a separate agreement was to be hypothetically be reached, who would vote on it, the side it was negotiated for or the entire union. Middlebrook had not ready answer to that question and fumbled trying to come up with an answer, even at one point pointing to the BPR for guidance. Andy Jacob, with the Court's permission, interjected that any such agreement would be required to be voted on by the entire membership.
The Court closed the Hearing and indicated that an Order would be lodged by the end of the day tomorrow.
---------
OK, now a few impressions and observations.
One, at three different times during the Hearing widespread, but muted, laughter broke out in the Court. The Court never admonished quiet, probably because it is hard to not laugh at some of the things that were said today. I doubt that the transcript will note the laughter in the record, but it did happen.
Next, I continue to be amazed at USAPA's counsel and I don't mean this in a good way. Forget for a moment that I have stated that I believe the Addington class and the West as a whole have been victimized and are entitled to equitable relief in conjunction with their DFR case. Forget that I was an employee of AWA. Remember that I once worked in litigation. Seham and the members of his firm are, in my opinion, an embarrassment. They clearly are way outside the mainstream in their views and they are all objectionable in the way they practice law in front of at least this court. I don't know if this is how they practice in New York or Minnesota and I sure hope it isn't. They don't know when to shut up and have, in my opinion, made matters even worse.
I honestly believe that Judge Wake was trying to find any reason for diminishing the injunction that I expect to be issued tomorrow. I doubt that he was simply doing this to make a strong record in the case, but rather to be really, really fair to the defense, perhaps even to the partial detriment of the plaintiffs. However the folks at SSM&P never seemed to grasp that and continued to dig themselves in deeper and deeper. In fact they have now dug themselves in so deep that I honestly don't think that they have any chance to prevail on appeal. The last two Hearings have taken away any and all doubt concerning that and the 9th Circuit will see all the relevant portions of these last two transcripts.
OK, you can now remember that I was an employee of AWA and that I believe the Addington class were victimized in this whole mess.
I strongly suggest that all of the pilots, MIGS or not, get a hold of the transcripts of 7/7/09 and the one from today and read them, as well as the Order that the Court will issue by the end of the day tomorrow. Once you read all of this ask yourself whether or not this is really how union business should be transacted and what do you do going forward.