pilotchick
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Posts
- 10
I found this artical on the internet under Jetblue. I took my recall and left JB. I thought of joining the pilots in this case, but never did. Is it to late or do you have to be a current and qualified JB pilot? Even is it is to late I would like to know what is going on. Might be even happier I left. 
An arbitrator, not a court, must decide whether more than 700 JetBlue pilots can collectively arbitrate a salary dispute with their
employer, a state appellate panel has ruled, rejecting the budget airline's argument that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in
An arbitrator, not a court, must decide whether more than 700 JetBlue pilots can collectively arbitrate a salary dispute with their
employer, a state appellate panel has ruled, rejecting the budget airline's argument that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in
Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds
, 130 S.Ct. 1758, precludes collective arbitration when it is not explicitly allowed by a contract.
In Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration agreement could not be assumed to allow class arbitration unless it did
so explicitly. The Court said it reached its conclusion "because class-action arbitration changes the nature of arbitration to such a
degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator."
Yesterday, however, a four-judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, ruled in JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson,
650691/10, that Stolt-Nielsen could not be applied to the collective arbitration sought by the JetBlue pilots. The panel consisted of
Justices Angela M. Mazzarelli, James M. Catterson, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels and Nelson S. Roman.
The pilots claim that JetBlue violated a provision of their contract that said that, if JetBlue raises the base salary it pays new pilots, it
must raise all pilots' salary by the same percentage.
In 2010, the pilots demanded that JetBlue arbitrate all the pilots' disputes collectively. JetBlue responded by filing a petition against
the pilots' attorney, Robert M. Stephenson of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell in Manhattan Supreme Court, seeking to stay arbitration
and compel every pilot to seek arbitration individually. Justice Eileen Bransten denied that petition, and JetBlue appealed.
JetBlue argued that the pilots must seek arbitration individually because they signed individual contracts that do not expressly allow
collective arbitration. The company said that the logic used by the Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen on class arbitration applies
equally to collective arbitration.
The pilots argued that their situation was different from that in Stolt-Nielsen because all of their contracts were identical and all
grievances stemmed from a single contract violation.
"The pilots are correct," the First Department panel wrote. "Class arbitration and the collective proceeding that the pilots have
demanded here are so fundamentally different that Stolt-Nielsen does not dictate the result. In the collective arbitration sought here,
unlike in a class arbitration, all of the affected pilots are actual parties."
"Further, in a class proceeding, common issues need only 'predominate' over issues that are unique to individual members; identity
of issues is not required," the panel said, quoting Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83, 98 (1980). "Here, there is only one
straightforward question that needs to be answered by the arbitration panel, and its disposition will equally affect each and every
pilot."
The panel rejected JetBlue's argument that it should decide whether collective arbitration was permissible as a threshold matter.
"While there is no binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court holding that an arbitrator should decide whether
collective arbitration is permissible, there is likewise no authority requiring a court to decide the question as a 'gateway' issue," the
panel wrote.
In Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitration agreement could not be assumed to allow class arbitration unless it did
so explicitly. The Court said it reached its conclusion "because class-action arbitration changes the nature of arbitration to such a
degree that it cannot be presumed the parties consented to it by simply agreeing to submit their disputes to an arbitrator."
Yesterday, however, a four-judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, ruled in JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Stephenson,
650691/10, that Stolt-Nielsen could not be applied to the collective arbitration sought by the JetBlue pilots. The panel consisted of
Justices Angela M. Mazzarelli, James M. Catterson, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels and Nelson S. Roman.
The pilots claim that JetBlue violated a provision of their contract that said that, if JetBlue raises the base salary it pays new pilots, it
must raise all pilots' salary by the same percentage.
In 2010, the pilots demanded that JetBlue arbitrate all the pilots' disputes collectively. JetBlue responded by filing a petition against
the pilots' attorney, Robert M. Stephenson of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell in Manhattan Supreme Court, seeking to stay arbitration
and compel every pilot to seek arbitration individually. Justice Eileen Bransten denied that petition, and JetBlue appealed.
JetBlue argued that the pilots must seek arbitration individually because they signed individual contracts that do not expressly allow
collective arbitration. The company said that the logic used by the Supreme Court in Stolt-Nielsen on class arbitration applies
equally to collective arbitration.
The pilots argued that their situation was different from that in Stolt-Nielsen because all of their contracts were identical and all
grievances stemmed from a single contract violation.
"The pilots are correct," the First Department panel wrote. "Class arbitration and the collective proceeding that the pilots have
demanded here are so fundamentally different that Stolt-Nielsen does not dictate the result. In the collective arbitration sought here,
unlike in a class arbitration, all of the affected pilots are actual parties."
"Further, in a class proceeding, common issues need only 'predominate' over issues that are unique to individual members; identity
of issues is not required," the panel said, quoting Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83, 98 (1980). "Here, there is only one
straightforward question that needs to be answered by the arbitration panel, and its disposition will equally affect each and every
pilot."
The panel rejected JetBlue's argument that it should decide whether collective arbitration was permissible as a threshold matter.
"While there is no binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court holding that an arbitrator should decide whether
collective arbitration is permissible, there is likewise no authority requiring a court to decide the question as a 'gateway' issue," the
panel wrote.
New York Law Journal: Ruling Paves Way for Collective Arbitration of Pilots Grievance Page 1 of 2
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleFriendlyNY.jsp?id=1202519705366 10/21/2011
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleFriendlyNY.jsp?id=1202519705366 10/21/2011
The court also rejected the airline's argument that allowing collective arbitration would violate the forum selection clause in the
pilots' contracts, which said that arbitration of disputes would take place in pilots' home cities. The panel said that the pilots could
waive this clause because it was put in the contract solely for their benefit.
The panel remanded the case to the American Arbitration Association. An arbitrator will now have to decide whether the pilots'
disputes may be arbitrated collectively.
Mr. Stephenson said he was "extremely joyful" about the decision. He said he was confident that the arbitrator would decide to
allow collective arbitration in light of the court's decision.
The panel, he said, properly rejected the airline's position, which would have required "hundreds of different trials before hundreds
of different arbitrators."
Mr. Stephenson said the ruling would encourage collective arbitration.
"It's obviously going to assist the efficient advancement of arbitration because it prevents parties from arguing that you can't
collectively arbitrate anymore," he said.
Mr. Stephenson said he hoped the underlying arbitration would be wrapped up next year.
Marisa A. Marinelli of Holland & Knight, counsel to JetBlue, did not return a call seeking comment.
@|Brendan Pierson can be contacted at bpierson@alm.pilots' contracts, which said that arbitration of disputes would take place in pilots' home cities. The panel said that the pilots could
waive this clause because it was put in the contract solely for their benefit.
The panel remanded the case to the American Arbitration Association. An arbitrator will now have to decide whether the pilots'
disputes may be arbitrated collectively.
Mr. Stephenson said he was "extremely joyful" about the decision. He said he was confident that the arbitrator would decide to
allow collective arbitration in light of the court's decision.
The panel, he said, properly rejected the airline's position, which would have required "hundreds of different trials before hundreds
of different arbitrators."
Mr. Stephenson said the ruling would encourage collective arbitration.
"It's obviously going to assist the efficient advancement of arbitration because it prevents parties from arguing that you can't
collectively arbitrate anymore," he said.
Mr. Stephenson said he hoped the underlying arbitration would be wrapped up next year.
Marisa A. Marinelli of Holland & Knight, counsel to JetBlue, did not return a call seeking comment.
