We dont have a full transcript here, but if what you say is correct, isn't he actually modelling his deffinition of integrity?
I don't understand your question. Here's an exerpt from the transcript of the cross-examination of Sully. Harper is a Plaintiff's attorney, Brengle is a USAPA attorney. (Sorry for the bad formatting but it came from a PDF.)
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. So you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that when a pilot
gives his word, he or she should keep it?
A. Yes, I do, but as in most things in life, this has
consequences. And I believe that the consequence of that would
have been that the Nicolau Award would never have been
implemented because it would have required a common CBA, in
other words, the West MEC, and the East MEC would both have had
to have voted in favor of any combined contract that included
the use of the Nicolau Award, which I don't believe would have
happened.
And in addition to that, the West Pilots themselves
individually would have had to ratify that contract, and the
East Pilots individually would have had to vote to ratify that
contract which, I believe, would not have happened from my
experience. So the practical matter is that was never a real
possibility.
Q. Well, the process broke down because the East members of
the Joint Negotiating Committee left the table?
MR. BRENGLE: Counsel is arguing with the witness,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please sit down.
THE WITNESS: No. Actually, as a matter of fact the
process broke down because the ALPA Merger Policy was flawed
and led to an inevitable impasse that could not be resolved
under ALPA procedures.
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. But because they left the table, no single Collective
Bargaining Agreement proposal was ever arrived at, correct?
A. I know from my experience that the --
Q. Please answer.
A. -- East Pilots would not have voted for that Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
THE COURT: You can ask your question again.
MR. HARPER: Can I have the question read back,
please?
(The question was read back by the court reporter.)
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. So no vote has ever been taken on a proposed single
Collective Bargaining Agreement that includes the Nicolau,
correct?
MR. BRENGLE: That's stipulated to, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please stop interrupting the
cross-examination, counsel.
You may continue, Mr. Harper.
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. Can you answer the question, please?
THE WITNESS: Would you read it again, please. I'll
make sure I answer it correctly.
(The question was read back by the court reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The pilots never had a chance to vote on
it because the MEC did not approve it. That is correct.
MR. HARPER: No further questions.
Admitting that the actions of USAPA failed to fit his definition of integrity would not be personally convenient for him. But, it would be the truth and in that case has he not shown integrity on the stand?
Judge for yourself based on his testimony. Apparently according to him keeping one's word has "consequenses" that override it.
I'd like to see this "grandstanding" of the events of Jan 15 because I'd certainly be surprised to find out that a judge or the West attorneys would allow such irrelivant information to be presented.
The judge repeatedly stated on the record (but not in front of the jury) how conflicted he was by allowing USAPA so much leeway to introduce confusing and irrelvent information to the jury. The instructions he'll give the jury before they deliberate will undoubtedly emphasize the DFR aspect and beg them to disregard the alleged fairness of the Nicolau award. We won't know exactly what those instructions are until after the fact. Suffice to say USAPA objected to all 11 of them and our side had no objections.
