Cowboy75
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Posts
- 397
I started this thread for those interested in the anything US Airways, Sully or USAPA related. USAPA has restricted the debate and does not allow dissent. No surprise, USAPA has no message board and has to sensor updates originating from the Phoenix domicile.
Let's start with Sully's rejected testimony in a Federal Court and reasons why he has fallen out of favor with the West pilot group:
In Mid May 2008, Sullenberger acted as the first witness in a Federal Court Case involving his labor union, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) v. The Former America West Pilots. The case was heard in the Arizona District Court by Neil Wake. Although Sullenberger testified that he had "no dog in this fight" he continued that in his opinion, final and binding arbitrations should be ignored if the majority party finds the ruling unsatisfactory. During his testimony, Sullenberger equated the refusal to comply with a duly authorized, and mutually agreed upon arbitrator's ruling to possessing a form of personal "Integrity".
The Jury disagreed. The USAPA was found guilty of violating its legal duty to fairly represent all US Airways pilots. The Jury returned its guilty verdict in under 90 minutes. USAPA is appealing the decision and this case will be heard on December 8, 2009 in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco.
A review of events leading up to the court case:
This litigation would not have occurred but for the fact that East Pilots refused to abide by an arbitrated integrated seniority list (the “Nicolau Award”). Going into the arbitration, the East Pilots agreed that the arbitrated award would be final and binding and would be used in Operational Pilot Integration. Coming out of the arbitration, the East Pilots unjustifiably refused to abide by that agreement. Instead, they took many actions to prevent Operational Pilot Integration using the Nicolau Award, culminating in the creation of USAPA for that purpose.
After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA's actual motives.
USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.
USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.
The appeal will be heard at a federal courthouse on December 8th. I expect the jury's verdict to be upheld and another defeat handed to USAPA.
Let's start with Sully's rejected testimony in a Federal Court and reasons why he has fallen out of favor with the West pilot group:
In Mid May 2008, Sullenberger acted as the first witness in a Federal Court Case involving his labor union, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) v. The Former America West Pilots. The case was heard in the Arizona District Court by Neil Wake. Although Sullenberger testified that he had "no dog in this fight" he continued that in his opinion, final and binding arbitrations should be ignored if the majority party finds the ruling unsatisfactory. During his testimony, Sullenberger equated the refusal to comply with a duly authorized, and mutually agreed upon arbitrator's ruling to possessing a form of personal "Integrity".
The Jury disagreed. The USAPA was found guilty of violating its legal duty to fairly represent all US Airways pilots. The Jury returned its guilty verdict in under 90 minutes. USAPA is appealing the decision and this case will be heard on December 8, 2009 in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco.
A review of events leading up to the court case:
This litigation would not have occurred but for the fact that East Pilots refused to abide by an arbitrated integrated seniority list (the “Nicolau Award”). Going into the arbitration, the East Pilots agreed that the arbitrated award would be final and binding and would be used in Operational Pilot Integration. Coming out of the arbitration, the East Pilots unjustifiably refused to abide by that agreement. Instead, they took many actions to prevent Operational Pilot Integration using the Nicolau Award, culminating in the creation of USAPA for that purpose.
After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA's actual motives.
USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.
USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.
The appeal will be heard at a federal courthouse on December 8th. I expect the jury's verdict to be upheld and another defeat handed to USAPA.