USAPA is serious this time

[Cowboy75]

VI. CONCLUSION
44 Because we conclude that the arbitrator failed to satisfy the due notice requirement of 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (j), and, under the CBA, the grievance should be heard by the AirTran Airways Pilots' System Board of Adjustment, the district court's summary judgment setting aside the arbitrator's award and remanding the grievance to the Board is affirmed.

MCDU,

This is one of the jury instructions. It is more relevant to the argument than the Airtran example that you have provided.


When you consider Plaintiffs' evidence of pretext, remember that the relevant question is whether USAPA's reason was not the real reason for USAPA's actions. You are not to consider whether USAPA's reason showed poor or erroneous judgment. You are not to consider USAPA's wisdom. However, you may consider whether USAPA's stated reason is the true reason or merely a pretext. Plaintiffs have the burden to persuade you by a preponderance of the evidence that USAPA took action against Plaintiffs for improper reasons. The parties have strong differences of opinion on which method of seniority integration or proposal is to be preferred. You are not asked to decide whether the Nicolau Award or the Defendant's seniority proposal is to be preferred. You are not asked to decide whether Mr. Nicolau properly conducted the arbitration or reached a preferable result.

If you decide that USAPA was not actually motivated by a legitimate union objective in adopting and promoting its seniority proposal and did so only to enhance the rights of East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, then you must find for Plaintiffs. If you decide that USAPA was actually motivated by a legitimate union objective hi adopting and promoting its seniority proposal, then you must find for USAPA.

 

[Fast43]

VI. CONCLUSION
44 Because we conclude that the arbitrator failed to satisfy the due notice requirement of 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (j), and, under the CBA, the grievance should be heard by the AirTran Airways Pilots' System Board of Adjustment, the district court's summary judgment setting aside the arbitrator's award and remanding the grievance to the Board is affirmed.

45 AFFIRMED.

Remember this at Airtran and Valujet merger. Arbitrations are not always final.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/351/351.F3d.1338.02-15185.html

Talk about reaching.................


Have you noticed that usapa has not attacked the Award in that process only tried to ignore it.

Fast

 

[becket]

VI. CONCLUSION
44 Because we conclude that the arbitrator failed to satisfy the due notice requirement of 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (j), and, under the CBA, the grievance should be heard by the AirTran Airways Pilots' System Board of Adjustment, the district court's summary judgment setting aside the arbitrator's award and remanding the grievance to the Board is affirmed.

45 AFFIRMED.

Remember this at Airtran and Valujet merger. Arbitrations are not always final.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/351/351.F3d.1338.02-15185.html

Why is the concept of "RELEVANCE" so distasteful to the common Easthole? The Judge and Jury already spoke in *THIS* case. You're side got it's ass handed to it....remember? Remedy will be out shortly and it will be another titanic size nail in your fake unions coffin.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

You Westies are a piece of work.

I thought this would be over in February. This is far from over and like the Air Wisconsin pilots, USAIR pilots will fight til the end.

Air Wisconsin was the first airline to be put in to trusteeship by ALPA, thus allowing the cram down of the seniority list with MVA. (Mississippi Valley)

Air Wisconsin went always date of hire with C and R (Aspen, MAX), with the expection of the MVA merger and look, it came out just like the AWA AAA merger. A huge mess. Just ask some of the 1978 Air Wisconsin DOH how they feel about MVA and how ALPA screwed them. The few that are left still hate each other after 30 years . The DOH mergers all worked out fine, because sooner or latter you will respect it.

Air Wisconsin tried everything, just like the the USAIR pilots to get rid of a flawed SLI. The 50 that are left are mostly MVA and enjoyed their Windfall at the expense of original Whiskey pilots. When United downsized them to 16 146 all the MVA pilots were able to hold on. History does repeat itself. DOH is the only fair way and history proves it. United will soon be asking for DOH because times change, your DOH does not. Trying to leapfrog many years of service is greed at its purest.

Longevity has everything to do with DOH.

Everything is based on DOH.

The greedy- I want to fly jets now PFT crowd of the 90's- just do not get it. A lost generation that is focused on me and not the big picture.

M

Hold on a minute Bucky...

Air Willie vs MVA was a bit different that what you remember. I was there.

Air Willie offered a staple list to MVA's offer of DOH. It went to arbitration when the parties couldn't agree to anything.

The arbitrator ruled stay in your seat, meaning ratio CAs and FOs in seat based on equivalent airplane size. As the average Willie guy was 3 to 5 years senior for an equilivent seat, the award was super seniority for MVA.

While I will spot you MVA got credit for planes not yet flying at award time, the Willie guys really blew their case before the arbitrator. The irony is they could have had DOH with a handshake, but were greedy and pushed for staple to the end. They got what they deserved for being greedy and unprepared!

Left that mess in '93 and understand there is still hatred over it.

HA! Mudders rule!

No dog in the east/west fight, just saying with such a big disparity in longevity vs position between the groups, you will never be whole or happy.

 

[Fast43]

Hold on a minute Bucky...

Air Willie vs MVA was a bit different that what you remember. I was there.

Air Willie offered a staple list to MVA's offer of DOH. It went to arbitration when the parties couldn't agree to anything.

The arbitrator ruled stay in your seat, meaning ratio CAs and FOs in seat based on equivalent airplane size. As the average Willie guy was 3 to 5 years senior for an equilivent seat, the award was super seniority for MVA.

While I will spot you MVA got credit for planes not yet flying at award time, the Willie guys really blew their case before the arbitrator. The irony is they could have had DOH with a handshake, but were greedy and pushed for staple to the end. They got what they deserved for being greedy and unprepared!

Left that mess in '93 and understand there is still hatred over it.

HA! Mudders rule!

No dog in the east/west fight, just saying with such a big disparity in longevity vs position between the groups, you will never be whole or happy.

Gee, doesn't this sound familiar.

Fast

 

[MCDU]

Yeah, DOH would have worked. Trying to staple anyone was wrong. Like I said. DOH would have worked. Trying to staple and then get a slotted award was a double whammy. Greedy pilots.

M

 

[PCL_128]

VI. CONCLUSION
44 Because we conclude that the arbitrator failed to satisfy the due notice requirement of 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (j), and, under the CBA, the grievance should be heard by the AirTran Airways Pilots' System Board of Adjustment, the district court's summary judgment setting aside the arbitrator's award and remanding the grievance to the Board is affirmed.

45 AFFIRMED.

Remember this at Airtran and Valujet merger. Arbitrations are not always final.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/351/351.F3d.1338.02-15185.html

Marty, you are completely misapplying the decision of the Mann-Dalland case for two primary reasons:

1. Mann-Dalland was a case involving arbitration at the airline's System Board of Adjustment, not a case involving arbitration under a union's Constitution & Bylaws. The NPA's Bylaws were not at issue in this case, the provisions of the RLA were.

2. The court didn't find against the actual seniority integration, they found against a procedural matter: notice to the parties of a grievance was not provided, and that's a requirement of the RLA. The pilots that were affected by this grievance were never properly notified of the hearing for the grievance arbitration, so they weren't able to attend and present their case.

In the case of the AAA/AWA SLI, the above issues don't apply at all. For one, the integration did not involve an RLA adjustment board hearing. Adjustment boards are part of the RLA and specifically defined in individual CBAs. SLIs within ALPA have nothing to do with adjustment boards. Second, "due notice" as required by the RLA for grievance hearings doesn't apply to arbitrations that are heard as a result of internal union Bylaws. "Due notice" provisions of the RLA are only relevant for adjustment board hearings. But even if "due notice" provisions of the RLA were applicable in this case, in wouldn't help your case, because the East was provided plenty of notice for every step of this process and in fact attended every hearing.

Sorry, but if Mann-Dalland is what Seham is trying to cling to, you're going to be sadly disappointed.

 

[Mamma]

MCDU, ouch! PCL, play him off...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqAyp...eature=related