Cowboy75
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Posts
- 397
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.