Audio
|
|
The MUST READ rebuttal
|
|
|
|
The MUST READ rebuttal to the Fairy Tale ALPA Letter 3 chronology.
By now, every American Eagle pilot should have read the latest ALPA propaganda trying to justify its failure to enforce the contractual rights of the "flow-through" pilots under Letter 3 of the Pilot Agreement thereby causing irreparable harm to every American Eagle pilot, including the furloughed pilots.
The document produced by ALPA contains many false assertions, statements and conclusions. Even the brief negotiating history that ALPA included in its document is not factual, but due to the impending litigation a comprehensive rebuttal of the blatant misrepresentations by ALPA is not in the interest of the plaintiffs and will therefore be avoided.
Notwithstanding the above, certain statements in the ALPA document cannot be allowed to stand.
The third bullet point of the document asserts that "In FLO-0903, ALPA argued that Arbitrator LaRocco should award a class slots remedy, but he concluded that he did not have jurisdiction over that issue."
The above is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. In the initial hearing before Arbitrator LaRocco (June 28, 2006) ALPA did not argue that the arbitrator should award "class slots" but in actual fact purposely omitted to request a remedy of "class slots" (see Arbitrator LaRocco's Opinion and Award of May 11, 2007 page 1).
ALPA only asked for the "class slot remedy" in the Remedy Hearing of April 24, 2008, twenty two (22) months after the hearing where ALPA insinuates it asked the Arbitrator for a "class slot remedy" (see Arbitrator LaRocco's Supplemental Opinion and Award on Remedy of October 20, 2008).
In actual fact, ALPA only asked for the "class slot remedy" when pilots who were knowledgeable about Letter 3 advised ALPA that it had made a gross error in not asking Arbitrator LaRocco, in the initial hearing, for a "class slot remedy".
Arbitrator LaRocco never concluded that he did not have jurisdiction over the issue of a "class slot remedy", he simply and plainly stated that ALPA had never asked him in the initial grievance hearing (June 28, 2006) to issue a "class slot remedy" and therefore he lacked jurisdiction (see Arbitrator LaRocco's Supplemental Opinion and Award on Remedy of October 20, 2008 page 31).
ALPA specifically did not want Arbitrator LaRocco to issue a "class slot remedy" in FLO-0903 because ALPA wanted to "negotiate the remedy" with AMR management and the APA. Part of the remedy ALPA sought was to trade away the contractual Letter 3 rights of the "flow-through" pilots for more AA seniority numbers. ALPA offered to withhold the "flow-through" pilots until after all the furloughed TWA LLC pilots had been awarded new hire class slots at AA in exchange for more non-contractual numbers (see Joint APA/ALPA Press release of October 23, 2007 and letter from ALPA Executive Administrator Brian Sweep to Gavin Mackenzie dated April 17, 2008 ).
The above "remedy" negotiations failed.
In the discussion regarding FLO-0108 ALPA states: "Arbitrator Nicolau then remanded the case to the parties, ALPA, AE, AA and APA, to formulate an appropriate remedy."
The above is once again a misrepresentation of the facts. ALPA requested Arbitrator Nicolau allow AMR management, APA and ALPA to once again "negotiate a remedy".
Arbitrator Nicolau never remanded the case to the parties of his own accord, as ALPA insinuates, the parties asked to "formulate the appropriate remedy".
ALPA states: "The MEC has done everything within its power to expedite the hearing on remedy, and to secure a ruling that will resolve all remedy issues at the earliest possible date."
The above is a blatant lie. If ALPA had done everything to expedite a remedy it would never have agreed with AMR management and the APA to request Arbitrator Nicolau allow the parties to "formulate the appropriate remedy". Further, ALPA would have demanded that Arbitrator LaRocco's award, dated October 20, 2008 (one (1) year before Nicolau) be enforced, and Letter 3 be allowed to function. It is important to remember that NOTHING in LaRocco's award allowed ANY party to set aside, fail to comply or interfere with the proper operation of Letter 3.
Letter 3.III.A states that "at least one (1) out of every two (2) new hire position per new hire class..." must be offered to American Eagle pilots. LaRocco RULED that TWA LLC pilots coming to class at AA WERE new hires.
At the very least, ALPA would have demanded that Arbitrator Nicolau issue his remedy simultaneous with issuing his Opinion and Award dated October 18, 2009.
The original negotiations, after the LaRocco Award, failed to "formulate a remedy" even after negotiating for more than six (6) months, why did ALPA believe that a second round of negotiations would be successful?
Arbitrator Nicolau ruled, in FLO-0108, that if the parties could not reach agreement on an appropriate remedy any party may, by motion, request that he decide the question of remedy.
It is not necessary for the APA to be present when ALPA, by motion, requests Arbitrator Nicolau issue his remedy.
In actual fact, none of the parties need be present; the motion can be made in writing.
Arbitrator Nicolau issued his Opinion and Award pursuant to Section 7507 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules of the State of New York. The New York State Unified Court System Law Libraries define motion as an oral or written request to the court made by a party for a ruling or order.
Why is ALPA so subservient to management and the APA and what agreement did it cut with management and the APA that it now cannot ask Arbitrator Nicolau for his remedy in writing?
It is interesting that ALPA "blames" management for causing irreparable harm to every American Eagle pilot, including the furloughed pilots.
ALPA, in its closing remarks states: ".......to make whole those Eagle pilots who were disadvantaged by management's failure to transition the flow through pilots to AA at the appropriate time."
This is purely a legal maneuver by ALPA, with the concurrence of management, to shield itself from the Letter 3 Coalition lawsuit.
Management may be forced to try and shield ALPA, by accepting culpability, because of their past collusion in preventing "flow-through" pilots from transferring to AA but the question remains; when did ALPA demand that management comply with both Arbitrator LaRocco's and Arbitrator Nicolau 's rulings in favor of the 'flow-through" pilots and why is ALPA once again conspiring to delay asking for the Nicolau remedy, which can be in writing dated tomorrow, January 17, 2010.
If ALPA did ask management to comply with the Arbitrator's rulings in favor of the "flow-through" pilots and management did not comply, why did ALPA not enforce the provisions of Letter 3.VI. D?
Furthermore, review again this ALPA statement: The MEC has done everything within its power to expedite the hearing on remedy, and to secure a ruling that will resolve all remedy issues at the earliest possible date.
Arbitrator Nicolau, in his Opinion and Award stated the following: ".....any Party may, by motion, request that jurisdiction be exercised over the question of remedy.
The question of remedy! A singular remedy and not a shopping list of "all remedy issues at the earliest possible date" as stated by ALPA.
ALPA, management and the APA ran back to Arbitrator LaRocco after they could not reach an agreement on remedy after six (6) months of negotiations. Back then they also each had a little shopping bag of remedies. What did Arbitrator LaRocco rule? 154 American Eagle pilots were to be issued AA seniority numbers at the bottom of the AA Pilot Seniority List. A simple and singular remedy!
The only reason for "all remedy issues at the earliest possible date" is an attempt by ALPA, management and the APA to further delay the transfer of "flow-through" pilots to AA.
The fact is, for whatever reason, ALPA has agreed with management that American Eagle flow-through pilots MUST NOT transfer to AA, and they will use whatever device available to prevent it. It is becoming apparent to even the most uninformed Eagle pilot that ALPA and management cannot get this right. As for the APA, they LOST in arbitration, so there is no "deal" for them to work out.
Nicolau ruled that 244+ American Eagle pilots should have begun to transfer in June, 2007, so the APA should not even be a factor here.
The actions of ALPA have caused irreparable harm to American Eagle pilots and no "11th Hour" fairy-tale of a chronology will change that fact.
What this "chronology" does show is that ALPA has failed the American Eagle pilots in operating, administering and protecting Letter 3. After all, what good are arbitration victories and failed negotiations if you never claim what was wrongfully denied the American Eagle pilots?
It has become apparent that American Eagle pilots will need to turn elsewhere for help, and we have.
Every American Eagle pilot should call on ALPA and demand that it enforce Letter 3.
|
|
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010
|
|
|
|
|