US Airways pilot union wins legal victory over former AWA pilots

Wasn't the pilots union for both pilot groups ALPA at the time of the senority integration? Who was the arbitrator that merged the list? Does he have any experience in this type of integration of employee groups? Since ALPA was the representing Union for both pilot groups at the time of integration, what does ALPA have to say about this court decision?

I really couldn't care less how this turns out but airlines are seniority based beasts....that seems the most fair. Since US and AWA were "merged" with no money invested from either side, other than a stock "merge"....neither one can say who bought who....especially when both were going to go belly up. Just freaking merge already and move on! Seniority Rules!

Anonymous..the ONLY reason it was ever called a merger was to keep the US Airways Unionized personel from recieving a huge pay increase. Their contracts had a snap back clause triggered if US Aiways under went a "change of control". There was no one at US Airways door step waiting to save them...EXCEPT for America West Airlines. And yes America West did purchase them out of bankruptcy (ask Delta, American, United and Contenental all were licking thier chops eagerly anticipating US AIrways' death as it meant big finacial opportunities for each carrier). What the word merger did was allow America West to avoid the snap back penalty ($$$$$) and embolden (by believing they were equals in the process) the US Airways employees into a bullying group of employees that have and continue to use their over whelming numbers to enforce their will on to the minority. In many cases this results in going back to the root causes that sent the old US Airways into bankruptcy TWICE and caused a great airline (America West) with highly motivated to become an airline with bitter employees and labor force at odds with management.

From Judge Bybee's dissention:

"The majority argues that this case will not be ripe until “the airline responds to [USAPA’s seniority] proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA,” but I respectfully disagree. Certainly this case might be “riper” were plaintiffs to wait for these future events, but when USAPA took the reins as the West Pilots’ union and refused to pursue the Nicolau Award, USAPA’s promise moved from abstract disagreement to adjudicable legal controversy. The future events cited by the majority are not likely to occur anytime soon, and plaintiffs will be harmed all the while. In the words of the Thomas Court, “nothing would be gained by postponing a decision . . . .”

The ripeness inquiry is not concerned with whether a case is as ripe as it possibly could be. Twelve of the plaintiffs in Thomas had never even entered into FIFRA arbitration. Their claims would have been riper had they undergone FIFRA arbitration prior to joining with Stauffer in a challenge to FIFRA’s arbitration procedures. Yet the Court noted these plaintiffs’ “continuing uncertainty and expense” and explained that “one does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief.” No one disputes that the West Pilots are now suffering, and will continue tosuffer, “continuing uncertainty and expense” due to the seniority impasse. They are entitled to have their claims heard."

Judge Bybee believed that USAPA was required to bargain for the Nicolau award. But he was in the minority.

The other two judges apparently did not believe that USAPA was required to bargain for Nicolau seniority list, so they said that west pilots must wait to see whether the final seniority system, whatever it is, is unfair.

The importance of the decision is twofold. First, it removes the injunction that had been in place REQUIRING USAPA to negotiate only for the Nicolau award, and second, it strongly suggests that acceptable seniority systems other Nicolau are possible here.