More Information
RJDC Update
May 6, 2002
Discussions with ALPA End. Comair Litigation to Resume, and Suit on Behalf of ASA Pilots to be Brought
Since October there has been a dialog between counsel in an effort to establish a process by which our disputes may be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. However, ALPA's egregious actions at US Airways and their refusal to guarantee little more than a series of meetings has precluded further discussions at this time. Consequently, the current litigation will now resume and an additional suit on behalf of the ASA pilots will be filed shortly.
Number of Plaintiffs Expected to Grow
When the first suit against ALPA was filed last year, it was hoped that legal action would give ALPA the impetus necessary to change its conduct. However, ALPA's egregious actions at USAirways and impending mainline negotiations at Delta indicate that lasting harm will soon befall the ASA and Comair pilots. In keeping with our long-standing commitment to ensure that every affected pilot is afforded the opportunity to be made whole for any damages, all ASA and Comair pilots will soon be given the opportunity to add their names as plaintiffs to a lawsuit against ALPA. Additional details will be forthcoming shortly.
RJDC Road Shows
As our efforts enter into a new and more critical phase, the RJDC will host a series of road shows to brief all affected pilots on the latest developments and personally answer any questions. The first road show will be May 10th in CVG in the Nav Room, Terminal 1, and another will be held in Atlanta on May 20th (location and times will be announced shortly). Dallas and Orlando road shows will be scheduled in June. Please make every effort to attend.
In Wake of Small Jet Agreement with ALPA, US Airways Management Demands Concessions from Turboprop Pilots and Announces Furlough Plans
Last week, the full impact of ALPA’s bad faith and predatory bargaining at US Airways became painfully apparent to the pilots at Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA. Management not only announced the phase-out of much of it’s obsolete turbo-prop fleet, but also made demands for substantial wage and benefit reductions. While "regional" job losses caused by the retirement of the turbo-props is the direct consequence of ALPA’s diversion of their small jet replacements to Potomac, the exclusion of the "regional" representatives from the negotiations also raises serious questions as to all the elements included in the mainline bargaining equation.
While it can be argued that management’s demands are draconian, they are only following ALPA’s lead. ALPA’s predatory actions directed against its own "regional" members sends a clear message to management. The fact that management’s concessionary demands come only two weeks after they had agreed to staff Potomac Air exclusively with furloughed mainline pilots, all at captain’s pay, strongly suggests that the Express pilots are expected to finance mainline’s sweetheart deal. The primary purpose of ALPA’s Constitution and By-laws is to protect the rights and interests of the union’s members. When ALPA’s leadership deliberately ignores the union’s Constitution and seeks to exclude "regional" pilots from the bargaining process, there inevitably is a reason.
Delta MEC Loses First Scope Grievance, Will Desperate Bargaining Follow?
On April 26, an arbitrator ruled that Delta management was within its rights to exercise the "force majeure" provisions of the Delta contract and furlough surplus mainline pilots. Presumably, the arbitration award will set the precedent for other force majeure grievances as well. While the ruling may grant temporary relief from harmful scope ratios, it does not abrogate the other scope restrictions imposed upon ASA and Comair, such as the 50-seat limit (excluding 57 CRJ-700’s) and numerous route restrictions.
More importantly, the arbitrator’s ruling does nothing to address ALPA’s predatory bargaining and, in fact, increases the likelihood that the mainline union leadership will seek to use the jobs and flying of ASA’s and Comair’s pilots as bargaining capital to shore up their deteriorating bargaining position. As we have just witnessed at US Airways, the mainline union leadership will look to "regional" pilots to pay for their previous contractual mistakes.
Both Delta’s fleet plan and industry forecasts indicate that, absent mainline scope restrictions, within a few years ASA and Comair’s combined fleet may exceed 500 aircraft and employ more than 5000 pilots. It is anticipated that the Delta MEC will attempt to reallocate system flying, while expecting the ASA and Comair pilots to "share" the economic burden as well. When ALPA permits the mainline pilot leadership to unilaterally engage in predatory bargaining and negotiate agreements binding upon ASA and Comair pilots, not only is our growth affected, but our current jobs, pay, and workrules could very well become part of the bargaining equation.
A Union's Legal Duty, Then and Now
Contrary to what our critics may claim, the central issue raised by our litigation is the union’s duty to represent both the majority and minority of its members fairly and equitably. As our suit contends, both the method and substance of ALPA’s predatory bargaining violate the union’s legal duty to the ASA and Comair pilots.
Many ALPA members, including the union’s leadership, apparently fail to realize that the landmark legal case establishing the union’s legal Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) was fundamentally a "scope" dispute (See Steele v. Louisville & Nashville RR.) In 1942, the railroad unions used their bargaining authority to create a "preferred" class of worker (white) while unilaterally stripping the African-American employees of their employment rights.
For example, the table below illustrates the similarities between the railroad union’s discriminatory "scope" and ALPA’s predatory mainline scope of today:
Louisville & Nashville RR (1942) ALPA’s Mainline Scope (2002)
Adversely affected members not given notice or opportunity to be heard "Regional" pilots denied the right to participate in mainline scope negotiations.
Contract designed to restrict employment of minorities. Mainline scope limits the size of "regional" airlines and the number of "regional" pilots.
Created "preferred" class of employees Mainline pilots unrestricted by scope. New mainline furlough protections grant special employment rights.
Only "preferred" employees may be assigned to certain routes. Route and market restrictions imposed on "regional" flying.
Number of "undesirable" employees limited to 50% At US Airways, only 50% of non-Potomac RJ vacancies can be filled by "regional" pilots.
All new vacancies filled by "preferred" employees. At US Airways, 100% of Potomac vacancies reserved for furloughed mainline pilots.
Union reserved the right to negotiate for further restrictions. "Regional" restrictions part of every mainline labor agreement and controlled by mainline pilots.
In the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, the Court made it clear that certain types of union activities violated the union’s duty to protect all its members:
"The fair interpretation of the statutory language is that the organization chosen to represent a craft is to represent all its members, the majority as well as the minority, and it is to act for and not against those whom it represents."
"We think that Congress …did not intend to confer plenary power upon the union to sacrifice, for the benefit of its members, rights of the minority of the craft, without imposing on it any duty to protect the minority."
"These purposes would hardly be attained if a substantial minority of the craft was denied the right to have its interests considered at the conference table and if the final result of the bargaining process were to be the sacrifice of the interests of the minority by the action of a representative chosen by the majority."
"So long as a labor union assumes to act as the statutory representative of a craft, it cannot rightly refuse to perform the duty, which is inseparable from the power of representation conferred upon it, to represent the entire membership of the craft."
While ALPA’s attitudes toward its "regional" members are not racist, they are indeed arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith. As the law states, the ASA and Comair pilots are entitled to seek judicial remedies as appropriate for breach of that duty.
When you hear someone say that our litigation is without merit or somehow inappropriate, keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts intended to give union members legal recourse when the majority seeks to prey upon the minority. Like the railway workers of sixty years before, we expect our union to protect its members, not restrict them. As the Supreme Court said, the union must act for, not against those whom it represents.
Upcoming RJDC Publications
RJDC Briefing Pack
RJDC Plaintiff’s Pack
***END***