Don Addington v. US Airline Pilots Assn

Good Law
791 F.3d 967
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 26, 201514-15757, 14-15874, 14-15892California38,077 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

The history of what we have called “a bitter seniority dispute,” Addington I,

606 F.3d at 1176, is a detailed one, and one that we will set forth with some care.

A. 2005 US Airways–America West Merger

1. The Merger and the Negotiations

4 The dispute between USAPA and the West Pilots arose when America West

Airlines and US Airways merged to form a single airline carrier called US

Airways. After the formal merger was completed in May 2005, the difficult

process of combining day-to-day operations began. At that time, a single

collective bargaining representative, ALPA, represented both the East and West

Pilots. In September 2005, ALPA and the merging airlines entered into a

Transition Agreement that set forth the process for achieving operational

integration of the two airlines, including issues of pilot seniority relevant here.

Prior to the merger, the East and West Pilots each had their own separate

seniority list and collective bargaining agreement. The Transition Agreement

provided for the integration of the seniority lists in accordance with ALPA’s

Merger Policy, which required the two pilot groups to negotiate an integrated list

and, if…

Lead Opinion

Bybee, J.

In 2005, US Airways merged with America West Airlines, setting their respective pilots on a collision course over a single, integrated seniority list. At the time of the merger, the US Airways pilots (“East Pilots”) and the America West pilots (‘West Pilots”) were both represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”) as they attempted to negotiate a *971 seniority list. The East Pilots advocated a list based on “date of hire,” while the West Pilots advocated a list based on the strength of their pre-merger airline. When these negotiations failed, the dispute went to binding arbitration. The arbitration panel ordered a single list that did not fully accede to the wishes of either group. Unhappy with the result, the more numerous East Pilots forced the decertification of ALPA and the creation of a new union, the US Airline Pilots Association (“USA-PA”), that was expressly opposed to the enforcement of the arbitrator’s award and openly committed to a seniority list based on date of hire, which favored the East Pilots.

This is the second time a dispute over the seniority list has come before us. In the prior case, the West Pilots sued USA-PA for a breach of the duty of fair…

Concurrence in Part

Tashima, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that Plaintiffs’ McCaskill-Bond claim is moot and that the portion of the district court’s decision addressing that issue should be vacated with instructions to dismiss that claim. I also agree that USAPA’s and US Airways’ cross-appeals should be dismissed. I believe, however, contrary to the majority, that Plaintiffs’ breach of the duty of fair representation claim should also be dismissed as moot. I, thus, would not reach the merits of that claim. If we do reach the merits, I disagree with the majority’s determination that USAPA breached its duty of fair representation. Moreover, even assuming USAPA breached its duty of fair representation, the misdirected injunction the majority imposes is erroneous and an abuse of discretion in view of the fact that USAPA is no longer a certified bargaining representative and, therefore, is not subject to the Railway Labor Act and can no longer be yoked with a duty of fair representation.

Accordingly, I dissent from Parts III, IV, and V of the majority opinion, except for those portions of Part V that address Plaintiffs McCaskill-Bond claim and the cross-appeals.

I.

To…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.