Addington v. Us Airline Pilots Ass'n

Decision Date20 November 2008
Docket NumberNo. CV-08-1633-PHX-NVW.,CV-08-1633-PHX-NVW.
Citation588 F.Supp.2d 1051
PartiesDon ADDINGTON; John Bostic; Mark Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Robert Velez; Steve Wargocki; individual residents of the State of Arizona, formerly employed by America West Airlines, Inc. and presently employed by its successor after merger, US Airways, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association representing the pilots in the employment of US Airways Inc.; US Airways, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Andrew S. Jacob, Kelly Joyce Flood, Marty Harper, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs.

Nicholas Paul Granath, Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen LLP, Minneapolis, MN, Lee Seham, Lucas K. Middlebrook, Stanley J. Silverstone, Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen LLP, White Plains, NY, Stanley Lubin, Lubin & Enoch PC, Phoenix, AZ, Rachel S. Janger, Tom A. Jerman, Omelveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Robert Alan Siegel, Omelveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Sarah Ann Asta, US Airways Inc, Tempe, AZ, for Defendants.

ORDER

NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.

Plaintiff pilots (the "Plaintiff West Pilots") brought suit against their employer, US Airways Inc. ("US Airways"), and their labor union, the US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA") seeking injunctive relief and damages. The complaint alleged that US Airways breached a collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. (Doc. # 1.) The Plaintiff West Pilots also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against US Airways. (Doc. # 12.) Both Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docs. # 30, 35, 36.) In addition, USAPA moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or for summary judgment. (Docs. # 35, 36.) Because the motion for summary judgment is premature, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), it will be denied. The remaining motions of USAPA will also be denied. US Airways' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be granted. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction against US Airways (doc. # 12) will be denied for lack of jurisdiction, with limited alternative findings of fact and conclusions of law to accelerate appellate review in case it is sought.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATIONS
A. Standards of Review

In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court "is not confined by the facts contained in the four corners of the complaint—it may consider facts and need not assume the truthfulness of the complaint." Americopters, LLC v. F.A.A., 441 F.3d 726, 732 n. 4 (9th Cir.2006). For purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint. Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 489 (9th Cir.2003). A ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction requires findings of fact and conclusions of law. 29 U.S.C. § 107 (applicable to labor disputes); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(2). To honor all of these standards, the allegations are summarized below, and necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law are also stated.

B. Background and Summary of Agreements

The parties have stipulated to many essential facts of the case. (Doc. # 77.) Those facts are summarized and supplemented by the following additional findings for purposes of jurisdiction and possible injunctive relief.

This case concerns two sets of pilots. One set, the West Pilots, were employed as pilots of America West Airlines, Inc. ("America West") before May 2005. The other set, the East Pilots, were employed by US Airways at the same time. The terms "East Pilots" and "West Pilots" refer only to pilots who were on the seniority lists of their respective airlines at that time. Both groups of pilots were then represented by the same labor union, the Air Line Pilots Association ("ALPA").

Toward the end of 2003, America West and the West Pilots negotiated a collective bargaining agreement effective January 2004 (the "2004 CBA"). That agreement provided that in the event of a merger where America West was not the surviving carrier, America West would make reasonable efforts to have the surviving carrier "integrate the two Pilot groups in accordance with [ALPA's] Merger Policy."

In May 2005, America West agreed to merge with US Airways. The merger agreement provided that US Airways would succeed both air carriers in the combined enterprise. A few months later, US Airways (now acting as a successor to both airlines), entered into a multilateral contractual agreement with the East Pilots and the West Pilots. This agreement was called the Transition Agreement, and it affected the collective bargaining relationships among the parties. Though the East Pilots and the West Pilots were both represented by ALPA, the Transition Agreement was signed by Master Executive Councils of both pilot groups.

The allegations show that the negotiations and the resulting contract were designed to resolve the tension between competing interests of the East Pilots and the West Pilots. Some terms of the Transition Agreement benefited the East Pilots, some benefited the West Pilots. The Agreement provided generally that, until the two airlines achieved operational integration, only America West pilots would fly on premerger America West aircraft and on western flights that were current and announced as of the time of the agreement (collectively, "West Operations"). A parallel provision existed for the East Pilots as to premerger US Airways aircraft and eastern flights (collectively, "East Operations"). Subject to the Transition Agreement, US Airways could continue to operate each airline separately, in accordance with the terms of each carrier's collective bargaining agreement.

The Transition Agreement provided that during separate operations the parties were to adopt a single integrated seniority list "in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy," and the parties were bound to accept the list if it complied with certain criteria. However, this new seniority list would not be effective until the two operations were integrated. The Transition Agreement also specified that during separate operations any newly hired pilots (the "New Hires") would be placed on a third seniority list and made junior to all pilots on the America West and old US Airways seniority lists. US Airways had a significant number of pilots on furlough status at the time of the merger, so the parties agreed that America West could not hire new pilots until all furloughed US Airways pilots had been offered recall. Separate operations under separate seniority lists would continue until two events took place: the completion of an integrated seniority list and the negotiation of a single collective bargaining agreement. Within twelve months thereafter, operations would be consolidated under a single Federal Aviation Administration operating certificate and the single seniority list would govern.

Pursuant to ALPA Merger Policy, the two groups of pilots attempted to create a single integrated seniority list through mediation. This attempt failed. Pursuant to the same policy and the Transition Agreement, the East Pilots and the West Pilots brought the matter to binding arbitration in October 2006, and arbitrator George Nicolau issued his decision in May 2007, which included a new seniority list (the "Nicolau Award"). This list gave the West Pilots seniority over the East Pilots who were on furlough at the time of the merger, gave 517 East Pilots seniority over all West Pilots, and blended the seniority of the West Pilots and the remaining East Pilots. The arbitrator considered the arguments of both sides and explained why he considered this award fair and reasonable under the circumstances. US Airways was a much older airline than America West, and for that reason the West Pilots would have fallen lower on a merged date-of-hire list than they would have under the Nicolau Award. However, at the time of the merger, US Airways had dim economic prospects. The company was insolvent and operating in bankruptcy reorganization, and it had 1,751 pilots on furlough status. America West, by contrast, was in stronger financial condition, and all of its pilots were on active status. The arbitrator concluded that the superior employment prospects of the West Pilots justified a superior position in the seniority list. At the same time, he declined to give the West Pilots the full seniority that they requested. On December 20, 2007, US Airways accepted this seniority list.

C. Formation and Purpose of USAPA

The East Pilots were unhappy with the results of the arbitration. In response, they used their majority status to form a new union, USAPA. On April 18, 2008, the National Mediation Board certified USAPA as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all pilots employed by US Airways. USAPA has shown itself to be hostile to the arbitrated seniority list. During the campaign to start USAPA, its proponents expressly promised that the new union would not follow the Nicolau Award. USAPA has refused its duty under the 2004 CBA and the Transition Agreement to bargain for implementation of the Nicolau seniority list.

USAPA's Constitution declares its objective "[t]o maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot's un-merged career expectations." To this end, USAPA has convened a merger committee made up of twelve East Pilots and no West Pilots. This committee has formulated a date-of-hire seniority policy, which includes certain conditions and restrictions but is greatly more favorable to the East Pilots, including those East Pilots on furlough at the time of the merger, than the Nicolau Award. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • U.S. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. U.S. Airways, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 16, 2012
    ...is a minor dispute involving the interpretation of an established agreement between the parties. See Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass'n, 588 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1062–1064 (D.Ariz.2008) (holding that claim that U.S. Airways violated terms of the Transition Agreement at issue here were minor di......
  • Debeikes v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • October 28, 2015
    ...futile, nor does the fact that administrators are "likely to rule against the [grievant] on the merits." Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass'n , 588 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1063–64 (D.Ariz.2008) (citations omitted). Futility is also generally inapplicable where "the plaintiff never puts his futility......
  • Addington v. Us Airline Pilots Ass'n
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 4, 2010
    ...claims against the airline because the System Board of Adjustment had exclusive jurisdiction over them. Addington v. U.S. Airlines Pilots Ass'n, 588 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1064 (D.Ariz.2008). Plaintiffs amended their complaint in the surviving DFR action, specifying that the claim was brought on b......
  • Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re AMR Corp.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 22, 2015
    ...interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements. See 45 U.S.C. §§ 184, 153 First (i); Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass'n, 588 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1063 (D.Ariz.2008). The Board of Adjustment provides the exclusive remedy in minor disputes. See Addington, 588 F.Supp.2d at 10......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Seniority Integration And The Mccaskill-Bond Statute
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 9, 2012
    ...in federal court on a breach of duty of fair representation and breach of contract claim.5 Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass'n, 588 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Ariz. 2008). The district court dismissed the case against the carrier for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 1069. After......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT