Bakos v. Am. Airlines, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 17–402
| Decision Date | 26 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17–402 |
| Citation | 266 F.Supp.3d 729 |
| Parties | David BAKOS, Richard Bell, Robert Benjamin, Terry Brooks, Brian Cameron, David Cooper, David Crowe, Greg Finch, Patrick Foley, Dewey Gray, Francis Heid, Kelli Hughes, Glenn Kyrk, Murray Muzzall, Mark Newcomb, Michael O'Brien, Thomas O'Conner, William Payne, Michael Phelan, Cheryl Robles, Stephen Rogers, David Shaskan, Whitney Sieben, Gilberto Smith, William Tally, Scott Torrence, and David Wexler Individually and on behalf of a class similarly situated American Airlines Pilots, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and Allied Pilots Association, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Alan B. Epstein, Johan A. Ashrafzadeh–Kian, Spector Gadon & Rosen, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Gregg W. Mackuse, Dennis W. Morrow, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Mark W. Robertson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, Michael G. McGuinness, Robert A. Siegel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel M. Rosenthal, Steven K. Hoffman, Lee W. Jackson, Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C., Washington, DC, James P. Clark, Law Offices of James P. Clark PC, Northport, NY, Mark R. Myers, Allied Pilots Association, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendants.
This case concerns pilot seniority integration, an intractable labor dilemma that follows the merger of two commercial airlines. Due to the paramount role of seniority in defining pilots' job conditions—including compensation, advancement opportunities, route assignments, and vulnerability to furlough—the integration process is fraught with career-defining ramifications for each pilot involved. What's more, integration is a zero-sum exercise; for each slot a pilot moves up, a colleague must move down. And several practical considerations prevent a simple chronological ordering: differences in pre-merger pay and benefits, the relative health of the respective airlines, and the type of aircraft and routes flown by the pre-merged airlines. Negotiations are seldom up to the task, arbitration nearly always ensues, and pilots dissatisfied with the arbitral outcome routinely seek relief in court.
The pilot seniority integration following the merger between American Airlines and US Airways was no exception. The integration process began with more than a year of negotiation between two unions, two airlines, and three independent merger committees. Arbitration followed. And now Plaintiffs seek relief from this Court. They contend that the integrated seniority list produced by the arbitral panel was not "fair and equitable," and also that the process by which the entire integration process was arranged and conducted was not "fair and equitable," in violation of both the McCaskill–Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act ("McCaskill–Bond"), 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note, and the duty of fair representation established by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.1 Defendants—American Airlines and Plaintiffs' union, the Allied Pilots Association ("APA")—have each filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. Those motions shall be granted.
Given the unique legal and regulatory context of airline seniority integration, it is helpful to first set out a brief history of the principles implicated in this case before describing Plaintiffs' specific factual allegations.
Airline seniority integration was historically regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) as part its holistic review of proposed airline mergers. In 1950, the CAB first imposed "labor protective provisions" (LPPs) on an airline merger to ensure that the employees of both pre-merger airlines were treated fairly. United–Western, Acquisition of Air Carrier Prop. , 11 C.A.B. 701, 709–10 (1950). Two years later, the Board devised the first iteration of what would become the standard seniority integration LPP when it mandated that seniority integration take place "on the basis of an agreement between the carrier and the representatives of the employees affected." Braniff–Mid–Continent Merger Case , 15 C.A.B. 708, 720 (1952). Later that year, faced with a merger in which one airline's workers were not unionized, the LPP was modified to require integration "in a fair and equitable manner," with an option for mandatory arbitration if negotiations were unsuccessful. Delta–Chi. & S. Merger Case , 16 C.A.B. 647, 660 (1952). After consistently applying this framework for 20 years, the CAB added an LPP providing for an optional default arbitration protocol during its oversight of the merger between Allegheny and Mohawk Airlines. See Allegheny–Mohawk Merger Case , 59 C.A.B. 19, 45, 49 (1972). Sections 3 and 13 of the LPPs articulated in that case, which became known as the "Allegheny–Mohawk LPPs," are relevant here. Section 3 provides that employees involved in a merger of airlines will have their separate seniority lists combined in a "fair and equitable manner," and that, if the parties cannot agree on a fair and equitable manner, any party may submit the dispute for binding arbitration as set forth in section 13.
Following the disestablishment of the CAB in 1985, there was no regulatory mechanism for enforcing the Allegheny–Mohawk LPPs, although they continued to appear as contractual provisions in collective bargaining agreements. Employees' recourse for an abrogation of the LPPs was to sue their union alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.
The shortcoming of enforcing the LPPs through contract was exposed in 2001, when the union representing pilots for Trans World Airlines ("TWA") waived its members' Allegheny–Mohawk protections in negotiations to merge with American Airlines. This caused TWA pilots to be placed on the integrated seniority list based on their date of initial employment with the merged airline (i.e. , below every pre-existing American Airlines pilot). In response, the two United States Senators from Missouri (where TWA was based)—James Talent and Christopher "Kit" Bond—attempted to codify the Allegheny–Mohawk LPPs into federal law. Their effort was initially unsuccessful, but in 2007 Senator Bond and Senator Claire McCaskill (who succeeded Senator Talent), secured the enactment of the McCaskill–Bond Amendment through which sections 3 and 13 of the CAB's labor protective provisions became statutory law. See Pub. L. 110–161, Division K, Title I § 117 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note).
Although airline seniority integrations are always challenging, the American Airlines–US Airways merger announced in late 2012 presented uniquely difficult circumstances. As an initial complication, US Airways had not yet resolved its seniority integration following its 2005 merger with America West Airlines. Compl. ¶ 124. Moreover, American Airlines and US Airways pilots were represented by different unions, presenting a conflict over which union would be certified to represent the unified post-merger pilot group. Compl. ¶ 4. Finally, prior to the merger, American Airlines pilots enjoyed much higher compensation and benefits than their counterparts at US Airways, as well as more opportunities for international routes on larger aircraft. Compl. ¶ 118. More details regarding those difficulties follows.
US Airways entered the merger with American Airlines plagued by the lingering seniority dispute following its merger with America West in 2005. Although one union—the Air Line Pilots Association ("ALPA")—represented both groups of pilots in the US Airways–America West merger, a negotiated seniority integration was not reached and the matter proceeded to arbitration. Compl. ¶¶ 82–89. The arbitration panel chaired by Gary Nicolau issued an award (the "Nicolau Award"), which was submitted to and approved by US Airways in late 2007. Compl. ¶¶ 90–93. Legacy US Airways pilots believed the Nicolau Award failed to protect their interests and defected from ALPA to form a new union—the US Airline Pilots Association ("USAPA")—which unseated ALPA as the certified bargaining representative for all US Airways pilots. Compl. ¶¶ 94–95. USAPA then blocked implementation of the Nicolau Award and promoted an alternative integrated seniority list. Compl. ¶ 96. Several years of litigation failed to resolve the dispute, and US Airways continued to operate with two seniority lists—the "East" pilots (pre-merger US Airways pilots) and the "West" pilots (former America West pilots)—all of whom were represented by USAPA. Compl. ¶¶ 97–100.
When American Airlines and US Airways announced their merger in 2012, American Airlines pilots were represented by the Allied Pilots Association ("APA"), while USAPA continued to represent US Airways pilots. Compl. ¶ 102. At the time, American Airlines pilots outnumbered US Airways pilots nearly two-to-one.3
Shortly after the merger was announced, the two unions and the two airlines negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") that set forth the procedures for combining the labor forces of the two airlines. Compl. ¶¶ 103, 147(b). The MOU was based on the 2012 collective bargaining agreement between American Airlines and APA, and provided that the US Airways pilots' pre-existing collective bargaining agreement would be nullified upon the completion of the merger. Compl. ¶¶ 104, 147(b). With respect to seniority integration, the MOU provided that the process would be conducted according to the requirements of the McCaskill–Bond Amendment. Compl. ¶ 104. USAPA provided the MOU to its members and solicited a vote; APA did not seek membership feedback but nonetheless approved the agreement. Compl. ¶¶ 107–08. The parties signed the MOU in February 2013 and it took effect on the date of the merger: December 9, 2013. Compl. ¶¶ 108–09.
In September 2014, the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- trueEX, LLC v. MarkitSERV Ltd., 17–cv–3400 (LAK)
-
Bakos v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
...and equitable manner," as required by McCaskill-Bond.2 The District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Bakos v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 3d 729 (E.D. Pa. 2017). The Court rejected Plaintiffs' claim that the APA acted arbitrarily and in bad faith when it failed to seek memb......
-
State ex rel. Mcclair v. State Emp't Relations Bd., L–17–1061
...violation of the duty of fair representation because the first two steps would not have altered the outcome); Bakos v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 266 F.Supp.3d 729, 745–46 (E.D.Pa. 2017), quoting Rupcich at 854 (regarding claims of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith negotiations, actual harm ......
-
Starcher v. Ameridrives Int'l, C.A. No. 16-314 Erie
...motive for the union activity, and "substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct." Bakos v. American Airlines, Inc., 266 F.Supp.3d 729, 744 (E.D.Pa. 2017), quoting Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Emp. of America v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 27......