U.S. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–CV–2579 (ARR) (SMG).,11–CV–2579 (ARR) (SMG).
• Parties: U.S. AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION, by its president Michael CLEARY, Plaintiff, v. U.S. AIRWAYS, INC., and U.S. Airways Group, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

859 F.Supp.2d 283

U.S. AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION, by its president Michael CLEARY, Plaintiff,

v.U.S. AIRWAYS, INC., and U.S. Airways Group, Inc., Defendants.

No. 11–CV–2579 (ARR) (SMG).

United States District Court,

E.D. New York.

March 16, 2012.

Brian O'Dwyer, Gary Silverman, Joy K. Mele, Zachary Richard Harkin, O'Dwyer & Bernstien LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Robert A. Siegel, China R. Rosas, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

AMENDED OPINION & ORDER^*

ROSS, District Judge.

U.S. Airline Pilots Association (“plaintiff” or “USAPA”) brings this action against U.S. Airways, Inc., and U.S. Airways Group, Inc. (“defendants,” “US Airways,” or “the company”), for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88. USAPA alleges that U.S. Airways has interfered with its employees' collective bargaining rights, has failed to maintain the status quo during an ongoing “major” dispute, has not bargained in good faith to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, and has failed to exert every reasonable effort to settle disputes between the parties. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion is granted.¹

BACKGROUND²

In 2005, U.S. Airways merged with America West Airlines into a single airline known as U.S. Airways. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14; Decl. of Beth Holdren in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 26) (“Holdren Decl.”) ¶ 4. In conjunction with the merger, on September 23, 2005, U.S. Airways entered into a Transition Agreement with the Airline Pilots Association (“ALPA”), the union representing the pilot workforces of both pre-merger airlines. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 19, 25; Holdren Decl. ¶ 4. Under the terms of the Transition Agreement, the two pilot workforces would remain separate and covered by their pre-merger collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) until a new agreement was concluded.³ Am. Compl. ¶ 20; Holdren Decl. ¶ 4. The Transition Agreement obliged the parties to negotiate a single, integrated CBA applicable to both the pre-merger U.S. Airways pilots (“East pilots”) and the former American West pilots (“West pilots”). Moreover, it served as notice, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 156 (“Section 6”), of “an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” Am. Compl. ¶ 27.

I. Negotiations Towards an Integrated CBA

Following the execution of the Transition Agreement, ALPA and U.S. Airways began direct negotiations for a single CBA. Id. ¶ 28; Holdren Decl. ¶ 4. U.S. Airways and ALPA engaged in more than sixty days of negotiations and reached tentative agreements “on fourteen entire sections and many components of the remaining sixteen sections of the proposed single agreement.” Holdren Decl. ¶ 8. In 2007, U.S. Airways made a comprehensive proposal, known as the Kirby Proposal, whose proposals on pilot compensation and benefits—which remain active proposals to date—would increase U.S. Airways' expense by more than $120 million per year. Id. ¶¶ 8, 11. The majority of that increase in expense would go towards bringing the salaries of East pilots in line with the higher salaries of West pilots. Decl. of Paul DiOrio (Dkt. No. 34) (“DiOrio Decl.”) ¶ 24 n. 2. Negotiations ceased in September 2007 after the East ALPA Executive Council passed a resolution to withdraw from collective bargaining negotiations. Holdren Decl. ¶ 5. In April 2008, USAPA replaced ALPA as the U.S. Airways pilots' certified bargaining representative and became a party to the pre-merger CBAs. Am. Compl. ¶ 21; Holdren Decl. ¶ 5.

In June 2008, USAPA and U.S. Airways recommenced negotiations for an integrated CBA. Am. Compl. ¶ 22; Holden Decl. ¶ 6. USAPA's position, which it communicated to U.S. Airways, was that the CBA should be representative of the contracts between other comparable carriers and their pilots in a post September 11th, non-bankruptcy era. DiOrio Decl. ¶¶ 19–21. In the summer and fall of 2008, USAPA reopened for negotiations eight or nine sections on which U.S. Airways and ALPA had reached tentative agreements. Holden Decl. ¶ 9; DiOrio Decl. ¶ 22. US Airways also reopened approximately three such sections. DiOrio Decl. ¶ 22. Direct negotiations between the parties continued until April 2009, when USAPA proposed jointly applying to the National Mediation Board (“NMB”) for mediation services pursuant to the RLA. Am Compl. ¶¶ 33, 35. During this period, the company's proposals had not significantly deviated from the content of the Kirby Proposal. DiOrio Decl. ¶ 24. Defendants declined mediation before the NMB and invoked their right, pursuant to the transition agreement, to seek private mediation. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38; Holdren Decl. ¶ 6. The parties participated in private mediation from June to December 2009 but did not reach an agreement. Holdren Decl. ¶ 6; DiOrio Decl. ¶ 27. In November 2009, USAPA applied to the NMB for assistance with the ongoing contract negotiations; and, over U.S. Airways' objections, the parties commenced mediation sessions under the supervision of the NMB in May 2010. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41–42; Holdren Decl. ¶ 7.

Collective bargaining sessions under the auspices of the NMB have been held monthly from May 2010 to present. HoldrenDecl. ¶ 7; Decl. of Dean Colello (Dkt. No. 33) (“Colello Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4. During the period from May 2010 to May 2011, the sessions lasted approximately three consecutive days per month; since approximately May 2011, the parties have met three-and-one-half consecutive days per month. Colello Decl. ¶¶ 3–4. At some point, USAPA proposed that the monthly negotiations sessions be doubled, but the NMB responded that additional sessions were feasible only if the parties could make progress on an integrated CBA. DiOrio Decl. ¶ 36. Regular attendees at the bargaining sessions for U.S. Airways are its Vice President of Labor Relations; Vice President of Flight Operations; Managing Director of Labor Relations, Flight; Senior Manager of Labor Relations, Flight; and an outside consultant. Holdren Decl. ¶ 12. The company also sometimes sends subject matter experts or other employees, as needed. Id. ¶ 12.

Since June 2008, U.S. Airways and USAPA have met nearly 110 times. Id. ¶ 8. To date, they have reached tentative agreements on eight of thirty sections of the CBA, namely: Moving Expenses, Deadheading, Miscellaneous Flying and Transfer to Non–Flying or Supervisory Duty, Physical Exams, Investigation and Discipline, Grievances, System Board of Adjustment, and Union Security and Dues Checkoff. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10. However, according to USAPA, little progress has been reached on “crucial issues such as pilot costs and scheduling.” Am. Compl. ¶ 34. The parties agree that the negotiations are not progressing satisfactorily. Id. ¶ 9; Am. Compl. ¶ 34. However, they differ in their explanations for why negotiations have not been more productive.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants are not bargaining in good faith towards an integrated CBA. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48–50; see DiOrio Decl. ¶ 37. According to USAPA negotiator Paul DiOrio, U.S. Airways has repeatedly made bargaining proposals that did not comport with comparable post-September 11th, non-bankruptcy era contracts “despite full awareness that USAPA would not accept those proposals;” has adopted a staffing methodology that substantially differs from that actually employed “to significantly overinflate the cost associated with USAPA's proposals;” and has consistently failed to respond to USAPA's proposals other than by reasserting their original position, saying no, or raising new objections. DiOrio Decl. ¶¶ 37–40. DiOrio states that, from July to December 2011, the company made very few or no proposals at each month's bargaining sessions. Supp. Decl. of Paul DiOrio (Dkt. No. 48) (“DiOrio Supp. Decl.”) ¶ 24.

USAPA points to a July 2011 email by a member of the U.S. Airways negotiation team as evidence of the company's goal of delaying and frustrating the collective bargaining process. Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) (“Pl.'s Mem.”) at 26. In the course of the parties' bargaining, “event data” ⁴ has been a significant issue because it affects staffing. Supp. Decl. of Beth Holdren in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 41) (“Holdren Supp. Decl.”) ¶ 6; DiOrio Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. The parties submitted their respective event data and analysis at sessions held in March, April, and June 2011, but they were unable to come to an agreement regarding the significance of the data. DiOrio Supp. Decl. ¶ 6. On July 10, 2011, before that month's negotiation sessions began, Beth Holdren, the Managing Director of Labor Relations, Flight, sent an email to the company's negotiating team. The email forwarded event data analysis received from Paul DiOrio and included the following comments:

Attached is USAPA's event data they plan to present during this next session.

As you'll recall, on our prep call I was not pleased that Paul decided to go back to analyzing the number of events. I'm not sure we want to engage in any response to them but in any case, this will kill a bit of time in the next session.

Colello Decl., Ex. 1. USAPA characterizes this last sentence as demonstrative of the company's delay tactics and evidence of its unlawful intent not to bargain for a new CBA. DiOrio Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5–7, 18.

US Airways disputes USAPA's characterization of the email. According to Holdren, the parties had agreed to put aside the event data analysis and return to traditional bargaining on the issue. Holdren Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 7–8. Holdren explains the email as expressing her “frustration with DiOrio's insistence on again discussing event data analysis in violation of the parties' agreement.” Id. ¶ 9. Holdren avers that her statement about “kill[ing] a bit of time” refers to the fact that U.S....