Contract Airline Services

"We are the protagonists of our stories called life, and there is no limit to how high we can fly."

PHD. MBA. MHS. Type rated on A350, A330, B777, B747-400, B747-200, B757, B767, B737, B727. International Airline Pilot / Author / Speaker. Dedicated to giving the gift of wings to anyone following their dreams. Supporting Aviation Safety through training, writing, and inspiration. Fighting for Aviation Safety and Airline Employee Advocacy. Safety Culture and SMS change agent.

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Airline Injustice

The RLA vs Court 

Imagine if a VP at an airline conspires to pay a doctor a large some of money to create a false medical diagnosis to remove a pilot from duty for reporting safety concerns. Retaliation does exist and the reason for the AIR 21 Law

Contractual requirements identify statute of limitations, so the pilot must file a grievance to not lose her options to return to work. However, she also learns there is a law that says it's illegal to retaliate against employees for reporting safety concerns. Therefore she files an AIR 21, which has a 90-day statute of limitations.

Image result for legal photo

The legal drama

The grievance process requires this pilot to sit before the VP who did the crime. He not only premeditated and authorized the action, but he is now the investigator, the judge and the jury. Of course, he denies any wrong-doing. The pilot soon learns the grievance process is not the path to success.

Pilots involved in an arbitral process have their cases adjudicated by arbitrators who are businessmen in constant search of the “periodical appointments” considered to be anathema to the judicial process by our Founding Fathers. Nonetheless, a grievant may expect a measure of rough justice because the arbitrator’s bread is buttered equally by two parties – her employer and her union.

Therefore the pilot soon learns that a courtroom is the better option for her safety concerns. In that the judge isn't working for either master, but for the safety of the traveling public. She drops her grievance and goes to court. 

Now, this pilot learns through discovery that the company violated the contract on a number of issues, in their attempt to alter the outcome. However, the judge is not ruling on the contractual violations, therefore she files a new grievance. Not much at stake, other than telling the company they are legally required to do this. While this process is pending, the trial ensues. 

After a 9-day grueling trial the judge announces his recommendation that the company should settle, but if they wanted to air their dirty laundry that would be their business decision. He would be ruling one year from the last date of trial. 

In the meantime the pilot goes to arbitration for the contractual violations. The company chooses to immediately use the five person board, instead of the first step of a four person. However, at this grievance the Arbitrator says he won't allow the grievance to proceed. Albeit flawed thinking, he believes there is a statute of limitations violation and won't allow the hearing to occur. Despite that the discovery producing the wrongdoings was months after the initial grievance was filed and subsequently dropped, and knowledge could not have possibly be obtained until the event happens.

Regardless, he says he'll think about it for 30 days. The only question on the table: “Are the two grievances procedurally and/or substantively arbitrable?” However, 5 months later the pilot is surprised by a motion filed by the Company who is now requesting a stay of ruling in the court case, to prove collateral estoppel.  Meaning, you can't try the same case twice.

Try the same case twice? This arbitrator's surprise ruling stated that since the pilot filed that initial grievance, and dropped it a year prior to trial, that the company won and had the right to take the action, that under a court of law is illegal. Therefore, they claim the judge must drop the case.  However, that grievance wasn't even on his table. Furthermore, no grievance was heard. Oh, but the plot thickens. While this was a surprise to the pilot, the union had this knowledge for close to two months.

How far does corruption go?

The company believes that they should disavow the 9-days in court, and stay the judge's ruling, all because that VP, who did the crime, was the investigator, judge, and jury, and had ruled against the pilot two years earlier. There is a legal motion under foot to undo the judges ruling...

Join Darby Bradshaw 
In her Fight For Justice! 

All this and more is
going into the next novel. 
The conspiracy continues...

ETA: February 2021

Until then.... please read, share,
and comment on:
Flight For Truth 

How far will they go?
You decide. 

Learn the scary details as to
why Darby Bradshaw 
is taking her Airline to Court
In these two novels...

All proceeds are going to the (real)
Darby Bradshaw's legal fees. 

Be prepared for 
the legal battle of the century! 

Enjoy the Journey!
OX Karlene 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment! If your comment doesn't appear immediately, it will after I land. Enjoy the journey!