in the disputes between the parties in the labor relations between the parties the federal courts stay out of it and they don't decide the issues and most disputes under the railway labor act either fall under the category of major disputes or minor disputes doesn't mean they're big or small issues it essentially means what kind of a dispute is it for a minor dispute in this is conrail from the united states supreme court ruling also followed this a minor dispute is is there an agreement or something in place that involves that interpretation is there an arguable basis somewhere in the c b a or in either in its implied terms that covers this dispute and if if there is some arguable basis and that's a very broad look i mean if there's any way to find it to be a minor dispute the courts have said it should be a minor dispute so that's the default position here it seems that the opinion of the district court move toward major dispute in in a couple ways but one i'm wondering about is it correct to say was the district court correct to say that there that negotiations now with the formerly nonunion flex jets converts quite a bit of this into a major dispute no because the there are actually that this is a minor dispute and judge by the way it should we say what we're talking about with that pronoun which is a minor dispute ok so let's first talk about the there's there's kind of a couple different shapes the first is the integrated seniority list so the judge when sort of the contrail analysis said you first look at the c b a in place that would apply to the situation in any way and find out whether that's there's an arguable basis it applies to the situation there is a c b s flight options and it dictates  one point five c one how the process is to go it's a pretty detailed process and it also set some condition precedent for what's required for us as for the merging the seniority list of the two both sides so it's not a major dispute because you're not negotiates it's right there in that c b a you're not negotiating for something new right the list itself in the end may be something new but ultimately we're talking about the process and both sides agree that the process is laid out new statute there's not much case law on it and there was a question about what is the carrier's obligation and mccaskill bot are we supposed to be a participant in this under mccaskill by not we didn't ask for an interpretation of the c b a we're asking the court to interpret federal law and what would you expect what we what we what would what would materialize from the district court that you would be that would fall within that realm and keep the district court out of anything else so yeah we came to the district court for a very narrow issue i know you say that but i'm wondering what you how you envision what was the court's supposed to do if the if the court reacted in the way that you had hoped what would it i thought that the question was fair and is is whatever fair and equitable now ok that was that was not at all we were going to the court over was the process whether or not the carrier has a right to participate in the process ok just to interpret the new the new macaskill by direct and it isn't it clear in the statute that that's what i thought i mean it's says in the statute that the carrier why did you need a court to declare something well we thought it was the appropriate venue to go to because it's a federal law and ignore the contract ignore the fact that there's also a contractual provision so we suisse we actually said to the court look all we want is an interpretation of federal law we understand we're going back to arbitrate this under the contract so we weren't asking for the court to decide the ultimate issue basically just a small piece of it on the front end that was it and the court sort of went on and went much further than that ultimately  there and so that is that's clearly a minor dispute but one of the issues is the union says the carrier has the union took a position that the kerry has no right to be part of this process ok what's a minor  when the union in the carrier are negotiating over something new and they're trying to come to an agreement that's what a major dispute is right so if the union says the carrier has no right to be a part of this at all how is that a major dispute because we're not negotiating anything we're not even the the unions arguing that we don't have a right to be there or do anything at all so they put your so your argument is that this whole mess should go back to  arbitration and they could all be done as one perhaps but ultimately whether the list is fair and equitable but then when they counter claim to for arbitration why didn't you just agree there they can apply for a lot of other things as well i mean we could have i guess we could potentially agree but there are a lot of other things thrown at us there asking for attorney's fees and a bunch of other things and there was there was some attempts to come a resolution but those were never successful so they were saying that they threw up they threw a bunch of things we win in for a very narrow issue they threw you know ten things at the wall and sort of went went off on a bunch of other issues as well we're right but when you win i could be mistaken so and maybe i should praise that more of a question when you went in and they asked for relief one of the things you were asking for well was one of the things you were asking for were for the court to order arbitration yes but actually and this is i think this is worth bringing up both sides in their pleadings when asking for arbitration neither side asked judge quinn to decide whether this list was fair enough that it will both sides win in the say because if it's a major dispute w the judge should do is not weigh in on the dispute and decide whether it's right who's right or wrong that's not what federal courts are for if it's a minor dispute what they say is i'm going to enjoin the status quo and you guys go back and go shake take either if am i with us for declaratory judgment we did it but what was what was the court to declare i'd still want to know considering what you why you invoked the jurisdiction of a court we asked we asked that the representatives collectively bargain with us over this list i didn't think that's what it said at all it's paragraph one of our complete marketplace paragraph one i thought you were having the court take on a legal issue about the the  it be well it's a good question and this one gets a little bit tricky i would say the issue under macaskill bond and both it's covered by the c b i as well and there's a couple different ways you can deal with  spew over the meaning of the c b s a then that would be something that would be arbitrated in the question would be does the c essentially refused to include us or arbitrate or do anything over our participation i don't understand that so we were we were in the end under because we couldn't come into the court and say under the c b i a order out of arbitration and the system board that's  that's a essentially would be a minor dispute i know so they would could have arbitrated whether your participation is required that's what we were we were seeking a federal court order to compel the union determination that we must collectively bargain with the carriers for a fair and equitable seniority lists of the first thing we ask for is that we be allowed to participate in the collective bargaining the union refused to allow us to participate in the collective bargaining over this issue and your argument was confusion about what the declaratory judgment was to declare but if you want to say it had it be declared you had a right at the table that's it that's that's it and we were so we were first asking that and then we said that ultimately this proceed to the you know proceed to a arbitration that's why i put your argument now is almost the exact opposite which is that the question of whether you are entitled to a seat at the table l and determine that it's fair and equitable i got that's ok let's talk about the separation agreement explain to standing is that there's been a new development and basically the court has but the voluntary separation is part of this case is that still is your position that that is that some proud of us still it's in front of you still and there's so there's two you there's two different v that are going on here and there's two different analyses one is under the flex jet side there is a very clear there's no status quo and we can go out unilaterally and change work rules and offer the b s p to the flex jet pilots there's nothing there for him it's that judge going didn't address that issue at all that the status quo to gether basically lumped the to be like the two together which is inappropriate because you when you argue did you argue separately for each group we did we did we said there are two different that there are two different issues one is the flex jet side that has no status quo and the union ig admitted there is no status quo they said that in their brief to you that there is no status quo in the carrier can absolutely go off ok and then the the matter that was recently decided did that apply to both groups it did under his order so that order was recently issued and honestly we're still deciding what to do with that order is it still within the time period to that it was not covered by the c b a and to go bargain on both ok it was it he was he committed error on the flex jet side because there is no status quo and there is and the cases are clear weight if you look at williams versus jackson terminal number those cases it's clear that the carrier can actually go and change those rules and does not have to bargain with and what they're playing with respect to the other so in the other there are a number of cases that we cited on page forty two to forty four of our brief where the courts have found that in this instance where there is no specific that there's not a specific contract provision it would be an implied term of the management rights to go out and offer these b s p's so we believe that's a minor dispute as well under sewer line and a number of other cases that we've cited in there there's been a handful of cases that have held very similar issues very similar issued ayers that that is a minor dispute even though there's not a specific provision al arbitration yes and so the on the if they dispute it they can float would happen is they file a grievance and it goes to arbitration they went to federal court and said judge e seemed like minor disputes in two major was the joint c b a the new newly negotiated in j c b a and i don't know what your answer was to bat because has gone too far in that because the union has said in their brief that there is no status quo and that c b a does not apply the flex to pilots they said in their appellate brief on page forty seven so there is no c b a over there and that doesn't change it into a it doesn't turn it into a major dispute but it seemed to be it got to be a j c b a somehow in the ordering that alternately there will be a negotiation over one but essentially what the what the flight options contract contemplates and this is contained within it it's nothing new it's gets contained within there but it's it's it's simply makes a place for the flex jet pilots to ultimately be folded in but it doesn't spring forth and apply to them and judge going to his recent ruling i think is committing an error in i mean you can say that it's not time for the j c b a yet but if the unions write about that paper fill their obligations with respect to the the i cell then that time has come that it sets out the steps and that's proceeding forward i mean that's that's that's actually the j c b a negotiations are alternately are proceeding and then with respect to the flight in itself mean that they should maintain the status quo and that's it that's a common lisp if if for people to do more of the m l r a work that's actually an unfair labor practice you're required to do that under the railway labor act the cases that we cited wheeling regional airline pilots association the number of cases their own page i think forty two to forty four of our brief i'm sorry because there are a number there are a number of cases that say there is there is no status quo even in the midst of your negotiation so once you start negotiating you you are allowed to make unilateral changes that's absolutely clear because the railway labor act prohibitions only apply to the status quo for a collective bargaining agreement when they agreement is in place but until there is an agreement in place the law is absolute there are no cases that say you're prohibited from making unilateral changes until you get to an agreement i think would judge what judge quinn sort of one of his error here here is you know sort of delving into minor disputes and and concluding them and saying this is who i agree with this is the proper remedy yours to send you to arbitration yes it is and pilots case in the ninth circuit the new union it's elected the party sit down and start negotiating a new c b a the company changes one of its pay rules over how tips or done and the union goes to court and says they have to sit down and negotiate it with this they can't they can't go out and just do this and the ninth circuit said yes they can there's no prohibition in the railway labor act that the company can't make changes to the c b a excuse me make changes to the work rules and like we don't know why you look at it and tell us why you did it i think the appropriate thing because it's it's from the record it's extremely clear that flex jet has no c b s at and the union did not dispute that there was no status quo there that's the end of the inquiry we get to make the unilateral change there is no there's no more finding that needs to be done on that and in the final two points up a dozen over the time but the fountain points are on a normal gloria they're certainly not the need for an injunction here it's certainly not required under norris awardee of the case could have proceeded to arbitration there was no need for the judge to be issued and then the final point is the court found that the parent companies were carriers the court didn't find that the court looked at the agreement that the parent companies had big ballon terribly become parties too but they're still not a carrier they're not up there and they're actually not of there they're a there's a parent letter that binds them but that doesn't make them a carrier of the railway labor act they are subject to the agreement but they're not subject to the railway labor act because they're not carriers it defines it and sets out what a carrier is has to be providing transportation by air this is just a question why why was the injunction improper on the v s b on the other side because that was a minor dispute it should not have been enjoined we should be we should go back in and arbitrate the issue and the carrier is allowed if it's a minor dispute weight would you be doing interest arbitration or grievance arbitrate grievance arbitration and the carrier is allowed if this is a minor dispute the carrier is allowed to impose bent the rules or whatever the changes the carriers actually allow to implement that while the dispute is pending before then the the only reason you're able to say it's a minor just is because you believe that the ok they said you know you have to go through the furlough it violates furlough doesn't violate furlough it can come alongside and work in parallel with furlough that we're trying to avoid a furlough with in the past you did arpa trait this that right the v s p issue no that's not i know you made reference to judge quinn's recent ruling what other matters are out there pending right now i know there was an open arbitration proceeding or something that was scheduled on the date of this argument and one party sought to continue the argument what's what still out there one of the things that we need to know about well there's a number of other grievances out there pending in this is the build up that would be at least drumming to our consideration ok so for example this this court's decision on the i s l is important because that triggers the negotiations to come to the interest arbitration a negotiations to commence for the integrated agreement and if this court sets aside the cell that would conceivably be under the contract or sort of a sequence of events and if there's a default timidly let's say however long from now on this stuff all i mean under the airlines it does tend to take forever i agree it takes a long time but there's a lot at stake and you want to get it right but if the ira changes let's say for example we go back and we arbitrate the i c l and it changes what it is that changes that potentially changes negotiations that changes maybe what the positions are that the parties take on the bargaining on what we need to do to break these people are these people so subcontractor order issue dealing with sco but that's that's normal that those kind of cases proceed ok well thank you we asked a lot of questions of but you'll still have your rebuttal time thank you  from the unions the national not just association of shared our aircraft pilots the teamsters inflection in the flight options we also have the airline pilots association represented from not that it might be rather easy for them all to get one can airport is out it would like to have that part down this is new to them though and sort of new to us because with this particular employer this is the third time we've been to federal court for firing union supporters getting people or jobs back we want to couple times judge quinn this is the very very difficult for us to deal with i have to clear the air on some of the things that opposing counsel has said here because the court had some really important questions the issue not be i s l but the issue whether you were required to involve them in the eye of because it seems to me that that's a matter of contract interpretation well your honor the answer to that is no because the contract expressly says expressly says this is a contract that only with flight operations with flight options right i mean right options right but it necessarily remind you the net are mind you it necessarily effects but both pilot groups because when you put the flex jet list together play options list in the flex jet which is the formally nonunion that we represent it's going to affect  position is ok they're both on the list and the contract says absolutely clearly that the company shell except the list it says that this is a union but that is an issue that you go to the arbitrator and you say look at the contract it six clear is day if you believe it is better we accept our list well your  and this judge has recognized the most recent decision just delaying everything the lawsuit under mechanical bond was a monkey wrench to stop us from ever getting a contract because they want to decertify us after the two you're him be national mediation now to judge white's question which is really important that conflicting though that you shall ing accept the list with the law that says you must ensure that it's fair and equitable well done mind you mccaskill bond which incorporates allegheny mohawk that's standard free in thirteen that's an arbitration statute that's all it is if there's any questions about the list it goes to an arbitrator for   not subject to the minor dispute doctrine right because meyer dispute dr who goes to the system where of adjustment on the railway labor act and they have exclusive jurisdiction this is a different type of arbitration statutory operation and it's mentioned in the contract under one point five c one and for our purposes we tried to go to arbitration because the company would not accept the list of the contract which we filed for allegheny mohawk they filed for a state of arbitration they have always always argued through judge when they have argued in their papers and before him in the transcript that we should be going arbitration now we're before you and they're saying they want to go to arbitration but the point of the matter is although opposing counsel the said this cases don't come much too much the fact of the matter is under we've the wheeling case which is this course most recent decision when we talk about shell wheeling versus lake here the shall be in shell yet they shall accept a list what they've done is a ceded the authority to the union to come up with a list and amongst the committees and give the list to the company they would settle this and that triggers the interest arbitration you have a c b a that says that the agreement is to follow the teamster policy yes ok there is no teams or policy well there is that there's evidence in the record that there that there was a de facto policy correct yes the allegations that they've made in the  incorrect now mind you in this case your honor and i'm sorry for interrupting well it would be useful if you answered my question if they are a teamster polly yes and can you tell me where we find that in the record it's in it so that with a transcript of the testimony our expert testimony from frederick c dubinsky he testified about what the policy of the teamster is and and how they have emulated the apple policy in the industry his testimony was an rebut it the management in this to teams the record page id eleven twenty nine he said the teamster policy is they accept it or adopted the good parts of the album merger policy which is prevalent in the united states and has been for decades and that's how that what the industry he testified about what the industry does here which is the company's except a list they stay out of the burger process ok so you've got a contract that says that they are to accept the lists yes and the statute applies when there is not where  grabbing the incorporating allegheny mo uk says in section two the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that meet be a political to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a cover air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered it doesn't affect the language in one point five c of the teamsters contract it all right yes i agree with you you are proceeding under the thirty right under the car right so your honor if for purposes of status quo violation which at this is and whether the judge abuses discretion which is a very high standard that they have not met totally irrelevant it was because we're talking about now well we which kind of changed changed path on the flight options i'm sorry up on the flight options contract a status school violation is when the company unilaterally changes the terms of the contract it's not even arguable and that's wheeling vs lake erie shall mean shall that means the same thing here shall mean shall there's no exceptions there are no exceptions that the company has what dish are we quo violation can occur when the company unilaterally changes a term that is clear in the contract and that's what's happened here they refuse to accept less they have an unconditional obligation to accept it that's what judge when found in and is that an abuse of discretion or so every violation of the c b a is the fattest quo violation because by effectively not complying with the written language you are imposing a new provision absolutely not absolutely not your honor what the courts have said conrail the test is whether the manager's position about his interpretation of the comp the contract i obviously insubstantial is basically a frivolous argument and when you have an if then statement like there shall be a conductor in great lake on every train or here they shall accept the list if it's an if then statement and they're saying that they don't have to comply with that if then statement just for them saying it doesn't turn it into arguably justifiable rather it's frivolous and are you talking about the frivolous baktun right now i just you're jumping all over and i'm not is covered by the contract why isn't it a minor dispute because they have refused to follow the contract and their arguments for refusing to follow the contract are obviously  insubstantial under conrail it is just a unilateral change it's not a breach it's a unilateral change of the contract as you would as you would have under the n l r b law and that becomes a major that and that's what makes it major i mean that's what judge white says can you yes absolutely become that renders it a major court prop a court problem and that's the same with the vs pete we have language with the voluntary separation program that says for reduction in force you follow the  to flex because we judge when found that this was a violation of direct dealing and that's an unfair labor practice or violation of the aurally in and of itself under the brother where brother brett cases the brotherhood of when did we find that  by directly deal tell them about the option to take money and leap is that direct dealing individually doing an end around the union when we have a section six notice bar to bargain with that's i mean that's the hawk that we say well you're supposed to have a joint c b a which we don't yet ab and we're told by this council that under the railway labor act until there is a signed agreement there's no no such obligation against  dealing for example there is the obligation of the good self dealing you regardless of whether it's a newly unionized environment or not absolutely and that has been the case since the separation program we have clear language in the contract they do unilaterally change it that is the basis for a railway labor act injunction and that and judge wins decision was absolutely correct in making those determinations they absolutely consistent with this court's analysis of why i don't i'm sorry i don't understand why you still don't have to arbitrate why the arbitrator doesn't get to say the union has every right to do this well the status quo doctrine which is under the railway labor act that that i did you know was it is a fundamental agreement or a decision by the supreme court in down that you don't have to arbitrate frivolous disputes that the player has no are good faith argument to make and rather when the p which is from two thousand and fifteen you know the judge said yes absolutely this is a complete rewriting of the contract and if you're rewriting the contract that allows the income the company to violate the self help rule  if it's really a major dispute the company hand made a riddle with claim that it's covered by the contract and turned it into a minor  yes yes that's not what's happening here but i submit that their claims in this regard your honor there are their claims in this regard that they have the ability to be part of union meetings over the over the integrated your list they have which it would violate the railway labor act surveillance of employees or that they have the ability to pick as a representative or argue about them regarding the composition of the flex committees that's another thing that would violate section two nights of th testimony in the record which was expert testimony hypothetically and i'm not i'm trying to give you a chance to tell me why my thinking is convoluted o hypothetically big could have a role and we know that because the statute leaves open the possibility of arbitrating such an issue it possibility it but it's not may end do you do it's not a right it's a possibility and the reason that doesn't apply years because you have a contract that says something else so where is there a pace that says that if the union has a right under the contract when the employer comes in and argues that they don't have that right and they try to do whatever that it no longer has to go through the proper route of having an arbitrator declare you don't have that right he needs absolutely right but good it properly the next step is to bargain and that's what you do where is the case that says that you don't have to follow that procedure you can go to court you know wheeling wheeling absolutely says that which is that in that case the facts are almost identical you know changed change the words you know in that case the court the management in that case was staffing the train with management folks in the contract because the contract is silent it really doesn't express lee say that we can't we use management folks to stay off the train and judge strand in opinion said this presents a major speech because the language is clear the language with respect to the sonority list and the v s p it's clear both of those situations the company is just doing what it wants as opposed to was a contract and it's not just our it has some arguable case in the contract but there's a breach working you know we'll hash it out at a system board of adjustment it's absolutely clear and that's what judge when found now we had in this case abundance of testimony man instrument did not put on a single shred of evidence all of this is credibility on from our witnesses with the judge was entitle to find entitle to realize in a title to rely upon so i think with respect to it that in the big picture  we have the company of the c e o of the company ken rickey and we put him there caught on tape where he testified where he where he told all the pilots is interpretation of the contract the company's interpretation and how everything would merge we played that for the judge and ken ricky like dirty pool well we had it he gave the tape to everybody but you know this is you know you're caught on tape he said the first order of business in this new audi gratian is the union integrates a list right the union integrates ellis and that was him defining exactly if you could see this in the record the union's position here now they've taken a different tack because they want to delay us from ever getting a contract but i  know my time is expired a long time ago but i would just like to say for all the pilots in the room they do not they want to get a contract with the supplier that's all we've ever done and the roadblocks that have been thrown up as recognized by judge quinn into court orders ok are absolutely not a legal argument or you are on the on the stage for that for your colleagues that's not right that's not what we're here part ok you know your honor on both of these points with respect to the  status quo that which i was going to say way into i think i think you fundamentally those are both questions of huge importance under the railway labor act the doctrine that the management cannot change the contract been term for our purposes this is the central design according to detroit shoreline central design management cannot engage in self help by changing the contract and we can't strike  want your position is different it's that it becomes direct dealing yes yes and i think if you read those bread cases that we cited in our brief you are it will clearly show to you that direct eeling like this factually indistinguishable offering a lump sum payment even without just talking you know even out without just without talking or in this case the evidence is in the record about how the company had individual green was for with people it's an enron the union as the exclusive representative of this group were voted in they may not like it but the end in b has voted to sin and we represent them they don't represent flex ship pilots either for the s we're for the v s p we represent him they can't go around our back because you know what when they do that the undermined the union now in forever if you imagine a lawyer i'm not going to go and the other just told that they have do honor an agreement between them regarding the over the judge's recent order yes yes on january the twenty fourth or he found that the company in the union reached an agreement on the voluntary separation program both for flight up sions and for flex ship and he said that there were if they renewed on it they refused to sign it he's ordering that them to sign it as a matter of railway labor act long just like under the in the lobby so the companies ordered to sign that agreement let's say that that done and there's no appeal does that take care of the is you know i think from our standpoint i think it does yeah i mean you will appeal to the company doesn't think so i take it that they they say they still they don't they don't think there was a valid order from the district that's a whole other issue which you have every right to appeal but the question is should you decide if you end up not appealing does that make the vs the issue before us mo it does not because the issue deals with some more fundamental principles because right now on the record there is judge when saying that there is some nebulous status quo or something over it flexed it flex that's not what makes things  it has to do with what we you want it's the same history but there's and there's also you know this is this is the been the first case i think in history that's held that there are some status quo and a carrier that doesn't have you know a contract out there i mean this is an extremely dangerous precedent that we think cannot go and do you have a case that deals with this particular situation where there is a  a group of now unionized people who are working under a contract but there's pending negotiations for and for the cases that understand your question so the the flex jet pilots are not working under any contract it's purely company work rules there is no contract at all and no terms are conditions or anything that applies to flex right now once that happens and they are under a contract in there is some status quo to start from asking whether your case is the deal that say there's no status quo rule when it comes to non unionized employees or they become unionized you do you have a case that applies to the in the where they are in the process of being represented juror up all the kit so all the cases that i've cited in my brief deal with a situation where it was a formally non unionized group they elect a representative and then there a absolutely absolutely clear on that judge white i think you made a great point about this issue of the contract in the minor dispute in kind of focusing in on that and we never said we don't we've always understood that there is an interpretation involved with one point five have two people running a train that's essentially the gist of it in our case this section that says you shall except the list is surrounded by a lot of conditions precedent is surrounded by it goes through all these processes and then it does all this and it goes through allegheny mohawk three and thirteen it's got to be fair and equitable and then it says it can't cause a system flush it can't cause any pilots to be displaced it has a lot of conditions on it and so you accept the list is subject to all those conditions it's different than wheeling because in wheeling there was just an unequivocal you shall and nothing else when i make sure you answer any questions the judge white or the cook would have but your time has expired so you know because so here's another point and i think you started down this path perhaps the carrier has not and you are asking mr petrofsky questions about this the carrier has not instituted a change to the contract where we went out and said we are going to now do this differently like a work rule like a work rule we didn't go out and change anything this is all proceeding under the procedure what we've what we've said is we disagree that this is an appropriate list there's a disagreement over the interpretation of it not up and so wheeling in all these cases enjoying things when the caterer goes out and takes an affirmative action to change the contract and he keeps saying change the contract change the contract we didn't change the contract we said we have a dispute over what this contract means and that is a minor dispute that has to go down that road in the direct dealing with the wrap up the direct dealing cases that mr petroff cites that for his premise involved individual agreements that were specifically negotiated one by one over amounts and basically the pilots would come in and they would haggle over how much the amount was going to be the cases and cite basically it was just a cross the board here's the deal come in and get it if you want it but there's no drug dealing would be you sit down and