the next case today is john l bryan versus american airlines incorporated at all appeal number twenty dash one thousand six hundred and ninety attorney shots please introduce yourself on the record stephen  doesn't get lost because of late their discussions of law of other issues they were in the briefs and in particular the parties have disagreed as to what extent an l r cases are relevant to basically on most part similar and that therefore the n r i presidents are useful and should be taken into account for the arly cases however there is one area that individuals must be allowed to participate in each is the other proceeding including settlements now in particular the one case i don't want to make sure it doesn't get lost in the long list of cases that we put in front of you is a case which judge vorhees was a judge from the the western district of washington intitled stevens versus teamsters  and in that case what judge for he's did was he declared that in an r l a case a participant and a grievance must be given the opportunity to take over a case if case in particular to your attention so it doesn't get lost is he runs through the various sections of the are late as to i'll they're different and what's relevant it runs through this supreme court history of interpret in th putting the law so that it rejected the ability to enter a global type settlements such or in this case at the expense of an individual grievance and in that case he comes to the conclusion that the individual must have been should have been there were three of them in that case given the opportunity to take over the case and i want to make sure i call that case your attention and it doesn't get lost let me move to the statute of limitations which obviously is discussed  in the breeze and in the lower court's opinion and i'm not going to tell you that i felt exactly fell off my seat when the defense raises a statute of limitations claim to our bringing in court a case where the grievance was seventeen years old but the fact is while it may be tempting to simply state that you can't bring in court a case involving a grievance a seventeen years old is simply not my client knew or should have known that the union was not acting on his case but the problem with that analysis is that's not the claim or minutes remaining we're not claiming that the duty of fair representation was violated because there was in action or that it took twenty one for action were claiming that the action that was take him in october two thousand and seventeen with only a perfunctory investigation and without any due liberation in that particular case that then f b i awaited the duty of your representation and we think that it told him that in june that june th of this year they'd be meeting with american airlines to discuss his case and in fact bunted was very careful and knowledgeable about stature limitations he brought this action on december not to do was in action but that the action that was taken and that the specific warnings he was given in two thousand and seventeen that the statute should run from october but even in the be conservative in any event it i'm sorry i understood the case the same way judge karen dead and i don't understand your answer i thought the case was about your client's initial grievance that  the union president put the kybosh on his getting the training he needed to be able to fly because the union and the unions as  he was going to retire shortly so it didn't or the company didn't make sense i thought that was what this case was about you are now saying no it's not about that it's about the failure to permit him to participate in the global negotiations with american airlines if i understood your argument of the r l a which requires the right to look at the time just the question of whether they just waited too long to take it is no longer before that is correct i'm not bringing that in did not  add do you have you address the statute of limitations what about the american airlines defense that  if you lose against the union you automatically lose against the airline and secondly the airlines certainly there's no evidence of bad faith and the lose against the unions no case against them and on the issue of whether or not i can bring a hybrid action against some bad faith should not be necessary we should simply that hybrid actions  ok thank you well i hear from your opponent attorney shots you if you could please your audio and video at this time and attorney robertson if you could please introduce yourself to the court you have four minutes yet however this court which reversed as the a p a issued affirmed the lower court's decision as to american based on either of the two alternative grounds held by the district court st the district court directly crew concluded that it does of something like collusion between the employer and the union which appellant concedes does not exist here in support of his holding the district court cited to the supreme court's decision in glob louis san francisco re railway company which explains why allegations of bhushan are required under the our way in globe are plaintiffs allege that their union was acting in concert with their employer to set up quote schemes and contrivances to bar african americans from promotion solely because of their race and that the employer and union were working quote hand in glove in that regard and what this reprint court held is that st of all they stated or was actually one between employees inside and the union and the employer together on the other hand your honour's a circuit's decision and rounds be brotherhood railway korman also cited by the district court is perhaps one of the most awful decisions addressing the issue and it analyzable over in some detail and what the a circuit concluded is that based on clover the most critical factor is whether the all lawsuit is essentially between and your honour's and this is the kind of the final link in the chain is this court's decision in stanton the delta airlines which follows the same reasoning in stanton this court analyzed the same question of whether subject matter jurisdiction existed o claim against an employer for allegedly breaching a c b s and as in go over this court focused on whether the union and the employer were to get other involved in creating the employees greetings and what this court held is that unlike  or the union an employer in stanton were not involved together in the creation of the employee's basic grievance citing globe or and the rounds decision for its conclusion sending it to the system board and so what you really have is this very straight line from globe are to roust stanton all holding that you must have the union employer acting together in other words clues in for the court to exercise jurisdiction over a hired claim against an aural a employer and in addition to those three decisions the owners of the th th th and th circuit have all either specifically held the same thing that allegations of pollution are required or at a minimum made statements supporting th and the only circuit court decision holding otherwise is the nd circuit's decision and show the south buffalo railway company what sean did is it failed to conduct the required analysis set forth and go over that the st circuit h previously followed and it also relied on cases arising under the l m r a which is what plaintiff does here as well but as the district court expressly held that it's time thank you employees and employers covered by the or union thank you mr robertson if you could please be your audio and your video and mr clark if you could please introduce yourself for the record good afternoon your honor is james clark for the allied pilots association  i would like to just i guess start off where mr schultz started off with respect to his assertion that under the r l a there is an individual right to take a case to and one has expressly held that an individual airline employee does not have an individual right to pursue arbitration under the our way the supreme court has made it clear in multiple cases vaca and otherwise that there is no absolute right to take a case to arbitration and in this case the plaintiff had no absolute right to take the case to  arbitration with respect to the statute of limitations issue to the district court found now of taking the interaction piece off the table the the events that took place with respect to the six month statute of limitation period going back to june of two thousand and seventeen which would be in the six months prior to when the complaint was filed  during that period of time a p a did did nothing to to provide the plaintiff with any belief that he was taking its his case to to a hearing he admits that that a p a never gave him any indication that it was pursuing his case to arbitration there is nothing in the record to support that a p a was was pursuing the case to arbitration it's clear that plaintive knew that a had been the marketing representative for the american the new american airlines pilot since two thousand and fourteen he he never even reached out to anybody about his grievance until two thousand and seventeen and at that point all he was told was it was open and there was going to be a meeting with the company there was never any reference to any effort to actually bring his case to arbitration pivot then just to the merits of the duty of fair representation claim here the claim is exclusively that that the union's actions were arbitrary the standard as this court has held in lighton and many other cases is quote a pretty high standard in order to find that the union's actions here were a created a breach of a duty of fair representation in that they were arbitrary the court would have to find that the union's actions were outside of the wide range of reasonable miss such that they were irrational and and in doing so the court also has to be highly deferential the case law in the supreme court and this court is clear that that this is a highly deferential standard in reviewing the actions of the union here it is clear with respect to a p a as your owners well kno was the rd union in line here the plaintiff was not a member of a p a this was filed fifteen years before a p a was in any way responsible for representing pilots who formerly worked for us airways a p a inherited the grievance it inherited and it was provided documentation indicating that the grievance had already been withdrawn by the prior union it conducted a review and it included the grievance as part of the global settlement agreement with american airlines on the list of claims that had been withdrawn already or were to be with basis and certainly within the wide range of reasonableness based on the facts presented here so plaintive even if he can overcome the statute of limitations issue the facts and the law support the district courts finding that there was no breach of a duty of fair representation to the plaintiff by the allied pilots association thank you thank you your ho and lower court did not view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff which would have been the standard for the summary judgment and in particular she comes to the conclusion that the union relied on the youth expert but what she does not even discuss with though it was before her was the fact that the use out the x but themselves to the three of them said they did not consider themselves expert regarding this grievance which is why they talked to who they considered the expert douglas murray whom they testified said told them that in his opinion there was no merit to john bryant claim but douglas murray in his didn't consider the met but relied on somebody else in the person they said they relied on said he never said what they set a nd thing that i want to put an emphasis on this the other side has argued that well it really doesn't make any difference that john the former union president i don't agree that simply not the case that it does make a difference that what is an acceptable minimal investigation in a case involving d loss of one sick they leave is a lot different when what is in it an acceptable minimum investigation of a claim brought by a former union president who claims that the president the airline personally cancelled his training which resulted in his loss of a career as a pilot millions of dollars it's that the cases have to be fact specific it's incredible quite relevant as to the facts that were not discovered which goes to the rd issue which the a p ever never did any deliberation  has to be this is both be careful deliberation but the person put in charge of the deliberation said he did not do or own deliberations said he did not ask any questions that time is up to experts thank you thank you that concludes arguments for today the session of the honorable united states court of appeals has now recessed until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the me