Serious N90 EWR Sector GoFundMe

GulfCharlie

Comrade Commissar
FAA
Messages
2,939
Facility
Command Center
Little late on posting this, saw it yesterday:

"Without a doubt many of us have heard the stories of N90’s past, indeed they are the stuff of legend, and depending on who you know or talk to each version will vary.

The movement of EWR sector at N90 to PHL is a long story of betrayal by NATCA to the FAA that has been years in the making through “collaboration.” See links below :

FOIA’s: N90 (Newark Area) to PHL FOIA's

Abolishment of 804: Serious - Abolishment of Section 804 through N90->EWR

This forced move threatens to have disastrous consequences for the entire NAS. We must rise up together and fight against this, as it goes beyond just N90. The dismantling of the 804 process will lead to further unwanted consolidations across the NAS, disrupting the lives of our fellow controllers and their families.

Perhaps the most important thing to consider are the families and spouses of the controllers. Children who might not see one or even both parents every night. No amount of money or per diem can replace a parent or spouse who misses school events, games, family moments, holidays, and other important core memories.

Take a moment and contribute to the legal retainer that will assist in fighting this egregious betrayal."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L.O.L. take your 2x+ times base pay of most controllers and donate to yourselves.

N90's priorities and leverage has always been in opposition to the rest of us. Yeah. Rich fucked you guys. But your e-board still endorsed Rich. Good luck. Congrats to the smart ones who get off Long Island.
 
Last edited:
When you think you've seen it all..... My question is, what would the basis for any lawsuit be? I won't rehash every hurdle you have to leap but I've already written something at this site along these same lines:


How do they overcome law and legal precedent that, as union members with a ratified CBA, they are limited to the agreed-upon grievance procedures contained in the CBA? In plain language, union members have to exhaust the grievance process procedures contained in the CBA before proceeding with a lawsuit. If they didn't file grievances, then they cannot pass go, collect $200, and file a federal lawsuit in federal court because law and legal precedent require them to first complete the grievance process. But maybe they have filed grievances and maybe they can sue.....

If they've exhausted the grievance process and are unsatisfied with the result, are they actually collecting money to sue NATCA for "failure to represent?" Because that's where we are in the process. If they did exhaust grievance procedures, however, their bone to pick isn't with the Agency.... it's with NATCA. Unfortunately, law and legal precedent are not on their side here either. Both require NATCA to investigate the grievance and then pursue the grievance if it isn't a sham. For arguments sake, I will assume they all filed grievances, NATCA investigated the grievances, and then NATCA pursued resolution of those grievances. I can faithfully assume that because the FAA and NATCA came to an agreement that was memorialized in a MOU. And that's where any lawsuit would die at summary judgement.... provided they even have Article III standing (see below). You see, law and legal precedent give the union a lot of power in resolving grievances.... even if the resolution is unsatisfactory to those that filed the grievance. Signing the MOU basically screwed everyone. It eliminated any recourse they may have had against the Agency.... and it basically protects the union as they represented members by investigating the grievances and then resolving them. It doesn't matter that no one at N90 wants to move; NATCA's authority to resolve those grievances for its members is protected by law and legal precedent. They are basically left with a "failure to represent" case. But maybe they are alleging "failure to represent" and maybe they can sue.....

If it's not "failure to represent" against NATCA, what's the case against the Agency? The FAA did not follow the procedures laid-out in Section 804? Perhaps. But the question then turns to this: What gives them Article III standing to file a lawsuit in federal court? I've read Section 804 dozens of times. There is no private right of action (aka, a private cause of action) within this legislation. For those not familiar, a private right of action is a legal tool provided by legislation that authorizes individuals or private organizations to file a civil lawsuit to enforce a right or a law. Nowhere in the legislation authorizing Section 804 did Congress authorize a private right of action to enforce Section 804. The hurdles to get Article III standing in a case like this would be difficult. But maybe they can sue.....

Anyways, this whole process sucks. I hate it for everyone involved. But I also know a lawsuit would be throwing good money after bad. They cannot enforce Section 804 because there is no private right of action to enforce the Section 804 process and the FAA-NATCA MOU basically forcloses a "failure to represent" claim. What's left besides the hurt feelings and upheaval in your life.... none of which would be lawsuit-worthy?
 
When you think you've seen it all..... My question is, what would the basis for any lawsuit be? I won't rehash every hurdle you have to leap but I've already written something at this site along these same lines:


How do they overcome law and legal precedent that, as union members with a ratified CBA, they are limited to the agreed-upon grievance procedures contained in the CBA? In plain language, union members have to exhaust the grievance process procedures contained in the CBA before proceeding with a lawsuit. If they didn't file grievances, then they cannot pass go, collect $200, and file a federal lawsuit in federal court because law and legal precedent require them to first complete the grievance process. But maybe they have filed grievances and maybe they can sue.....

If they've exhausted the grievance process and are unsatisfied with the result, are they actually collecting money to sue NATCA for "failure to represent?" Because that's where we are in the process. If they did exhaust grievance procedures, however, their bone to pick isn't with the Agency.... it's with NATCA. Unfortunately, law and legal precedent are not on their side here either. Both require NATCA to investigate the grievance and then pursue the grievance if it isn't a sham. For arguments sake, I will assume they all filed grievances, NATCA investigated the grievances, and then NATCA pursued resolution of those grievances. I can faithfully assume that because the FAA and NATCA came to an agreement that was memorialized in a MOU. And that's where any lawsuit would die at summary judgement.... provided they even have Article III standing (see below). You see, law and legal precedent give the union a lot of power in resolving grievances.... even if the resolution is unsatisfactory to those that filed the grievance. Signing the MOU basically screwed everyone. It eliminated any recourse they may have had against the Agency.... and it basically protects the union as they represented members by investigating the grievances and then resolving them. It doesn't matter that no one at N90 wants to move; NATCA's authority to resolve those grievances for its members is protected by law and legal precedent. They are basically left with a "failure to represent" case. But maybe they are alleging "failure to represent" and maybe they can sue.....

If it's not "failure to represent" against NATCA, what's the case against the Agency? The FAA did not follow the procedures laid-out in Section 804? Perhaps. But the question then turns to this: What gives them Article III standing to file a lawsuit in federal court? I've read Section 804 dozens of times. There is no private right of action (aka, a private cause of action) within this legislation. For those not familiar, a private right of action is a legal tool provided by legislation that authorizes individuals or private organizations to file a civil lawsuit to enforce a right or a law. Nowhere in the legislation authorizing Section 804 did Congress authorize a private right of action to enforce Section 804. The hurdles to get Article III standing in a case like this would be difficult. But maybe they can sue.....

Anyways, this whole process sucks. I hate it for everyone involved. But I also know a lawsuit would be throwing good money after bad. They cannot enforce Section 804 because there is no private right of action to enforce the Section 804 process and the FAA-NATCA MOU basically forcloses a "failure to represent" claim. What's left besides the hurt feelings and upheaval in your life.... none of which would be lawsuit-worthy?
These are some excellent questions, 10/10, and I have requested additional information (should be forthcoming soon) along these lines just to post so people are aware.
 
Majority of the people who donated are controllers there. The average donation is $1,000 it just takes a couple people in the building.

Still find it silly that these guys are paying for outside lawyers to fight the union they’re so proud of and endorse.
A whole bunch of us did the same with COVID battles.
 
Back
Top Bottom