Krakowski et al v. American Airlines, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
In re: Chapter 11
AMR CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 11-15463 (SHL)
(Jointly Administered)
Reorganized Debtors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
JOHN KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER, and M.
ALICIA SIKES, individually, and on behalf of those
similarly situated,
Adv. Pro. No. 13-01283 (SHL)
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
Defendants,
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF
UNSECURED CREDITORS,
As Intervenor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION
A P P E A R A N C E S:
JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
168 N. Meramec Avenue,
Suite 150, Clayton, MO 63105
By: Allen P. Press, Esq.
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 1 of 15

2
JAMES & HOFFMAN
Counsel for Allied Pilots Association
1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 950
Washington, DC 20036
By: Edgar N. James, Esq.
Steven K. Hoffman, Esq.
Darin M. Dalmat, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
Counsel for Allied Pilots Association
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
By: Filiberto Agusti, Esq.
Joshua R. Taylor, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
By: Stephen Karotkin, Esq.
Alfredo R. Pérez, Esq.
Lawrence Baer, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
By: Jonathan C. Fritts, Esq.
SEAN H. LANE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ motion to stay an upcoming arbitration to integrate the
seniority of pilots from U.S. Airways and American Airlines, two airlines that merged in
December 2013 as part of Debtors’ plan of reorganization. The integration arbitration will result
in one seniority list to govern all the pilots who now fly at the new merged entity. The
integration arbitration is scheduled to start in June 2015 and conclude by December 2015. The
Plaintiffs contend that they will be harmed if the seniority arbitration proceeds before this Court
resolves the merits of this adversary proceeding and a related adversary proceeding, both of
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 2 of 15

3
which allege the improper loss of seniority and other rights by former Trans World Airlines’
pilots who joined American when American acquired TWA in 2001.1 Because the Court
concludes that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirement for injunctive relief, including
most notably a showing of irreparable harm, the Court denies the motion.
BACKGROUND
The background for this dispute is set forth in Plaintiffs’ Modified Second Amended
Complaint as well as various declarations and documents submitted by the parties in connection
with the motion. In considering a motion for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has discretion to rely solely on affidavits, depositions
and sworn testimony and, where there exists no sharp factual disputes, may dispense with an
evidentiary hearing. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Vesco, 358 F. Supp. 1186, 1188-89 (S.D.N.Y.
1973) (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065 (Rule 65 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. applies in
adversary proceedings). But “bare allegations, without more, are insufficient for the issuance of
a preliminary injunction.” Kearney v. N.Y.S.D.O.C.S., 2012 WL 5931399, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov.
27, 2012) (citing Ivy Mar Co. v. C.R. Seasons Ltd., 907 F. Supp. 547, 561 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)).
In April 2001, American acquired the assets of former airline TWA, including its
unionized employees. Modified Supplemental Complaint (“MSCompl.”) ¶ 1. Given this
acquisition, American and its pilots’ union, the Allied Pilots Association (“APA”), negotiated an
addition to their collective bargaining agreement, entitled “Supplement CC,” which provided the
terms for integrating legacy TWA pilots into American’s pilot seniority list. MSCompl. ¶ 8.
Supplement CC completely subordinated the seniority of about 1,200 legacy TWA pilots to that
1 While the motion was filed only in one adversary proceeding, Case No. 13-01283, the motion also
addresses the allegations in a second related action filed by the Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-01920. As the submissions
by all the parties address both cases, this decision will do so as well.
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 3 of 15

4
of all American pilots. MSCompl. ¶ 9. The seniority of the remaining 1,100 legacy TWA pilots’
was reduced by Supplement CC, and they were reintegrated into American’s seniority list at their
reduced seniority level. MSCompl. ¶ 9. To compensate for this loss of seniority, Supplement
CC created a “protective ‘fence’ in St. Louis,” creating minimum Captain and First Officer
positions in St. Louis and granting the legacy TWA pilots preferential bidding for these
positions. MSCompl. ¶ 10. Thus, while reducing the seniority of legacy TWA pilots put them at
a relative disadvantage for purposes of bidding against a much larger number of American pilots
for positions on other routes, the protective fence guaranteed a certain number of desired
positions on routes from St. Louis with bidding advantages for legacy TWA pilots. MSCompl.
¶¶ 10-11. The protective fence in St. Louis was the only consideration the legacy TWA pilots
received for their reduced seniority. MSCompl. ¶ 14.
According to the Plaintiffs, the APA has “long desired to terminate Supplement CC, and
the protective fence in St. Louis it provided” for the legacy TWA pilots. MSCompl. ¶ 46. A
former APA president allegedly made promises as part of his election platform to remove the St.
Louis fence without restoring seniority to the legacy TWA pilots. MSCompl. ¶ 46. American
purportedly knew of the APA’s hostility toward legacy TWA pilots after May 2012. MSCompl.
¶ 52.
A. The Bankruptcy
After American filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2011, the Debtors sought
permission to abrogate American's collective bargaining agreement with the APA pursuant
to Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 1113 (permitting a debtor in
possession to reject a CBA if, among other things, it makes a proposal with modifications
necessary for reorganization). During negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement,
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 4 of 15

5
American disclosed its intention to “close its St. Louis base and eliminate the protective fence by
the end of 2012.” MSCompl. ¶¶ 12-13. The legacy TWA pilots contended that either their pre-
integration seniority should be restored or the protective fence maintained. MSCompl. ¶ 15.
American proposed sending the protective fence issue to arbitration (the “Supplement CC
Arbitration”). Id. ¶ 53. American subsequently “agreed to APA’s demand that the [Supplement
CC] arbitrators be powerless to restore the former [legacy] TWA pilots’ seniority.” MSCompl. ¶
53. Thus, the “APA, in collusion with American, agreed that American [could] close the St.
Louis base, and that . . . an arbitrator [would] decide what if any protection should be afforded to
the” legacy TWA pilots, but “under no circumstance may the arbitrator modify the [legacy]
TWA pilots’ seniority at American.” MSCompl. ¶ 15.
In September 2012, American obtained authority to reject its existing collective
bargaining agreement. MSCompl. ¶ 17. American eventually sought authority to enter into a
new collective bargaining agreement with the APA and to approve related side letters, including
Letter of Agreement (“LOA”) 12-05. MSCompl. ¶ 19. During a Court hearing on these
requests, the APA and American stated to the Bankruptcy Court that, “while LOA 12-05
precluded the arbitrators from modifying the seniority list, their [APA and American’s] intent
was that the arbitrators would ‘replicate’ the job protections for former [legacy] TWA pilots
created by Supplement CC.” MSCompl. ¶¶ 18-19, 22.
B. Litigation Over Supplement CC
There has been substantial litigation regarding Supplement CC and the protective fence at
the St. Louis base. Shortly after the execution of Supplement CC way back in 2002, a class
action was filed on behalf of legacy TWA pilots against the APA and American, among others.
See Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n., 271 F. Supp. 2d 616 (D.N.J. 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part,
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 5 of 15

6
387 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2004).2 In Bensel, the pilots alleged that the APA breached its duty of fair
representation by negotiating and executing Supplement CC’s seniority integration. See Bensel
Compl. ¶ 120 [ECF No. 14-3, Ex. 1]. They alleged that the APA further breached the duty by
failing to “negotiate a fair and equitable integration of the TWA pilots” after the National
Mediation Board certified the APA as the bargaining representative of the combined American
pilots, including the former TWA pilots. Bensel Compl. ¶ 125. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the APA with respect to the duty of fair representation claim.
Bensel, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 626. The court in Bensel found that the APA owed no duty to the
TWA pilots at the time of negotiation because the APA was not yet the certified bargaining
representative for the legacy TWA pilots, and once the APA was their representative, there was
“nothing to negotiate” because Supplement CC was already in effect. Id. at 625, aff’d in relevant
part by 387 F.3d at 312-17.
Supplement CC also became the subject of litigation in two adversary proceedings in this
bankruptcy. Plaintiffs’ original complaint in this case, Case No. 13-01283 (“Krakowski I”), 3
alleged that the APA breached its duty of fair representation by agreeing with American to take
seniority off the table as a possible remedy in the Supplement CC Arbitration, regardless of the
results of that arbitration. See Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re AMR Corp.), 2014 WL
2508729, at *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2014). In June 2014, however, this Court granted APA
and American’s motions to dismiss the original complaint. Id. at *6. In that decision, the Court
concluded that the Plaintiffs had not alleged facts to plausibly show that the seniority restriction
2 The legacy TWA pilots also brought suit against their former union, the Air Line Pilots Association
(“ALPA”), which represented them until American’s purchase of TWA. The ultimate resolution of that lawsuit is
not relevant to this decision.
3 The Plaintiffs initially filed Krakowski I in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on May 24, 2012. The case was transferred to this Court in March 2013. The Complaint can be found on
the docket of the Missouri court under Case Number 4:12-cv-00954 (JAR).
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 6 of 15

7
on the Supplement CC Arbitration—in and of itself—fell outside the APA’s legitimate union
objectives, particularly given that the Plaintiffs’ seniority was lost more than a decade before
when American acquired TWA. Id. at *4-5.
After the dismissal, the Plaintiffs filed a new complaint, alleging ten different breaches of
the duty of fair representation. MSCompl. ¶¶ 48(A) through 48(J). These alleged breaches
cover three general categories: 1) failure to bargain about the termination of Supplement CC and
agreeing to terminate Supplement CC without securing equivalent job protections; 2) precluding
the Supplement CC arbitrators from addressing seniority and failing to pursue something to
"replicate" the Supplement CC job protections; and 3) claims that the Supplement CC
Arbitration was not procedurally appropriate or fair, including problems with the selection of the
arbitrators, the participants, and the lawyers. Id.
In addition to the new complaint in this case, the Plaintiffs filed another action, Case No.
14-01920 (“Krakowski II”). 4 In that case, Plaintiffs alleged a “hybrid” claim for breach of the
new collective bargaining agreement and the related duty of fair representation. See Amended
Class Action Complaint (“KIICompl.”) ¶¶ 32-50 [Krakowski II, ECF No. 1-9]. More
specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that APA and American violated the new collective bargaining
agreement by using the same seniority list used under the prior collective bargaining agreement,
rather than tying the Plaintiffs’ seniority to their dates of hire at TWA. KIICompl. ¶¶ 33-37, 49-
50.
The final factual piece to this puzzle is the upcoming seniority arbitration. The goal of
that process is to create an integrated seniority list for all pilots at the new merged airline, rather
4 The Plaintiffs initially filed Krakowski II in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on May 1, 2013. The case was transferred to this Court in March 2014. Krakowski II [ECF No. 1-9]
(“KIICompl.”).
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 7 of 15

8
than continue to use multiple lists.5 Decl. of Beth Holdren ¶ 14 [ECF No. 68-1] (“[T]he airlines,
as a practical matter, must continue to schedule pilots by using three separate seniority lists . . . .
Completion of the seniority integration arbitration process will provide stability in labor relations
and allow the combined airline to fully integrate its workforce.”). This pilot seniority arbitration
was contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Contingent Collective
Bargaining Agreement (“MOU”) that was entered in early 2013 in anticipation of the merger by
the airlines and unions involved. Holdren Decl. ¶ 7 and Ex. A [ECF No. 68-1]. The MOU
provides that the seniority integration process shall begin as soon as possible after the close of
the merger, including through final and binding arbitration if necessary. Holdren Decl. ¶ 9.6 It
also provides that the seniority integration process must conclude by December 9, 2015, which is
24 months after the merger. Id. ¶ 9. According to the MOU, the carriers shall remain neutral
regarding the order of seniority for pilots. Id. ¶¶ 9, 13. The MOU also provides that the
seniority arbitration shall not modify the decision of the Supplement CC Arbitration. See MOU
¶ 10.i (“Nothing in this Paragraph 10 shall modify the decision of the arbitration panel in Letter
of Agreement 12-05 of the 2012 CBA.”). The parties to the seniority arbitration have reached an
agreement on most of the procedural ground rules, including that the arbitration hearing will
5 There appear to be three lists currently in use, one each for 1) American pilots; 2) U.S. Airways pilots; and
3) pilots of America West, who have not yet completed their seniority integration after being purchased/merged with
U.S. Airways in 2005. Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. 29:17-22, Apr. 15, 2015 (Counsel for American Airlines, Mr. Jonathan
Fritts: “There are at present three separate seniority lists; the American seniority list and then the two U.S. Airways
East and West list.); American Airlines’ Objection to Motion to Stay Arbitration [ECF No. 68] (“Moreover, the
integration process will also resolve an existing seniority dispute between US Airways and America West pilots,
which has prevented those airlines from realizing the synergies of their merger in 2005.”)
6 The pilot seniority integration process is being done pursuant to the McCaskill-Bond Act, 49 U.S.C. §
42112, which generally provides that “a transaction ‘for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air
carrier’ requires the combined business to merge the seniority lists of the two carriers’ employees,” to promote a fair
and orderly integration. See Comm of Concerned Midwest Flight Attendants for Fair & Equitable Seniority
Integration v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Airlines Div., 662 F.3d 954, 955 (7th Cir. 2011); 49 U.S.C. § 42112, note §
117.
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 8 of 15

9
commence on June 29, 2015, and continue on eighteen additional hearing days scheduled
through October 16, 2015. Holdren Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.
DISCUSSION
To prevail on a motion to stay arbitration, a party must satisfy the requirements for
injunctive relief. See Niagara Hooker Emps. Union v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 935 F.2d 1370,
1377-78 (2d Cir. 1991); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty, 929 F. Supp. 2d 199, 217 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
(“When evaluating whether a stay [of arbitration] may be granted, courts look to the preliminary
injunctions standard.”). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must ordinarily make four
showings: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to suffer
irreparable harm if relief is not granted; (3) the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff’s favor;
and (4) the public interest favors the relief. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
20 (2008); Marblegate Asset Mgmt. v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2014 WL 7399041,
at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2014). A party’s burden on the first factor may be lessened if the
plaintiff shows that “the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor.” Citigroup Global
Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2010)
(emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). But even if a movant makes that
showing, it must still show “serious questions going to the merits.” Id.; but see Victorio v.
Sammy's Fishbox Realty Co., LLC, 2014 WL 7180220, at *3 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2014)
(noting that lessening of the likelihood-of-success factor may be inconsistent with Winter, which
can be read to require a showing that the movant is more likely than not to prevail on the merits).
“Injunctive relief ‘is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted
unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Air Line Pilots Ass’n
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 9 of 15

10
v. U.A.L., 2011 WL 4543820 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2011) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong,
520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)).
In analyzing the present motion, we start with irreparable harm. To establish irreparable
harm, a movant must “demonstrate ‘an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual
and imminent.’” Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F.2d 969, 975 (2d Cir. 1989)
(quoting Consol. Brands, Inc. v. Mondi, 638 F. Supp. 152, 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1986)). The Plaintiffs’
two lawsuits seek increased job protections and seniority for these former TWA pilots. As a
general matter, therefore, the two cases are related to the seniority arbitration scheduled to begin
next month for all pilots now flying at American. But the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay of the seniority arbitration. More specifically,
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that proceeding with the seniority arbitration will preclude
them from receiving the relief they seek in their two cases.
The Plaintiffs categorically state that “it would be impossible for the Court to enforce a
judgment in the Krakowski cases without also setting aside the [seniority] arbitration decision.”
Pls. Br. at 13. But they don’t explain why that would be true. Indeed, both the APA and
American strenuously contend otherwise. As to the Supplement CC Arbitration at issue in
Krakowski I, the APA states that “preferential flying opportunities of the kind in Supplement CC
could be created after a seniority integration just as easily before it.” APA Br. at 15. The APA
correctly notes that the Plaintiffs fail to identify why the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs
could not be crafted after the seniority lists are merged. Id. Indeed, the agreement establishing
the seniority arbitration specifically provides that it will not modify any decision reached in the
Supplement CC Arbitration, see MOU ¶ 10.i, further confirming the separateness of the
Supplement CC Arbitration from the seniority arbitration.
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 10 of 15

11
The same problem plagues Plaintiffs in Krakowski II. American notes that while the
seniority arbitration will determine the integrated seniority list, it will not determine the
placement of the former TWA pilots on the pre-merger American list. American Br. at 9. The
requested relief in Krakowski II would at best result in adjustments of the Plaintiffs’ placement
on the seniority list of American, which presumably could be translated onto any final integrated
seniority list reached during the seniority arbitration. Id. at 9-10.
Plaintiffs compare the present situation with the one in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty, 929
F. Supp. 2d 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Plaintiffs claim that, as in Allstate, an arbitration ruling here
may create a “procedural and substantive trainwreck.” Pls. Br. at 12. But the Allstate case is
distinguishable. In Allstate, the pending litigation and arbitrations raised the same issues, and
involved the same parties, such that “a determination in [the court] action would probably
dispose of the main controversies in all of the arbitration proceedings.” Allstate, 929 F. Supp. 2d
at 217–18. By contrast, the results of the seniority arbitration here will not determine whether
APA breached its duty to the former TWA pilots in the Supplement CC Arbitration nor will it
dictate the seniority of these former TWA pilots on the pre-merger American list. Conversely,
the resolution of these two cases will not resolve the question of how the American pilot
seniority list should be integrated with that of U.S. Airways. At most, Krakowski I and II could
alter the seniority placement of some former TWA pilots relative to other pilots at American or
address other job protections that might be appropriate for these former TWA pilots.
While the Plaintiffs submit evidence in support of their motion, the evidence relates to
the merits of their positions in Krakowski I and II, not to their ability to obtain relief if the
seniority arbitration proceeds. See, e.g., Decl. of Douglas J. Gabel [ECF No. 71-1]; Decl. of
Kevin Horner [ECF No. 71-5]; Decl. of David Williams [ECF No. 71-6]. And while Plaintiffs
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 11 of 15

12
complain that the result of the seniority arbitration would be to confirm the very situation they
challenge in litigation, see Reply at 2, this has little to do with irreparable harm, which should
focus on whether seniority arbitration would foreclose the relief Plaintiffs seek in these two
cases. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not challenge the notion that the seniority arbitration results could be
adjusted to reflect the results of these lawsuits. Rather, they maintain that this is insufficient to
avoid the irreparable harm of the “diminished quality of life most of the former TWA pilots
suffer as a result of their unfair placement on the seniority list.” Id. at 3. But under this flawed
theory, a party would suffer irreparable harm simply by not receiving the ultimate relief
requested in litigation, regardless of whether such relief would be available later. This is simply
not the law. Kamerling v. Massanari, 295 F.3d 206, 214 (2d Cir. 2002) (must show “continuing
harm which cannot be adequately redressed by final relief on the merits” and for which “money
damages cannot provide adequate compensation.”) (quoting N.Y. Pathological & X-Ray Labs.,
Inc. v. INS, 523 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 1975)).
Given the failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive
relief. See Baker's Aid, a Div. of M. Raubvogel Co. v. Hussmann Foodservice Co., 830 F.2d 13,
16 (2d Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction where movant “fail[ed] to produce
any evidence of irreparable harm, other than the conclusory statement of its president”); Sunni,
LLC v. Edible Arrangements, Inc., 2014 WL 1226210, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2014) (denying
preliminary injunction where “Plaintiffs’ only evidence of irreparable harm is [a plaintiff’s]
syllogistic testimony”); Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., 532 F. Supp. 2d 418, 435
(N.D.N.Y. 2007) (denying preliminary injunction where a plaintiff presented a strong case for
success on the merits but “presented insufficient evidence of irreparable harm”).
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 12 of 15

13
But an evaluation of the remaining requirements also does not support Plaintiffs. Given
the lack of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, the balance of the hardships does not support the
requested relief because there is a clear benefit to the new American in proceeding with the
seniority arbitration particularly given the time invested in that process. See Holdren Decl. ¶¶
12-14; Decl. of Mark R. Myers, ¶¶ 6-7, 14-24. Similarly, the public interest does not appear to
favor either side.
Finally, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. As a
threshold matter, there is a steep burden for proving a violation of the duty of fair representation:
while the duty of fair representation extends to negotiations between the union and the employer,
a court cannot substitute its own views of a proper negotiating strategy for the judgment of the
union. In re AMR Corp., 2014 WL 2508729, *3 (the deferential standard of review
“recogniz[es] the wide latitude that negotiators need for the effective performance of their
bargaining responsibilities.”) (citing Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Intern. v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78
(1991)). Moreover, it is difficult to assess the merits of the Plaintiffs’ fair representation claim
based on the information currently before the Court, which does not include any information
about the actual results of the Supplement CC Arbitration. As the Second Circuit has noted in
assessing when a duty of fair representation claim accrues, the ultimate results of the process are
relevant to assessing the impact of the alleged breach. See Ghartey v. St. John’s Queens Hosp.,
869 F.2d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that in hybrid breach of duty of fair representation
action, the court must focus on whether there was a substantial reason to believe that the breach
contributed to an erroneous outcome, and such an inquiry presumes that the employee has been
harmed by the outcome in a completed arbitration proceeding). And last but not least, the Court
notes that the limited evidence before the Court on the merits appears to favor neither side.
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 13 of 15

14
Compare Gabel Decl. (stating that goal of LOA 12-05 was to replicate Supplement CC and that
the Supplement CC Arbitration has not achieved that goal); Horner Decl. (asserting that there
was no way for individual pilots to object to the arbitrator chosen for Supplement CC
Arbitration); Williams Decl. (arguing former TWA pilots were misled to believe ad hoc
committee and its counsel would be advocates for former TWA pilots, but those selected to serve
were in fact critics) with Decl. of James Dillard, ¶¶ 4-8 [ECF No. 36-1] (APA determined that
prudent course was to let three neutral arbitrators decide the protections available to former
TWA pilots if Supplement CC was eliminated); Decl. of Keith Wilson, ¶ 2 [ECF No. 36-3]
(former TWA pilot on APA board reviewed, edited and approved draft language for Supplement
CC Arbitration agreement); Decl. of Edgar James, ¶¶ 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 [ECF No. 36-2] (arbitrators
were chosen without objection and two of the three were suggested by Capt. Gabel, who was
point person chosen by former TWA pilots to speak on matters relating to closure of St Louis
base); Id. at ¶¶ 13-16 (Capt. Gabel led TWA pilots committee in Supplement CC Arbitration, he
suggested pilots who were appointed on his committee, and the committee chose its own
counsel).
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 14 of 15

15
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons set forth above, the Court denies the Plaintiffs’ request for a
preliminary injunction.
Dated: New York, New York
May 19, 2015
/s/ Sean H. Lane
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
13-01283-shl Doc 73 Filed 05/19/15 Entered 05/19/15 17:50:42 Main Document
Pg 15 of 15