descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

John Dilks v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., and Air Line Pilots Association, International, Applicant for Intervention-Appellant

Citations: 642 F.2d 1155; 31 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 675; 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2908; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18988Docket: 78-2752

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 23, 1981; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) appealed a district court decision denying their motion to intervene in a wrongful discharge lawsuit filed by a pilot against Aloha Airlines. The pilot claimed constructive discharge in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, asserting that arbitration was futile due to ALPA's alleged breach of its duty of fair representation. ALPA sought intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), citing interests in the collective bargaining agreement's interpretation, potential liability for breach of duty, and the rights of junior pilots. The court evaluated ALPA's motion, considering the timeliness and the substantiality of the interests claimed. It found ALPA's concerns too general or speculative, determining that Aloha could adequately represent these interests. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the district court's denial, affirming that ALPA failed to demonstrate a legally protectable interest requiring intervention, and that Aloha's representation sufficed to protect any shared concerns regarding the collective bargaining agreement and employment issues.

Legal Issues Addressed

Adequate Representation by Existing Parties

Application: The court concluded that Aloha's interests aligned closely with ALPA's, allowing Aloha to adequately represent ALPA's interests.

Reasoning: Moreover, the court concluded that Aloha's interests aligned closely with ALPA's, as both parties held similar positions regarding the propriety of the discharge and the grievance procedure.

Interpretation of Collective Bargaining Agreements

Application: The court found that ALPA's interest in the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement was too general to qualify as a legally protectable interest under Rule 24.

Reasoning: The interest in the collective bargaining agreement's interpretation was too general...

Intervention as of Right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)

Application: The court applied Rule 24(a)(2) by assessing whether ALPA demonstrated a substantial, legally protectable interest that was not adequately represented by existing parties.

Reasoning: To intervene as a matter of right, ALPA needed to demonstrate a substantial, legally protectable interest not adequately represented by existing parties.

Speculative Liability and Legally Protectable Interest

Application: The court determined that potential liability was speculative since Dilks was not seeking relief against ALPA, thereby disqualifying it as a legally protectable interest.

Reasoning: ...potential liability was speculative since Dilks was not seeking relief against ALPA...

Timeliness of Motion to Intervene

Application: The appellate court accepted the district court's implied finding that ALPA's motion, filed eighteen months after the complaint, was timely.

Reasoning: Although ALPA filed its motion eighteen months after the complaint, the district court did not rule it untimely, and the appellate court accepted this implied finding of timeliness.