Republic airlines file federal suit against pilots union

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three airlines operated by Indianapolis-based Republic Airways Holdings Inc. are suing a pilots union over a website they say is damaging their reputation and hindering efforts to hire pilots.

Chautauqua Airlines Inc., Republic Airlines Inc. and Shuttle America Inc. want a federal judge to issue a permanent injunction forcing the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 357 to take the website down. The airlines charge in their lawsuit filed March 28 that the site,, makes several false statements meant to scare away prospective pilots.

Republic Airways and the union have been locked in contract negotiations since 2007, as pilots continue to work without a new agreement. Pilots complain they haven’t had a pay raise in more than four years, and they want better scheduling and seniority rights.

In December 2010, the union withdrew its negotiating proposals and tentative agreements, and negotiations started over again. The airlines and the union have been in mediation under the oversight of the National Mediation Board since June 2011.

Due to a shortage of pilots, the airlines said in their suit that they’ve recently begun recruiting new ones amid a competitive market. But the union launched the website to disrupt the recruiting efforts, the airlines charged.

“As a result of these inaccurate statements,” the airlines said, “Republic has had an increase in the number of pilots who have not called back for interviews and dropped out of the application process.”

A spokeswoman for the union said it could not comment on pending litigation.

The airlines said the website falsely states that in the event of a strike they will fire probationary pilots. The airlines further charge that the union is issuing a veiled threat to prospective pilots by stating on the site that accepting jobs with the airlines would undermine the union’s efforts to disrupt their operations.

“Pilots who read this will reasonably conclude that the union may retaliate against them if they accept employment with plaintiffs,” the airlines’ complaint said.

They said it takes about three months to recruit and train a pilot. If the airlines are unable to recruit enough pilots now, they argued, service will be interrupted. The airlines charge that the union is violating state and federal labor laws, and also allege that it is committing breach of contract and defamation. In addition to the injunction, they seek monetary damages.

The three airlines filed the suit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis.•


This story originally ran in the March 29, 2012 IBJ Daily. The Indianapolis Business Journal is a sister publication of IL.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.