USA320Pilot said:
..
[SIZE=10pt]Why?..[/SIZE]
You don't ask the right questions.
Why would Mr. Daniel Rainey, the Chief of Staff of the National Mediation Board, invite the "parties" to his office to discuss private mediation? Why?
Listen up. I am going to tell you why.
Mr. Daniel Rainey didn't call just anyone up to his office for tea.... He called THREE PARTICULAR PARTIES to his office on 23 July 2014, for a PARTICULAR reason... Which particular parties did he call? The three parties are the addressees of the 11 April 2014 list of arbitrators that were issued by the NMB for MB Arbitration. That list of arbitrators was issued under Mr. Rainey's direction, pursuant to the MB Statute, fulfilling the NMB obligation to do so, as persuasively shown by William Wilder (in his 28 Feb Letter), over the objections of both the APA and AAL. The APA and AAL didn't want the list issued, and they don't want to use it.
Mr. Rainey's office meeting was a kind way of inquiring why the three recipients have not taken action on the NMB list. Rainey's suggestion of private mediation is within his authority, but he cannot compel the parties to enter MB Arbitration. The D.C. court can compel MB Arbitration with the 11 April list of arbitrators, if the three recipients of that list don't willingly use it.
Make no mistake, USAPA's lawyers understand the law correctly, and we are headed to MB Arbitration. The participating parties will be those that Mr. Rainey has already legally included (but no others), as End Of ALPA pointed out.... or the legally included parties can willingly do something else (MB 13 B ).
Uncle Bob told the APA to come up with something they can live with.
Now the APA has Uncle Daniel suggesting they come up with something they can live with.
The three parties can all come to a willingly negotiated process, or any one party can demand the MB Process, and have full confidence that a court will compel it. Mr. Rainey's choice to comply with the statute was an object lesson to all.