I'm sorry that I didn't include that information. It's the national arbitration forum and you can google that title. This is from their FAQ section.
Q: What happens after a binding arbitration decision is issued?
A: Once a binding arbitration decision is issued, the FORUM's role in the dispute resolution process is complete. The arbitration decision constitutes the binding resolution of the dispute between the parties, except in the rare event that either 1.) there is a clerical or administrative mistake in the decision, in which case the FORUM will correct it at the request of any party, or 2.) if certain exceptional circumstances exist, parties may request that the arbitrator reconsider the decision.
The FORUM has no influence or control over the course of action taken by the parties following the decision. Parties may seek to convert the decision into an enforceable legal judgment by “confirming†it in court. Parties may also seek to “vacate†the decision in court under the limited legal grounds provided in the Federal Arbitration Act or applicable state law.
Back To FAQ's
For your information, Sir, according to Title 9 Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act:
Section 1. "Maritime transactions" and "commerce" defined; exceptions to operation of title
"Maritime transactions", as herein defined, means charter parties, bills of lading of water carriers, agreements relating to wharfage, supplies furnished vessels or repairs to vessels, collisions, or any other matters in foreign commerce which, if the subject of controversy, would be embraced within admiralty jurisdiction; "commerce", as herein defined, means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation,
but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_s...tle=9&sec=1
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explains that "While neither this court nor the Supreme Court has definitively ruled on whether the FAA applies to employment contracts, both courts have suggested that it does not. We have repeatedly noted the Supreme Court's reluctance to hold the FAA applicable to arbitration proceedings involving labor disputes, as well as our own inclination to interpret the employment exclusion clause broadly." Please see CRAFT v CAMPBELL SOUP CO. 98-15060 U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/prin...th/9815060.html
In conclusion, they summarized that..."we hold that the FAA does not apply to labor or employment contracts. Thus, the FAA is inapplicable to the CBA that governs.....employment."
A more summarized version of this holding can be found here.
"The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not apply to employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements. That was the holding of a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Craft v. Campbell Soup Co., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30580 (12/2/98)."
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126752.html
If this "FORUM" is where you are getting the idea that this is "Federal Binding Arbitration"? The Courts say otherwise.
"A union agreement made pursuant to the Railway Labor Act has, therefore, the imprimatur of the federal law upon it . . . .. That is, the 204 contract, ..... is a federal contract and is therefore governed and enforceable by federal law, in the federal courts." MACHINISTS v. CENTRAL AIRLINES, 372 U.S. 682 (1963).
"Any authority to negotiate derives its principal strength from a delegation to the negotiators of a discretion to make such concessions and accept such advantages as, in the light of all relevant considerations, they believe will best serve the interests of the parties represented. A major responsibility of negotiators is to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of differing proposals. A bargaining representative, under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, often is a labor organization but it is not essential that it be such. The employees represented often are members of the labor organization which represents them at the bargaining table, but it is not essential that they be such. The bargaining representative, whoever it may be, is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty to, the interests of all whom it represents.....Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion." FORD MOTOR CO. v. HUFFMAN, 345 U.S. 330 (1953, citations omitted)
"Compromises on a temporary basis, with a view to long-range advantages, are natural incidents of negotiation. Differences in wages, hours and conditions of employment reflect countless variables. Seniority rules governing promotions, transfers, layoffs and similar matters may, in the first instance, revolve around length of competent service. Variations acceptable in the discretion of bargaining representatives, however, may well include differences based upon such matters as the unit within which seniority is to be computed, the privileges to which it shall relate, the nature of the work, the time at which it is done, the fitness, ability or age of the employees, their family responsibilities, injuries received in course of service, and time or labor devoted to related public service, whether civil or military, voluntary or involuntary." FORD MOTOR CO. v. HUFFMAN, 345 U.S. 330 (1953, citations omitted)
"The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives a bargaining representative not only wide responsibility but authority to meet that responsibility. We have held that a collective-bargaining representative is within its authority when, in the general interest of those it represents, it agrees to allow union chairmen certain advantages in the retention of their employment, even to the prejudice of veterans otherwise entitled to greater seniority." FORD MOTOR CO. v. HUFFMAN, 345 U.S. 330 (1953, citations omitted)
Although these cases refer to NLRB, it favors the collective bargaining agent even MORE in RLA cases. The wording in this instance is just more clear. Courts frequently resort to caselaw under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRAâ€) for analogy in determining RLA issues. “[F]ederal common labor law developed under the NLRA may be helpful in deciding cases under the RLA.†Trans World Airlines v. IFFA, 489 U.S. 426, 432 (1989).
In Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 383 (1969), the Supreme Court stated: "To the extent that there exists today any relevant corpus of “national labor policy,†it is in the law developed during the more than 30 years of administering our most comprehensive national labor scheme, the National Labor Relations Act. This Act represents the only existing congressional expression as to the permissible bounds of economic combat. It has, moreover, presented problems of federal-state relations analogous to those at bar."
On the other hand, the Supreme Court cautioned that the NLRA cannot be imported wholesale into the railway labor arena. Even rough analogies must be drawn circumspectly, with due regard for the many differences between the statutory schemes. See also Chicago & N.W. Ry. v. UTU, 402 U.S. 570, 579 n.11 (1971) (“all parallels between the NLRA and the [RLA] should be drawn with the utmost care and with full awareness of the differences between the statutory schemesâ€); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Chicago River & I. R.R., 353 U.S. 30, 31-32 n.2 (1957) (“The relationship of labor and management in the railroad industry has developed on a pattern different from other industries. The fundamental premises and principles of the [RLA] are not the same as those which form the basis of the [NLRA].â€).
ALPA merger "Policy" is simply that of ALPA National. It is no more binding on USAPA than it is on any other collective bargaining agent that takes over the mantle from ALPA. Don't believe me? how about THIS case?
In Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 US 40 (1947) the court explains:
"The case is an aftermath of a general controversy over seniority rights which arose among the employees of two corporations following their consolidation on January 1, 1944. Because of the relation of the general controversy to this litigation a detailed statement of the facts becomes necessary. Prior to their consolidation the Highland Body Manufacturing Company had been a wholly owned subsidiary of the petitioner, the Trailmobile Company. The two corporations manufactured the same commodities in separate plants in Cincinnati, Ohio.
During 1943 under the plan of consolidation the supplies and equipment and personnel of Highland were transferred gradually to the plant of Trailmobile. It took over the assets and business of Highland and assumed all its obligations. The employees of Highland were transferred to the payroll of Trailmobile as of January 1, 1944, when the consolidation became fully effective. The employees of both companies had been affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. 51 N.L.R.B. 1106, 1108. At the time of the consolidation the Highland group, including respondent, claimed seniority with Trailmobile of the dates of their employment by Highland. The former Trailmobile employees opposed this, maintaining that the Highland personnel should be considered as new employees of Trailmobile, with seniority dating only from January 1, 1944. This dispute was submitted to national representatives of the A.F. of L. They decided in favor of the Highland group.
The former Trailmobile employees were dissatisfied with this decision. They outnumbered the Highland claimants about ten to one. Accordingly, reorganizing as a unit of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, they requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of Trailmobile's employees, including the Highland transferees. An election was held under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, in which the new C.I.O. local was chosen as bargaining representative for a unit composed of both groups.
Trailmobile accordingly negotiated with the C.I.O. and in July, 1944, a collective bargaining agreement was concluded, effective as of June 21, 1944.
It provided that the seniority rights of former Highland employees should be fixed as of January 1, 1944, regardless of the dates of their original employment by Highland."
So you see, the seniority of a group can always be renegotiated by a new collective bargainng agent. Highland employees fought and lost under Ohio court law. The AWA would fight this in Federal court since this is RLA if USAPA is voted in.
If I were you I would read the DISSENTING opinion in this case where they say that...."The fair solution would be that each employee go on the seniority list as of the date he entered either of the two units now consolidated." Of course the smaller group was put on the bottom of the list at the time of the company consolidated the operations of the subsidiary (just like here at US Airways has done with the America West SUBSIDIARY) into the surviving entity.
There are many cases where the MAJORITY disliked the outcome of seniority awards, changed their collective bargaining agents and elected a new one that conformed to the choice of the MAJORITY.
Back to the binding arbitration issue, however, I could find no case numbers filed at the NMB that shows any disputes between either the US Airways MEC, the AWA MEC and/or ALPA National. In fact, isn't the Mediation/Arbitration procedures VOLUNTARY and between the Employer and the Collective Bargaining Agent???
Since the Railway Labor Act and the NMB preempts state law regarding interstate commerce in Railway and Transportation issues then WHERE would one file to COMPEL enforcement of the Nicolau award? Alternatively, how would a party compel the enforcement of the award? If the majority will not ratify a contract with the award in it, can you go to court to FORCE the majority to vote for a contract?
If the East won't vote for the contract, what will YOU do?? So please do not continue to MISREPRESENT the FACTS! I saw you on last weeks video talking to Scott Kirby about "Federal Binding Arbitration". This award is no more bound under anything Federal Binding than super glue on your lips!
