AWA ALPA Thread for the Week 9/14-9/20

[Piedmont1984]

I chose the words, "You appear to be . . . " for a reason, so that if I did not state your position accurately, you would be welcome to clarify. So please clarify. How should the decision have been rendered? From my reading of your post, you seem to be saying that the arbitrator should have chosen a solution that pissed off both sides equally, and should have paid little attention to anything else. If that is not what you meant and if I misinterpreted your post, explain what the arbitrator should have based his decision on.
(1) A DOH award would have been against ALPA merger policy. (2) The arbitrator gave clear indications that DOH was not going to happen and wanted creative solutions from East, which were not forthcoming.

When a tribunal gives such clear indications to an advocate that the advocate is not going to get what he is asking for, the advocate should come up with a new idea and a new position, pronto, and not just repeat the same thing over and over. (At least that is what I would do if a judge / arbitrator were growing impatient with what I was saying.) East declined to do so, so the tribunal did the best it could based on the limited ideas it had.
Obviously. That is why it went to arbitration in the first place. Your point?

The arbitrator should have rendered a decision that effectively ended the debate, not inflamed or excaserbated the debate. His award has made the situation worse.

An effective and constructive award would have left some pissed off, some delighted and others shrugging their shoulders; but the majority would have been ready to move on. In case it has escaped your attention, this company is in a state of limbo.

Windfalls accrued to one side at the expense of the other is also against ALPA merger policy.

Ignoring MDA pilots who were never furloughed renders the data used and thereby the award itself invalid.

Finally, this crises we are all in is the result of a weak, watered down, ambiguous merger policy. This is the first real test of ALPA's merger policy between two legacy carriers, and I would say current merger policy has failed the test.

 

[Junebug172]

Ignoring MDA pilots who were never furloughed renders the data used and thereby the award itself invalid.

You had to have been furloughed to go work at MDA.

End of discussion.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You had to have been furloughed to go work at MDA.

End of discussion.

O.K. See you later then.

 

[flynomore]

You had to have been furloughed to go work at MDA.

End of discussion.

========================================================

Not exactly true. I was offered a position there and I am on LTD. Never have been furloughed. As was most of the flight operations staff there. But don't let the facts intrude on your worldview.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

(1) A DOH award would have been against ALPA merger policy.

So many people on this board have said, and you have backed, "The arbitrater does not have to follow the ALPA merger policy", or "guidelines". Now you say a date of hire award is against that policy. Since when did it become policy again? It would seem to me that our esteemed union has a perfect way of doing business. Keep our policies a moving target so we can continue to do what we do best. Preserve national at all costs.

 

[Piedmont1984]

I won't use up space here, but plenty of info exists regarding the MDA lawsuit.

The West argues that the arbitrator could not render anything that resembled DOH because it violates policy. At other times they argue the arbitrator is completely free to issue any kind of award he wants.

I am just saying his award should have allowed us to put this behind us instead of digging trenches.

 

[Bear96]

The arbitrator should have rendered a decision that effectively ended the debate, not inflamed or excaserbated the debate. His award has made the situation worse.

Again, you appear to be implying that arbitration should be guided by the principle of appeasing those who make the biggest fuss (and/or, by logical extension, those who carry the biggest weapons), rather than by a neutral application of facts to the law.

I do not think that is a just way to resolve conflicts.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

You had to have been furloughed to go work at MDA.

End of discussion.

So typical.

I know a pilot who never missed a paycheck who was at MDA from day one. Furloughed? Whoever gave you the facts is not completely truthful. To give you credit for the statement, he would have been furloughed if he didn't go to MDA. Therefore your statement is not totally correct.

 

[Bear96]

So many people on this board have said, and you have backed, "The arbitrater does not have to follow the ALPA merger policy", or "guidelines". Now you say a date of hire award is against that policy.

You bring up an interesting point.

I have seen those quotes stating the arbitrator did not have to follow ALPA merger policy. While those people and I have generally been on the same side in this particular debate, I have never stated I agree with them on that point.

Whether the arbitrator would have had to follow ALPA merger policy is dependent on the wording of the agreement to arbitrate, which I have not seen. That agreement may have directed the arbitrator to follow ALPA merger policy, or it may not have. If it did not, hopefully it set forth some sort of guidelines for the arbitrator to follow. Does anyone know? Is there a link to the agreement to arbitrate?

My hunch is that the agreement would have directed the arbitrator to follow the ALPA merger policy, which has accordingly been the theme of my posts. But I don't definitively know that to be the case.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Again, you appear to be implying that arbitration should be guided by the principle of appeasing those who make the biggest fuss (and/or, by logical extension, those who carry the biggest weapons), rather than by a neutral application of facts to the law.

I do not think that is a just way to resolve conflicts.

The parties in an arbitration argue principles. Effective arbitrators look for practical solutions which will endure and allow the opponents to move forward in mutual cooperation.

All I am saying is that Nicolau, guided by a poor merger policy to begin with, did not help by rendering an equally poor decision. We are where we are. You can't blame either side for arguing their respective positions passionately. I blame ALPA and Nicolau.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

You bring up an interesting point.

Whether the arbitrator would have had to follow ALPA merger policy is dependent on the wording of the agreement to arbitrate, which I have not seen. That agreement may have directed the arbitrator to follow ALPA merger policy, or it may not have. If it did not, hopefully it set forth some sort of guidelines for the arbitrator to follow. Does anyone know? Is there a link to the agreement to arbitrate?

My hunch is that the agreement would have directed the arbitrator to follow the ALPA merger policy, which has accordingly been the theme of my posts. But I don't definitively know that to be the case.

I will have to find the TA if I still have it in writing. I'm sure Junebug has it. Maybe he will post an unedited version of it.

I wish I had a chance to vote on it. Did the west pilots have that chance? I really don't know.

 

[Bear96]

The parties in an arbitration argue principles. Effective arbitrators look for practical solutions which will endure and allow the opponents to move forward in mutual cooperation.

Don't confuse arbitration with mediation. Mediation encourages both sides to work together to find mutually acceptable solutions on their own. If the parties are successful, that is the more touch-feely solution you seem to be referring to -- "Everybody is a winner! Yay us!"

I don't mean to knock it. Mediation can be very useful, but it only works when each party subjugates its goal of achieiving its best case scenario to the goal of working together to find the best solution for all involved, even when that means giving up its best case scenario.

While making everybody a winner is also a goal of arbitration and litigation, the key difference between mediation and arbitration / litigation is that arbitration / litigation authorizes a third party (arbitrator (or arbitration panel), judge or jury) to ultimately make a decision that is binding on the parties should they fail to come up with a solution on their own. This may happen when, for example, one side is unwilling to move off its best case scenario in the earlier phases of the dispute resolution process. In such a case, there is usually a "winner" and a "loser." Both arbitration and litigation are inherently adversarial processes; mediation, somewhat less so.

All I am saying is that Nicolau, guided by a poor merger policy to begin with, did not help by rendering an equally poor decision.

The ALPA merger policy is certainly a difficult one for an arbitrator to work with, I agree. However, I think Nicolau did as good as he could have, given the policy and the positions of the parties.

 

[Bear96]

I will have to find the TA if I still have it in writing. I'm sure Junebug has it. Maybe he will post an unedited version of it.

I doubt it is in the TA (although I suppose it might be). Isn't the TA the agreement between ALPA and management? Management would have had nothing to do with this. What I am talking about would be an agreement between East and West to submit the dispute to arbitration, or perhaps it is something in the ALPA bylaws or policies (i.e, "Should mediation fail, the dispute will be submitted to an arbitrator to resolve in accordance with the ALPA merger policy.") It might even be in the form of an engagement letter to Nicolau.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Don't confuse arbitration with mediation.

The ALPA merger policy is certainly a difficult one for an arbitrator to work with, I agree. However, I think Nicolau did as good as he could have, given the policy and the positions of the parties.

Don't worry, I haven't confused them.

I will mark you down as supporting the AWA position.

 

[Bear96]

I will mark you down as supporting the AWA position.

In this dispute, yes, I think the law and facts are clearly on the West's side. I have not made that a secret.