700 refuses to provide anything that says a union can strike after a major dispute ruling or to strike after a companies violation of status quo. Yet he continues to say they can. I wonder how he will explain this away? Saying this only has to do with section 6 negotiations? Again. I bet he will and also I bet he won't produce anything that will support what he says.
The legality of strikes under the RLA
"
the only circumstance in which a union may engage in self-help against a carrier is if it fully exhausts the “major dispute†procedures of the RLA.6 In all other cases – if the parties have not exhausted or cannot exhaust major dispute procedures – it may not strike.
There are no loopholes or special cases or exceptions. In particular,
there is no basis under the RLA’s bright-line rule for strikes or other uses of economic force in response to a perceived violation of the RLA by a carrier. Illegal behavior by a carrier does not mean that a union can respond with illegal behavior of its own.
Rather, the availability of judicial actions for damages and injunctions provide the sole – but entirely adequate – remedy through which the unions can seek redress of unjustified or unlawful carrier conduct, such as a violation of Section 2 Seventh. Nor should pre-exhaustion strikes ever be justifiable as a response to political disputes, third party behavior, or any other similar rationale"
"As for major disputes, the statute requires lengthy negotiation and mediation procedures -- the so-called “status quo†period -- during which time both sides are forbidden from engaging in self-help. As in the case of minor disputes,
courts have the power to ENJOIN self-help during the status quo period. It is only once these major dispute procedures are exhausted that the employees may take to the streets or the carrier may lock out employees. In other words, once the Act’s procedures have failed to produce agreement, all bets are off."
"The usual paradigm involves a dispute over an existing collective bargaining agreement, where the union asserts that a carrier’s asserted interpretation is really just a pretext for a unilateral change in the agreement (a“major disputeâ€). The courts have adopted a standard providing that so long as the carrier’s position is “arguably justified†or not “frivolous,†it does not constitute an attempt to circumvent the restriction onunilateral changes under Section 2 Seventh and so is a minor dispute subject to arbitration. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. RLEA, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“Conrailâ€). Unfortunately, this standard tends to invite disagreements about whether the carrier’s position is indeed “arguable†or not."
A bright-line rule, or bright-line test, is a term generally used in law which describes a clearly defined rule or standard, comprised of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application.
Bright-line rules are usually standards established by courts in legal precedent or by legislatures in statutory provisions. Bright-line rules are often contrasted with "squishy" balancing tests, where a result is dependent on weighing several factors; which could lead to inconsistent application of law, reduce objectivity.
