NWA tells attendants price of rejection

[jenny@nw]

:

The letter certainly could have used softer language to enhance it's effectiveness, but it's quite a stretch that providing information to your employees is somehow "interference" with a contract vote.

That language in the RLA is more designed to prevent actual interference when a group of employees are attempting to unionize. You'll have to explain to me how getting out factual information about the ramifications of a vote is somehow "interfering" with an F/As ability to vote. I think the approriate term for what was done here is "influence", which I don't think is covered by the RLA.

I don't think it was illegal under the RLA but something else...
Yes finman, you are invited to the stike party. There's nothing more fun than a good drunk debate.


No rebuttals, Finman? Just all "good points"? :unsure:

 

[700UW]

Having been through the Section 1113 C process at US Airways and being very involved the letter the company sent will definatly harm its case for abrogation if it is voted down, the company cannot interfere with the ratification process and make threats or try to intimidate.

We went through this at during the 1st bankruptcy with the CEO making statements at roadshow meetings then sending a letter to our houses and the company law firms told him that would be interference.