US Airways is still committed to seeking merger partner

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways is still committed to seeking merger partner

See Story

USA320Pilot comments: This is even more reason for the US Airways East pilots to never agree to or permit the Nicolau Award to be implemented!

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Bear96]

This is even more reason for the US Airways East pilots to never agree to or permit the Nicolau Award to be implemented!

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Dude, East pilots ALREADY AGREED to permit the arbitration award to be implemented when they AGREED TO BINDING ARBITRATION.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about binding arbitration. You don't agree to be bound by the decision ahead of time (i.e., agree in advance to follow it), yet retain some sort of right after the decision to say, "Hmmm, OK Mr. Arbitrator, thanks for your opinion; we'll evaluate it and let you know if we like it and want to follow it."

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Just another weekly article that they write. Nothing else to write about.

 

[aquagreen73s]

US Airways is still committed to seeking merger partner

See Story

USA320Pilot comments: This is even more reason for the US Airways East pilots to never agree to or permit the Nicolau Award to be implemented!

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Even if you could somehow undermine the award (which you can't), this article should demonstrate that you're in a race against time. I'm sure management sees this award as the destruction of the pilot poison pill. For example, take section 4 of the C&R and apply it to DAL's 100 767-300s and 8(?) 777s. Using the Airways staffing numbers, that means the top 2500 positions would go to DAL. The top East guys would probably be ratioed in that mix of 2500 DAL pilots. That's what this award really means to Doug: the green light to pursue what he really wants to do.

 

[Bear96]

Oops -- never mind.

 

[safety stud]

Dude, East pilots ALREADY AGREED to permit the arbitration award to be implemented when they AGREED TO BINDING ARBITRATION.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about binding arbitration. You don't agree to be bound by the decision ahead of time, yet retain some sort of right after the decision to say, "Hmmm, OK Mr. Arbitrator, thanks for your opinion; we'll evaluate it and let you know if we want to accept it."

Am I wrong or is the binding arbitration for the award based on either a combined CBA or seperate CBA voted into effect by both parties?

 

[Bear96]

Am I wrong or is the binding arbitration for the award based on either a combined CBA or seperate CBA voted into effect by both parties?

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I don't think it is "based on" any specific CBA per se. It is based on the ALPA C&B / merger policy, and on an agreement between the East and West factions to let an arbitrator apply the combined seniority lists to that merger policy.

The parties to a CBA are (1) the employer and (2) the union/employees. This was between (1) one group of employees and (2) another group of employees.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Am I wrong or is the binding arbitration for the award based on either a combined CBA or seperate CBA voted into effect by both parties?

Good question, and I'll answer it by this: the full implementation of the award is subject to the joint CBA. Note however, that is very different from saying that the award can be defeated by bad faith negotiation of a joint CBA. In layman speak, when push comes to shove, the NMB will shove so as to prevent erosion of their authority.

 

[ussnark]

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I don't think it is "based on" any specific CBA per se. It is based on the ALPA C&B / merger policy, and on an agreement between the East and West factions to let an arbitrator apply the combined seniority lists to that merger policy.

The parties to a CBA are (1) the employer and (2) the union/employees. This was between (1) one group of employees and (2) another group of employees.

I believe it has no effect until there is one (1) CBA.

 

[phasersonstun2]

We'll see... he is batting .000

 

[EMBFA]

Ok, so who will it be and will it be a willing US/HP style or forced upon like with Delta.

 

[Bear96]

I believe it has no effect until there is one (1) CBA.

Well, I wouldn't say it's having no effect!

(But what you are saying is correct.)

 

[aquagreen73s]

The following is from Wikepedia:

ARBITRATION: Advantages and Disadvantages

Parties often seek to resolve their disputes through arbitration because of a number of perceived potential advantages over judicial proceedings:


5. Rule of applicable law is not binding, and arbitrators not subject to overturn on appeal may be more likely to rule according to their personal ideals.

---------------------------

The last one appears to be the most relevant.

Just to make sure you understand what that is saying because it's significant as to why arbitrations effectively cannot be appealed. A common ground for appeals from District Court judgements is that the judge errored as a matter of law; didn't apply the law or didn't interpret the law to the facts before the Court in a manner consistent with binding precedent. Here, the arbitrator has no binding precedent and therefore cannot error as a matter of law. What this does is remove that common ground for appeal and relegates the only error to being some procedural defect, which I'm sure must be objected to and on the arbitration record to preserve that appeal. Or, In other words, it can almost never be alleged that an arbitrator messed up in interpreting or applying the law. That leaves a procedural appeal, which as mentioned above, must be preserved with an objection on the record and didn't happen in this arbitration.

 

[safety stud]

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I don't think it is "based on" any specific CBA per se. It is based on the ALPA C&B / merger policy, and on an agreement between the East and West factions to let an arbitrator apply the combined seniority lists to that merger policy.

The parties to a CBA are (1) the employer and (2) the union/employees. This was between (1) one group of employees and (2) another group of employees.

I was under the impression that the binding arbitration could only be implimented if both parties reached a CBA. As with most of the comments about this issue, it appears the company can run both east/west seperate with different CBA's for both sides. My question is the leagality of the original binding arbitration being implemented by a mutual CBA.

I understand the definition of the Collective Bargining Agreement. What I don't understand is how the award can be implemented if the original(key word) arbitration and award is based on a combined CBA. How you get to the award is based on either mutually agreeing to a CBA, or running seperate CBA's for both east and west.

In either case the award technicaly couldn't be awarded in its present tense. That's all I am saying.

If I am wrong, please correct me...

 

[Bear96]

I was under the impression that the binding arbitration could only be implimented if both parties reached a CBA.

Yes.

As with most of the comments about this issue, it appears the company can run both east/west seperate with different CBA's for both sides.

That's my understanding too.

In either case the award technicaly couldn't be awarded in its present tense. That's all I am saying.

If I am wrong, please correct me...

The award is, well, already awarded.

You are right it won't be actuallty implemented until some sort of combined CBA is attained.

I'm not sure what you mean by:

My question is the leagality of the original binding arbitration being implemented by a mutual CBA. . . . What I don't understand is how the award can be implemented if the original(key word) arbitration and award is based on a combined CBA. How you get to the award is based on either mutually agreeing to a CBA, or running seperate CBA's for both east and west.