Of course we all have an opinion, some more grounded in reality that others. But if you step back from the situation, and ask yourself, what important precedent would the courts like to set in this case, the inherent flaw in Seeham's plan becomes obvious.
Would the courts like to set the precedent that a union has the right to collective bargaining for its members? Why? That precedent is already set, of course they do.
Would the courts like to set further precedent as to what constitutes legal discrimination or what is meant by a unions duty of fair representation? Perhaps, but there is already plenty of case law on these topics, just none in our exact specific circumstance where a binding arbitration had occured amongst the membership.
Would the courts like to set the precedent that forming or changing a union offers a backdoor out of binding arbitration? Not a chance.
Bottom line is the NIC award is not going away until the West says so, and the West says "use anything other than the Nic, get sued, waste money, lose unquestionably ripe DFR". We now have our own precedent from Addington to back us up, and we know exactly when the DFR becomes ripe, without any chance of missing the statute of limitations.
You are right that this might just be my opinion, however, it seems to be the opinion of the company, its legal team, and all 4 federal judges that have worn the robes in usapa's encounters with the court system thus far.
