NWA used Title 11 to abrogate the FAs contract, all perfectly legal. However, in doing so, they violated the RLA and as such the FAs should be free to strike.
There is nothing in the RLA granting special dispensation to parties in bankruptcy, nor is there anything in Title 11 which speaks to enjoining strikes.
So wheres the "RUB"?
hp_fa and
Piney did yeoman's work at explaining it.
What you and others are looking for (direct contradictory language) Isn't In There. But that doesn't mean there's no conflict.
The RUB described by your words, quoted above. Title 11 permits debtors to impose terms on unions. As you yourself point out - "all perfectly legal" under the Bankruptcy Code. And in the rest of your first sentence, you said "However, in doing so, they violated the RLA" - well, the two statutes don't explain whether the RLA procedures and prerequisites on self-help are applicable when a contract is abrogated by a Bankruptcy Judge.
Sure, you can assume that abrogation allows immediate self-help. The bankruptcy judge agreed. Problem is, he may be right and he may be wrong, despite the bleating by some that there is only one possible answer to this dispute.
Judges cannot enjoin a "lawful strike." But they can enjoin one where the RLA's procedures and prerequisites are not met. Ask the APA at AA which had to pay over $20 million to AA before the balance was forgiven as part of the 2003 concessions. That $20+ million wiped out the APA Treasury.
In the second sentence written by you and quoted above, you admit that neither statute addresses this dispute.
BINGO. That's The Rub.
This may be a legal strike (in which case Judge Marrero erred) or it may be an unlawful strike - since the release from mediation and 30 day cooling off periods haven't started (much less expired).
As
hp_fa and
Piney explained - this situation has never come up. Ever. No precedent to look at. As an aside - statutes aren't precedent. Previous cases involving similar disputes under the same statutes would be precedent. And there is none.
Even if Judge Marrero is incorrect - and his injunction is in fact illegal - where's the harm? The NWA FAs themselves didn't think they needed immediate self-help. Foolishly, they waited for the Bankruptcy Judge to tell them they could strike. Then they said they could wait 15 more days because their prior union made a foolish commitment to wait. Then, in what looks like a desperate delaying tactic - the FAs gave NWA another 10 days because of the UK water/carryon insanity that was immediately imported here.
If the FAs can wait 25 days from abrogation to strike, then they can wait until this appeal has run its course, since it's obvious they're in no real hurry to strike anyway. One excuse after another for delaying their self-help. They seem to like saying "strike" but they don't appear to have the stomach for actually striking. And I thought that scabs were spineless.
