Sorry Bear, but I am unhappily employed at NWA!
Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't aiming that point at you, but rather those East pilots who have been saying they are going to go join another union. That is certainly their right, and if they think they would be better served, go for it. But they should just do it already instead of just talking about it if they want to be taken seriously.
To my knowledge, either on a local level or nationally, the membership has never been polled on the issue of national merger policy. . . . The union only cares about those in power not the wishes of the rank and file. . . .
You have outlined several problems and complaints common to all unions, not just ALPA. If you think simply replacing ALPA will resolve those types of issues, you will probably be in for a dissapointment eventually. Sooner or later, once the initial excitement of a new union dies down, the usual suspects will rise to the top of the leadership structure because there are only so many people willing to devote their time to the union, and the masses will revert to their normal state of apathy.
But, as I said, if you just want change for the sake of change, go for it. Doesn't matter to me.
No argument there but hey, you must think what is happening is going to reverse that trend instead of accelerate it, since you seem to think what is happening to the East pilots as fair, right, and something ALPA should defend.
I have offered no opinion as to whether I think what is happening to the East pilots is "fair" or "right." My only point has been that the arbitration itself was done correctly from a legal perspective. I have no opinion on whether ALPA should have a DOH merger policy instead of what is in place now; as I tried to explain above, both methods have their good and bad points. My point has been that whatever policy is in place is the one that an arbitrator must use.
An arbitrator's decision should not be viewed any differently than a rouge judge who makes a decision inconsistent with the law.
In this case, the arbitrator's decision was consistent with the relevant "law," from what I can tell. (I know your response will be it isn't "fair and equitable"; please see the part of my preceding post which addresses that point to avoid repetition.)
ou use the appeals process, which in this case, would be the ALPA executive council.
Again, can you please quote the ALPA policy that says the arbitrator's decision can be appealed to the EC.
Actually you can agree to binding arbitration and appeal the outcome in court and have an award vacated on certain grounds.
As has been discussed numerous times, those "certain grounds" are exceedingly narrow and rare. Generally a court will only mess with an arbitrator's decision if there has been some gross procdural injustice, such as fraud (i.e., one party bribed the arbitrator), or if the arbitrator exceeded the authority granted to him by the parties (i.e., the parties asked the arbitrator to decide only Issue A, but the arbitrator also addressed Issue B or did something procedurally he was not authorized to do).
The policy mandates that the award combine the pre merger seniority list in a "fair an equitable" manner keeping in mind 5 goals. I mean come on, "fair and equitable" and "keeping in mind". It's a non-speak policy and someone should have seen this disaster coming.
I kind of agree with you on this point. Unfortunately, it only undermines your argument that the arbirator "got it wrong." An arbitrator's interpretation of a CBA or other document is given great discretion by the courts. The vaguer a document is written, the wider that discretion will be before it rises to the arbitrary and capricious standard necessary to vacate an arbitrator's award. In other words, with such vague language, the arbitrator, out of necessity, has great latitude to interpret the document.
Contrast that to a very specific, objective standard such as DOH. In that case, it would be very easy for a court to find an arbitrator exceeded his authority or acted arbitrarily and capriciously if he did anything other than a straight DOH merge. But with such vague, amorphous language as the current ALPA merger policy, it will be almost impossible for a court to come to the conclusion that the list is not consistent with the policy, since the policy by its very nature and language is open to many different interpretations -- there is no single "right way," whereas you seem to be saying DOH is the only "right way" to interpret the policy. (By the way, your argument is further weakened by the fact that the policy used to be DOH, from what I understand. It would be very persuasive to both an arbitrator and the courts that ALPA specifically changed the policy from a DOH one to what is in place now. This would show that ALPA expressly did not want straight DOH any longer.)
My guess is that ALPA wanted the policy to be vague. ALPA likely wanted an arbitrator -- AND THE PARTIES -- to be able to work together and hammer out a mutually acceptable list with great freedom to come to a conclusion that takes into account the unique issues present in every merger. Unfortunately, what seems to have happened here is that the East from Day One was not interested in trying to work with the West. They had only one acceptable outcome in mind from the beginning, and refused to budge.
You are right that such language is asking for trouble -- IF one party goes into the process with absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith and has only one acceptable outcome in mind.
If the arbitration board was erroneous or misrepresented the goals in regards to the policy, ALPA can use it's authority under the merger policy "interpret and application". Application of this policy is charged to the Executive council, which I imagine is the authority being exercised currently in not turning over the Nicalou list to US Airways.
Again, can you please post something to back this up so we can see what you are referring to.
Who gets to determine what "fair and equitable" is? I guess the executive council does[.]
No. The parties agreed to let an arbitrator decide what "fair and equitable" is. The arbitrator did so. That's how arbitration works. Further, the ALPA merger policy provides for an arbitrated outcome
precisely because ALPA as an entity does not want to get in the middle of a dispute like this, for reasons we see playing out now.
