Yes, and it's mentioned in point 1 which is then followed by a period. Point 2 is the actual reduction language and there is no date. Points 3 and 4 (not shown) also are separated by periods and like point 2, they have no dates. For the date mentioned in Point one to apply to all four, then the drafters should have either inserted the date in each of the points, or put the date in the preamble sentence itself. Furthermore, your bargaining agent has been trying for years to negotiate pay rates lower than LOA 84, and the logical inference from that is there was no expectation that the LOA 93 pay reduction had a sunset clause. (Otherwise, why negotiate a pay cut?)
Best of luck, though.
LOA93 is not a contract. It is an agreement modifying an underlying contract. Actually, it is a modification to a contact that was modified twice before, with the restructuring agreement and then LOA84.
Line one accomplishes two things: it defines a pay rate and freezes it for a specified time.
Line 2 simply reduces the frozen rate by a specified amount (18%). "as frozen" provides the link back to the Line 1 language. Implied is a simple 'If-Then' test: If the rates are not frozen, then they cannot be reduced, and the provision in Line 2 is nulled. Line 2 is just a modifier to the modifier in line 1.
As far as I know, points 3 and 4 are not in dispute, are they? I am in total agreement with you that this language should have been ironclad and not subject to interpretation. Let's all thank our ALPA friends for that.
The big argument here is what the 'status quo' should be. Mr. Parker states that status quo is the current rate.
USAPA says the status quo is the underlying agreement, as modified by the various LOAs. Guys, a specific end date on a specific term (Freeze until 12/31/09) means what is says. The freeze is over at the end of the year. Any reasonable person can understand that.
Lines 1 and 2 cease to exist on 1/1/10. If they don't exist, what is the defined rate of pay?
LOA84 - the underlying modifying agreement (which was not superceded or cancelled) - the rates are defined there in black and white.
The argument that USAPA has been negotiating for lower payrates is all hot air and blather - just a slick attempt to discredit and dismiss the issue. Everyone, including Mr. Parker, knows that other provisions in the contract, not just the pay rates, have a monetary value (Cost accounting 101: "Everything has a cost"). So, vacation, sick, reserve, min days, etc. improvements all have value and in aggregate with the pay rate in fact means we are asking for more, not less. Anyway, what is being negotiated for has no bearing on these contract provisions, it is just misdirection and subterfuge.
LOA84 1/1/10.
Happy New Year.
