Don't worry breeze, you're right and everyone else is wrong.
LMAO!
MEC 07-05-05 (MDA Longevity)
This past week, the System Board of Adjustment finalized its Award regarding the MDA Pay Longevity Arbitration. As most of you are aware, this case was a result of the Company's violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by refusing to credit pilots with pay and longevity for the time they spent flying for MidAtlantic Airlines (MDA).
It was the Union's position that when the Company exercised its contractually negotiated right to operate MDA as a division or department of US Airways, it obligated itself to crediting the MDA pilots with pay and longevity for the time they flew at MDA. It was the position of the Company that MDA was intended to be a separate entity from the Company, and therefore, the corporate form of MDA was not relevant in the arbitration proceedings. Further, it was the Company's position that the pilots that flew for MDA were on furlough, and therefore, notwithstanding MDA's corporate structure, the pilots that flew for MDA should not receive credit for that time.
At arbitration the Union presented what it believed to be the clear and unambiguous language of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement and proffered compelling evidence in support of its position, which included testimony from the Union's chief negotiator. Unfortunately, the Union did not prevail at the arbitration and the Arbitrator ruled that the Company did not violate, misinterpret or misapply the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in failing to credit pilots with additional longevity and pay for their time spent flying at MDA.
The Arbitrator was not persuaded by the Union's chief negotiator, nor was he persuaded by the compelling and voluminous evidence that was presented by fellow MDA pilots. The Union requested two Executive Sessions prior to the finalization of the Award. During the Executive Sessions, Union participants traveled to PHX and met with Company representatives and the Arbitrator to discuss the egregious nature of the Award.
After approximately six hours of Executive Sessions, the Arbitrator was still not amenable to the Union's position, and while he made minor changes to the final Award, such changes were minor, technical alterations that did not impact the legal significance of his decision.
The Grievance Committee and all of the Union participants are obviously very disappointed with this outcome. In addition, the Grievance Committee remains greatly concerned with regard to some of the arbitrator's procedural errors and their prejudicial effect on the Union's presentation of its case. The Grievance Committee is mindful of the stringent standard exacted against a party seeking judicial review of an arbitrator's award but, given the particularly egregious nature of some of the Arbitrator's procedural rulings in this particular case, we are continuing to explore the possibility of seeking to appeal this Award in federal court.
The Grievance Committee and Legal will discuss this issue with the BPR and seek direction concerning an appeal.
