Originally Posted by
sailingfun
The RAH thing is quite simple. Its legal under our contract. This issue actually had come up and dates all the way back to the early 90's with other feeder agreements. There is not a question on the intent of the contract. We have zero chance to win a arbitration on the issues since it was decided long ago. To effect a change in this situation and I agree its a bad situation the contract has to be changed. The contract does not become amendable until 31 Dec 2012. Put your feelings into the contract survey.
And why doesn't the MEC explain this clearly - including "the intent of the contract" because the intent seems quite the opposite to me.
How could the greatest legal labor minds in the known universe have written the contract to read one way, but intend it another?
There is something fishier here than intent and I'm not looking for some conspiracy. If there is a secret handshake going on between the MEC and Mgmt, okay, but dont play the "intent" and "insufficient case law" card, it doesnt fly.