Originally Posted by
sailingfun
This was much like the Delta grievance on vacation. When the ALPA negotiators went before the system board they essentially supported the company position as what they had negotiated. I want all the help ALPA can provide in such a situation but I also want absolute integrity from those doing ALPA work. It becomes especially important if you go before a arbitrator or mediator. Feed them BS and you wont like the result. There is recent first hand experience with this.
Sailing,
I suspect very few on this thread are familiar with that grievance. Please correct any misstatements I make as I try and explain it....
The contract that DALPA negotiated with Delta in 1996 was a concessionary contract. One of those concessions was a reduction in vacation benefits for the pilots.
Delta's non-contract employees had also suffered a loss in vacation benefits during this time. The pilot contract however had a "me-too" clause that was explained to the pilots as "If the non-contract employees get an increase in their vacation benefits, that increase applies to the pilots as well." Sounds fairly simple...
Sure enough when Delta's fortunes turned, Delta restored the "taken" vacation benefits to the non-contract employees, however they failed to restore pilot vacation benefits. DALPA filed a grievance.
That grievance was decided in Delta's favor. In testimony, Delta brought contract documents from the 1972 contract as evidence to support their position.
Speaking only for myself, I found the Delta's actions disingenuous at best. I was in high school in 1972 and a significant percentage of Delta pilots in 1996 were not on the property in 1972.
If, as you say, ALPA had no evidence to support their claim, why was it explained to the Delta pilots as a "me too" clause in their presentations when voting on the 1996 contract?