Originally Posted by
Coach67
This is for those that are interested in propagating fear AND for those that want the facts:
Here are the pertinent lines,
"if the parties have not reached a tentative agreement on a JCBA by that date."
It doesn't say have a TA on that date. It says "by that date." It also doesn't say a ratified TA or a JCBA.
But guess what ... it is differentiated in another section of the TPA that contains the following statement:
If at any time the JNCs reach a tentative JCBA but it fails to be approved, ratified or executed under ALPA procedures, the Parties will apply for or resume the NMB’s mediatory services, unless they agree not to do so.
So clearly the parties differentiated between reaching a TA for the purposes of the expiration clauses, AND one that fails to be approved, ratified and executed to reengage the NMB. There were no such qualifiers put on the terminable provision clause.
So if there are still those trying to propagate fear … their points are baseless. The parties wouldn't articulate it one way in one section of the T&PA and another way with ratified language / failed TA in another part of the T&PA unless there was meant for a clear distinction. In this case, the actual language supports the fact that the terminable provisions do not terminate because there was a TA reached "by that date.”
The idea that this misrepresentation of expiring provisions being propagated by the MEC to place fear in those that would vote NO is the thing that is irresponsible! Not the former stewards of the Association who are pointing out the facts to assuage some fear!
No one is attempting to convince you to vote yes or no ... just however you vote ... don't fall into the vote for fear trap!
Why don't you ask the people that negotiated the agreement what it means. Their take is different than yours.