Originally Posted by
TonyC
And so the threats continue.
From the Council 22 Message, 18 Apr 2013:
We operate under the Railway Labor Act, where disputes are submitted to a process which may lead to arbitration. Only when we believe that there is a complete disregard for the CBA, a gross violation of the CBA with intent to violate (not just a disagreement about what the CBA says) can we litigate, i.e., sue The Company.
If we believe The Company will act in such bad faith as to create a situation ripe for litigation, I want to hear more about that threat. Notice, LEC 22 did not say "possible" -- they said "probable." Either approve this LOA, or we will PROBABLY be involved in a lawsuit.
I feel like I'm on a car lot and the salesman has given me an ultimatum. This deal is only good now. If you wait until tomorrow, I can't guarantee the deal will still be valid.
Add to this what the P-2-P folks are being told in bullet points. They are told that if we reject the standalone LOA, we will have to renegotiate the B-767 in its entirety as part of CBA 201X. Then, they're told that The Company will introduce the B-767 per the 2011 CBA.
Well, if they're going to introduce the B-767 according to our current CBA, what will provoke the litigation?
If I started hearing this kind of talk on the car lot, I'd walk away.
.
Tony, what if the company held a bid with openings in all seats and all a/c. They agree to pay the 76 as a widebody a/c but, state their intentions to place the 75/76 in a common bidpack, the only time you will receive WB pay is if you actually fly a 76 and all vacation, training, sick, etc would be paid at NB rates - so, bid accordingly. What in the CBA we currently work under would prevent this? Where would the violations be that would generate the lawsuit?