Originally Posted by
Purple Drank
Question: Are we better off in a merger with an ALPA carrier (think Alaska) with our without ALPA?
I contend we'd have much more leeway to defend ourselves and ensure fairness if we were had an in-house union, and were not weighed down by ALPA's presence.
I don't want a windfall, but I don't want to get bent over in what could be a very ugly SLI with ALPA's agenda hanging over our heads.
The short answer is no. In ALPA Merger Policy it sets up a process to integrate lists that includes:
Negotiation > Mediation > Final and Binding Arbitration
In a merger with different unions, the McKaskill/Bond law governs. It mandates the process set up in the Allegheny/Mohawk LPP's which includes:
Negotiation > Mediation > Final and Binding Arbitration
There is a common misconception that because the actual Allegheny/Mohawk merger resulted in a Date of Hire list, that the Allegheny/Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions mandate Date of Hire. Just like ALPA Merger Policy, the LPP's do not specify the METHOD of integrating the list, only the PROCESS.
In the Frontier/Republic/Midwest/Lynx merger there were four different unions and they fell under the M/B law. The only arbitrator was Dana Eischen, who was one of the arbitrators for DAL/NWA.
In the United/Continental merger there is only on union, ALPA. The head arbitrator is Dana Eischen.