Originally Posted by
CloudSailor
The way I read the cases, I feel there were enough grey areas being explored by the pilots to warrant some caution (ie, take the settlement). I'm not saying whether they were guilty or not, it's just that I cannot understand how these guys decided to not take the amnesty, nor the settlement. I know ALPA's advice to all of them towards the end was to take the settlement. They chose to fight a company with a very solid legal department and with lots of money to support said department; it may have been the noble route, but man... I would have taken the settlement if I were in any of the cases that I read about. Just my opinion.
Gray area? You mean like this one the arbitrator discussed?
"In regard to the notion that the test for determining the completion of permanent residency, in terms of length of time, is non-existent, the Board agrees that no specific guideline exists. The Board concludes that in the absence of a set number of days, weeks or months, pilots have an obligation to reasonably interpret what 'Permanent' means and apply this reasoned judgment to their situation. Each pilot may have a different set of circumstances to deal with, and such, when it comes to determining the length of time for permanent residency, the test may be subjective, plus the Section 6.G.2 and 6.G.4 'objective factors.'"
As a refresher, here are the Section 6.G.2. and 6.G.4. "objective factors":
2. A pilot shall advise Human Resources, AOD, in writing of the
completion of his relocation. His relocation is complete when he has
established a new permanent residence for himself and, if applicable,
his spouse and/or dependent children within the acceptable radius
of his base within 18 months following his activation date. The
Company shall verify completion of a pilot’s relocation based on
objective factors.
4. The Company may request documentation to establish that a
pilot has completed a relocation, as provided in Section 6.G.2.
The documentation may include, but is not limited to, settlement
statements relating to the purchase and/or sale of residences,
verification of the movement of household goods and automobile(s)
to the new location, verification of the permanent relocation of a
pilot’s spouse and/or dependent children under the age of 18 years,
if applicable, establishment of a pilot’s residence at the new location
for purposes of applicable property or state income taxes, driver’s
license, automobile registration and voter’s registration. A pilot shall
submit documentation requested by the Company in accordance
with this paragraph.
With that in clear view, allow me to challenge your "I would have ..." assertion.
Having used your judgment to determine that you had accomplished a relocation according to the rules in the CBA and the FDA LOA, having submitted the required notification to Human Resources, AOD, and having provided any documentation requested by the Company, are you saying you would have then accepted a settlement even it it required you to admit to committing fraud?
Unsure Whether You Qualify? Ask Us.
That's from Bowman's "The Path Forward" letter. Why should we have to ask them if there's already a clear and unambiguous test in the CBA language?
The Path Forward is this: let the investigations recommence.
.