Originally Posted by
sleeves
Where did the arbitrator say the grievance was a cover? He said you should have been included in the negotiations but not that the grievance was not legit. The grievance was legit, we were harmed. The company settled, you guys tried to latch on to gain as well. Why do you think the company was so anxious to "give" away 40 million?
I am not defensive at all nor am I wrapped up in this anywhere near what you are. Look at how many posts you have about this on here vs ANYONE else, not to mention the several other sites you are spreading you venom for the sake of unity.
This is what the arbitrator had to say on in the award stage. When he talks about the companies actions, he's referring to the company and LCAL. The grievance is against the company so that's all he addresses.
There is no real question the Company’s actions could be (and were) viewed as a violation of the TPA that could reasonably threaten the vitality of the Union’s representational stance. The sole question presented here is whether, and to what extent, a make-whole monetary remedy is appropriate.
There was a remedy available to the Union, at least from a purely contractual standpoint: It could properly have demanded rescission of the Company’s grant.
Nothing in this opinion should be read as minimizing the potentially devastating impact of a Company’s adjusting contract terms outside the context of collective bargaining. In terms of both statutory and contractual proscriptions, unilateral actions of this nature are prohibited, as has been routinely held in countless administrative and court decisions too numerous to require citing, and which was found in the earlier arbitration case between these parties, cited above.
LCAL started negotiating properly. They later decided that they couldn't risk not getting the PS and the LUAL negotiation 'wants' were seen as an obstacle. Instead of staying in the boundaries they engaged the company to find another way to get PS. They both agreed (this agreement is what the arbitrator is talking about) to grant PS in exchange for the 767-200 grievance. That agreement was prohibited and wrong. I'm not commenting on the merits of the 767-200 grievance. Since you're obviously on the 'other' forum you know that I've posted facts about that grievance and have stated that you had a valid grievance. It all went wrong when LCAL called an audible in the middle of negotiations and negotiated outside the confines of the collective bargaining process. Given the facts and the arbitrators crystal clear decision(s) that shouldn't be hard to admit. Your 767-200 grievance should've continued on it's separate path.