In the matter of: UAL DRC vs CAL DRC
3 And what we think ALPA's position ought to
4 be, and what you ought to direct ALPA to do, is to
5 insist that the Company immediately fill 105
6 positions through bids that are available
7 exclusively to United pilots in the very bases,
8 equipments, and seats that the 105 Continental
9 pilots filled in the post September 6, 2013 period.
10 And similarly, because there were eight
11 United pilots who hadn't commenced training for
12 vacancies prior to September 6, 2013, ALPA should be
13 directed to seek the Company's immediate filling of
14 eight positions through bids made available only to
15 pre-merger Continental pilots in the bases,
16 equipment, and seats that the eight United pilots
17 who hadn't commenced training as of September 6,
18 2013 filled.
19 We are not -- and I want to be clear about
20 this. I think we were clear in our brief, and we
21 want to be clear to you so that there's no
22 misunderstanding. While we could have, I think,
rightfully asked for a remedy that would have
2 removed the Continental pilots from their seats and
3 rebid those positions based on the Integrated
4 Seniority List, we're not asking that that be done.
5 We don't blame those pilots for taking
6 those positions. It was not an action by the
7 Continental pilots that led to their sitting in
8 those seats.
9 And we don't think it would be appropriate
10 nor conducive to the kind of unity that we think is
11 critical for the ongoing operation of ALPA at the
12 merged United to be the engines that drive pilots
13 who are sitting in their seats from those seats.
14 So while we think it would be an
15 appropriate remedy, we are not asking for that
16 remedy.
17 Another component of a remedy that one
18 would normally seek in a case like this is back pay
19 for a certain number of pilots who had been deprived
20 of those positions because the Integrated Seniority
21 List was not used to fill them.
22 But under the dispute resolution
procedures, back pay is not available until the
2 Company has been presented with your award, and 15
3 days has gone by, and they haven't complied with it.
4 But out of an abundance of caution, we
5 think that your award ought to include a provision
6 in it that if the Company doesn't comply within 15
7 days of being presented the award, that they be
8 obligated to make back pay payments to the pilots
9 who eventually hold the seats that are -- that are
10 dealt with by your award.
11 And then finally, because we understand
12 the reality of labor relations between a union and a
13 company, we think your award ought to include
14 sufficient wiggle room to allow ALPA, as it's
15 advancing the position that we want you to direct it
16 to advance, to allow ALPA, after consultation with
17 the United DRC representatives, to resolve the case
18 without litigation in a manner different from what
19 you award, if, in the exercise of their best
20 judgment and their responsibility as a labor
21 organization, and, again, after consulting with the
22 United DRC representatives, they conclude that
another resolution is a better solution to more
2 quickly benefit the affected pilots.
3 So that's the shape of the award that we
4 think you ought to issue, an issue that we gave you
5 a proposed award along with our prehearing brief.