Originally Posted by
TonyC
In the case of Pilot A and Pilot B, they were both assigned training dates in two different pipelines, one for Memphis, and the other for Anchorage. When Pilot A recieved the subsequent bid award, the Company had the option of moving him to the Memphis pipeline, or keeping him in the Anchorage pipeline and assigning him a Base transfer date. They chose the latter option..
And here in lies the problem. Which is right? Past practice or what the company feels would be cost saving measures for training based on equipment? The purpose of the contract is to prevent these ambiguity type situations. When they happen to pop up, the Union's purpose is to reach a definitive solution and consider that "Proper". The company has had it both ways. If past practice prevails, as the Union as always argued for (ie protect seniority), then Pilot B is entitled to passover pay. In this instance, Pilot A is trained for Anchorage and Pilot B is not entitled passover pay. The Union chose to disregard past practice, reach a settlement with the company, and Pilot B who is Senior, does not reap the benefit (passover pay, signing bonus etc.). Is the union supposed to argue for Pilot B's (whose paying dues) rights or the company's rights? The union chose to ignore Pilot B's complaint and side with the company arbrogating seniority.