Originally Posted by
Jake Speed
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?
According to the contract, the Company's needs determines which is right, and it could vary from one situation to another. Past practice is that both strategies have been used at different times. If the Company had always done it one way, which was to our satisfaction, and then they all of a sudden did it a different way, which was to our dissatisfaction, then it would make sense to launch a grievance based on the deviation from past practice. The trouble is, they've done it both ways, with no complaints, until the Union decided to take up the complaint of a pilot who wanted to keep a training date that the Company cancelled.
Originally Posted by
Jake Speed
The union chose to ignore Pilot B's complaint and side with the company arbrogating seniority.
In fact, the Union did not choose to ignore Pilot B's complaint. They took the issue up with the Company in the initial phases of the grievance process, realized they were arguing the same logic the Company used to defend the already filed and yet unresolved grievance, and looked for a mirror to wipe the egg off their face. How they could get $150 for a bunch of pilots and then be accused of not going to bat for them after the egg facial amazes me.
You will get no argument from me that the Contract lacks specific guidance on how to handle those situations, and better language could prevent such fiascos in the future. (Such language may have unintended consequences, too.) However, I will not agree that the Union failed to represent a segment of our seniority list in that case. They didn't win, but they did as much as they could.
.