Originally Posted by
PurpleTurtle
Those are all very interesting questions...
Truth be told, the SLI arbitrators will not trouble themselves to think about those questions. All the arbitrators need to think about is the status quo that they are handed. The arbitrators don't care about any previous disputes or disgruntled employees.... the place to settle those complaints is not at the arbitrators panel.
The preliminary arbitration panel that considers a West seat at arbitration may look at some of those things, but they may just go with what the courts have already ruled. Who knows?
I certainly don't have the answers to those questions in the context of how the arbitrators will actually weigh them. As for the PAB, it really doesn't sound like a Nic argument (which depending on if and how it is separated from the question of participatory legality in the process) will be the focus. It may just be that the PAB will simply answer a narrow legal question about legality and not moral compunction. It is possible the West would be denied that opportunity for separate status due to strict legal determination of a narrow question which essentially would result in them (unfortunately) "falling through the cracks"....or they may get a free ticket to board the SLI train, but still at that point should that occur, the focus as per the PA is on 3 separate lists, with the Nic being strictly a West assertion to the arbitrators for consideration. West or no West, the PA principally is centered around the concept of the 3 separate lists.
Will the final arbitrators turn them into two before forming their integration model ?
I don't think even the arbitrators know that at this point.