How's that section 6 interpretation coming on the new hire payments/iPads?

Not being confrontational, just wondering. I am assuming the company's position is that they have a past practice of making unilateral changes outside of the CBA without challenge from ALPA, the new hire bonuses being just one of a series of changes made by management since the section 6 notice was served.

What's your interpretation?

I would really actually like to discuss this topic with you on here--it's good for the new folks to read and learn about this kind of stuff.

This is a good read: http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/an...ers/v2/012.pdf

"As section 6 expressly provides, once a section 6 notice has been served, neither side can change the status quo. In Detroit & T.S.L. R.R. v. UTU, 396 U.S. 142, 153 (1969), the Supreme Court defined the status quo as “those actual, objective working conditions and practices, broadly conceived, which were in effect prior to the time the pending dispute arose . . . .” Neither side can change current practice under the prior agreement, whether or not the practice is reflected in the terms of the written agreement, until all of the bargaining procedures of the Act have been exhausted.

The expiration date of the agreement, if any, makes no difference; the parties remain locked in the status quo. Where the past practice has been to allow management to make changes, however, that right continues to be available