Originally Posted by
Aero1900
There are two different issues here. LOA has set snapbacks which have been properly followed. The second issue, and the one that has gone to arbitration is: the further upward pay negotiations. As was mentioned above, the company claimed that current business conditions didn't allow them to even negotiate the further upwards pay clause. We have already had one snap back, and another small one comes in March or April, but beyond that, they are supposed to negotiate higher rates. We have requested this issue go to arbitration. My personal feeling is that we won't get much out of this. As far as I'm concerned the only thing the company is required to do is negotiate. It seems highly unlikely that an arbitrator will create a pay rate table and then force the company to pay it. Hence, I believe the arbitrator will tell the company that they actually have to negotiate.
It's a complete wildcard. I seriously doubt an arbitrator is going to unilaterally impose a new payscale upon the company while we are already undergoing section six negotiations (yes I realize the LOA 67 arbitration and section 6 aren't technically related but court cases are rarely tried in a vacuum). Best case the arbitrator establishes a timeline the company has to follow to get a deal done. F9 is going to try and sell the 20% raise they offered as good faith negotiating, it is up to the arbitrator to see through that ruse and consider the company's proposal as a whole and not just look at the pay rates.