*He should have just referred to it as case law or prev rulings.

You don't need to go dig rulings etc. You would find more post strike rulings for the UAW. Back in the 80's they struck for everything. In the airlines we just don't strike as much and can disrupt the system in other ways

*The subject of the "act" of striking...not really what type of union I get that. Getting to the strike is different between as he said the UAW and an airline. The act of striking and the legal follow up is much the same.

The difference is an RLA strike has national implications where say the Service Unions would be local in nature. You would see an RLA union ordered back even though the strike was ruled in favor of. We've all seen this.

The rest is correct. You treat any strike as a strike until its ruled otherwise. This keeps the subjective "scab" calling out of it. No one can say a strike is legitimate or not until its ruled on. A striking worker can not and I repeat "can not" have any kind of company retaliation upon his/her self unless he/she fails to return to work after an order.

Every strike in history I bet has had the company take the matter to court and claim its an illegal job action. Takes a few days and it will either end or continue. The strike could be favorable and still stopped though on grounds of national interest. Just like the UAW or Service Unions etc. an RLA union could be held liable if they continued to strike after an order but only then.

Sorry CTR if you had guys that crossed a line. You can't defend that I understand your point but the day you hire in to this industry you learn not to cross picket lines.