Originally Posted by
TransWorld
Here is an additional perspective. If the interpretation is half or 25 each month, which ever is GREATER was correct:
Think about the case where hiring (after a black swan event or some other decision by AA) was 10 per month.
Using this interpretation, Envoy would be required to flow 25 and AA would be forced to accept that number, because it was the greater of half of 10 (flow of 5) or flow of 25. Again, use your head. That makes no sense.
If, on the other hand, it was half or 25 each month, which ever is LESS was correct, Envoy would be required to flow 5. That makes good sense.
Obviously in your scenario they wouldn't send more than AA hires. It makes sense that envoy would want the lesser of the two but that is not what was bargained for. Just what they hope they can get.
Here's some common sense thinking. If the company was so sure it was the lesser why would they have come to the negotiating table during the grievance arbitration. They would just let it play out and the arbitrator would rule in their favor. However they are clearly negotiating with the union. So maybe it's not so cut and dry as to what the ruling would be. Does that make good sense?