Originally Posted by
Davetastic
I don't think that it is so simple. From my understanding, you don't just jump to binding arbitration to get a contract while in discussions whether is be via RLA section 6 or CBA successorship. Aren't you missing a few steps? Besides, the point is moot. The union made their position clear as did the company during those talks which were intentionally untenable from both sides forcing our legal path.
Right. So, I'll admit right from the get-go that I'm no expert on this and I may be completely incorrect in this, however, *as far as I understand the situation*:
My understanding was that the Company's position is that we should not be continuing under section 6 negotiations because the successorship section of the CBA is now applicable. Most importantly, this would imply that CBA 1.F.2.b.iii would be applicable. This is where the company comes up with the "you'll have a new CBA in 9 months" number. However, that section requires that after the Union and Company negotiate for a period of 9 months, "the parties shall jointly submit the outstanding issues to binding interest arbitration".
The long and short of it being, the Company refused to take any path forward with this process other than the one in which we would all be handed a new CBA by an Arbitrator (after they presumably would be unable to get a new CBA hammered out in 9 months time). So, I'm all for diplomacy (and I'm sure that there have been many opportunities on both sides where discussions could have been handled more diplomatically), but if we, the Membership, want a TA that we actually have a chance to vote on, I fail to see what other option that Union had besides fighting to keep us from being bound by this successorship language.
Just my two cents. I am completely open to being corrected if I misunderstand the process.