Originally Posted by
ZapBrannigan
I didn't mean impasse in the legal sense of the term as it relates to section 6 negotiations. The NC isn't involved in negotiations for a new CBA right now.
I meant it more in terms of a stalemate.
The union has an obligation to try and mitigate furloughs per 22C.
Walking away and saying "no further negotiations" doesn't satisfy that requirement unless they've reached a stalemate.
But I'm not a labor lawyer. Just another opinion from the peanut gallery.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are in negotiations since Section 6 negotiations had already opened for the CBA and I believe also that Section 6 provisions apply to the current negotiations on the proposed force majeure language and 10% pay cut because, according to the RLA, Section 6 applies to issues impacting an "
intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions".
And, are you referencing the CBA 22.C.? If so, it says, "The Company may, at its option, elect to avoid or mitigate a furlough by offering pilots or a specific group of pilots (using age or seniority, unless the Association consents to an alternate selection criteria) voluntary early retirement and/or severance packages. If made to a specific group of pilots, any offer shall be made on a uniform and non-discriminatory basis. The Company shall notify, meet and consult with the Association prior to making any offer pursuant to this paragraph."
I'm pretty sure 22.C. has already been complied with via the VSP program. It'd be hard to argue that 22.C. hasn't already been checked off. Regardless, the use of the phrase, "The Company may, at its option..." makes 22.C. very ambiguous and barely enforceable.
And, if SWAPA negotiators feel like, given the factual and legal landscape, the appropriate response to the company's offer is to walk away, they likely haven't violated the standard of reasonableness established by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says they have "wide latitude".