Originally Posted by
FangsF15
FWIW, NN, SRH, and Scheduling Alerts are all legally binding, as they are vetted through the company. The language absolutely should be fixed by errata, but even if something is not caught, it is still binding.
There were people within a week of the AIP NN, myself included, who were stating this was exactly how it was supposed/intended to work, based on conversations with Reps/Negotiators. Again, the intent is to “lessen the suck”, not to pay you more. IOW, it’s a rotation construction improvement, and one of the better ones at that.
I have heard this before. And I understand the SRH, as that just repeats information in the PWA. But how does a prospective NN become "legally" binding? How would an arbitrator in court view it if we could not produce information in the contract, but could via NN? I imagine it would not be favorable for the union, as the only legally binding document per the RLA is a collective bargaining agreement. If it's not in a CBA, it wasn't agreed to, as far as the law was concerned.