Originally Posted by
Gone Flying
the problem is arbitrators have taken plain as day language and still ruled against us. Not that long ago one ruled that positive space doesn’t mean positive space and in fact means space available.
we had language that explicitly stated under no uncertain terms that a pilot may not be rerouted into more than one additional day and/or one additional duty period. Yet instead of acknowledging that this most recent arbitrator gave us a recipe for maple syrup and the company a free rein to disregard that section of our contract.
The arbitrator agreed with us, however, our argument in the appeal was different from the original grievance. The company asked him to toss it and he did. It was semantics. It doesn't help that he is a kook who talked about maple syrup and alcohol in his write up. No wonder he said the PWA is too complex. He just gave up.
The positive space thing was ridiculous. It doesn't help that "positive space" is not defined anywhere. The company's view was that historically when they have used the phrase "positive space" it was included with "subject to a seat being available". Arbitrator sided with them but it was evident that anyone with half a brain that works in this industry knew what the intent was. Our team at ALPA or lawyers just didn't explain it well enough I guess. When I read that grievance it was obvious that the arbitrator was not familiar with our use of that phrase.
A lot of these decisions are really just a match of wits between our "witnesses" and lawyers. The company is wiping the floor recently with their grievance victories.
What gives me more pause however, is the use of ALPA pilots that are not in management that are "Company Witnesses" in these 5 member panels. I was surprised by that having never really looked to closely. I don't know how an ALPA line pilot can possible be used by the company against ALPA. Maybe I'm missing something.