Originally Posted by
NuGuy
Heyas Denny,
There is more to it. You can't simply read the contract language and say that an issue is black and white. You need to look at what the notes that were taken during the negotiations as well as looking at "past practice".
Over on the north side, grievances were won and lost by what the negotiator's notes said and what past practice was, which, at times, was completely different than what was spelled out in the working agreement.
I've seen seemingly "no win" grievances pay up serious $$, while other "home run" grievances be decided completely in the company's favor.
That's why you take EVERYTHING to bat. You never know how it's going to go. AND that's why letting due process run it's course is so important.
This is really is a no-lose scenario, which is why the stonwalling makes everyone up north so suspicous. Take it to arbitration, you lose, and you can say the procedure was followed, and due process was given. You win, and some pilots get a nice bonus check.
But to actively stonewall the process and side with management against pilots that are constantly reminded that "we all one group now", to the point where a loyal contract admin, who would NEVER say anything about a sitting MEC chair, stands up and cries foul, makes a lot of people really, really wonder about what the heck is going on.
I'll say it again for emphasis: What is the harm in allowing this, and the few remaining northside grievances run their course?
Nu
I understand about "past practices" and "Negotiators Notes" during bargaining and their use in persuing grievances.
My understanding is they are used by the arbitrator when contract language is vague, poorly written, and interpreted 2 different ways. Not sure if that's the case here.
I don't agree with taking everything to bat. I think this attitude is a byproduct of the confrontational relationship between NWAlpa and NWA management. In my view, the current working relationship between the pilots and management precludes pursuing grievances (taking everything to bat) this way. If you are unaware of it, take a look at LOA 6, the "Recovery Compact." Alot of fun was made of it but I do think it has influenced (in a good way) the way both sides have done business since it's inception. Also, by doing so the system gets clogged and then nobody's happy because it takes so long for anything to get resolved.
I'm a fan of the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" club but I'm also one who wants to "bring a gun to the knife fight" if necessary.
It's a no lose to the north guy because it's "business as usual" for you. I do not mean that in bad sense. Just that this is the way you are used to doing business. To the South guy this could indeed be a loss to the reputation of the Delta Pilot group among arbitrators in general and influence later grievances that might be more in question.
I also don't see it as "siding with Management" against pilots but more of a "it's right in the contract, we cannot win this argument why throw our reputation and money down the drain" attitude.
As far as pursuing this and the remaining Northside grievances, if that is what it takes to build unity then do it and clear them all up. But, in the future, don't use the "this causes disunity between pilot groups" argument because it won't hold water. (Not speaking to you in particular)
I'm not interested in throwing gasoline on the fire or making this a N/S issue, I'm just trying to give a different perspective. I'm just a line grunt with an opinion and we all know what opinions are like....................
Denny