Originally Posted by Mulva

Mulva making a brief appearance on the circuit so that those who are doing the "APC Dance" by jumping to conclusions will have a bit better understanding of what the argument is.

So for those of you whose professional representative and bargaining agents have not actually notified you of this lawsuit nor provided you with the actual documents pertaining to it, here is a summary:

Section 13(b) Dispute Resolution Agreement governs the process of devising a seniority integration via the processes of negotiation, mediation and then, if necessary, arbitration.

Section 13(b) conferred upon the arbitrator the authority to devise a “fair and equitable” seniority integration as defined under Allegheny/Mohawk.

Section 13(b) did not confer upon the arbitrator the authority to devise a seniority integration that is not “fair and equitable.”

Section 13(b) did not confer upon the arbitrator the ability to modify or limit any parties existing rights or obligations under RLA or existing CBA’s.

Within the SLI award, the arbitrator defined (in his own words) the definition of “fair and equitable” based on Allegheny/Mohawk and then, in the eyes of many Frontier pilots, proceeded to devise a seniority integration that did not meet that standard.

The arbitrator also stated that “proposed conditions/restrictions seeking to modify existing contract provisions” were beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and authority. He then proceeded to devise a seniority integration award that essentially modified the rights and obligations of the parties under the RLA and FAPA CBA LOA 39.

Furthermore, it is being argued that the arbitrator failed (actually refused) to hear pertinent evidence regarding the projected future impact of the IMSL on jobs held.

In a nutshell, the lawsuit alleges that the arbitrator failed to do his job by, among other things, (1) failing to consider pertinent evidence, (2) modifying existing contract provisions and, most importantly, (3) failing to devise a seniority integration that meets that standards of “fair and equitable” as defined under Allegheny/Mohawk.

As many have mentioned in the past, it was truly difficult to understand, after reading the arbitrators own words, how he came up with the award he did. So it’s not just “spilt milk”, “US Air all over again” or failure to understand the binding part of “binding arbitration.” This seems to be, more or less, an effort to show that the arbitrator did not live up to his professional expectations while also overstepping his bounds. I imagine the IBT would be doing the exact same thing if the tables were turned.