10-21-2015Quote:
I've asked the question, but no one took a bite at it. Maybe you know. I'd come to believe that the APA would just wait until SCS then appoint a west merger committee. Any idea why they didn't?
It's funny that the west cries about the law and cacti likes to talk about the east striking for Nicolau then not accepting his decision(true). But the west has tried and failed twice with Silver(they requested her this time, I believe) but doesn't want to take her word.
"Meaning of McCaskill-Bond
With the limited amount of guidance from CAB, and the parties offering no other legal authority or materials that might help illuminate Congressional intent, the Court is left to arrive at the meaning of McCaskill-Bond on its own. Section 3 requires carriers provide a “fair and equitable” integration process. And Section 13 requires arbitration between “the organization or organizations representing the employee or employees.” The Court is persuaded this statutory text should be interpreted in harmony with those CAB decisions allowing participation only by the employees’ certified representatives. When a certified representative exists, that representative owes a duty of fair representation to all employees.
A “fair and equitable” integration process will involve that representative acting on behalf of the represented employees. And when a certified bargaining representative exists, introducing an independent group, such as the West Pilots, would “interfere with the established representation format” and also “tamper with and inevitably complicate the
procedures used to negotiate seniority list integration.” In addition, allowing the involvement of any employee or group of employees with sufficiently distinct interests would be an invitation to chaos; the seniority
integration process cannot accommodate the participation of whoever might be affected by the final result. Therefore, the process contemplated by McCaskill-Bond allows only the certified bargaining representatives to participate in seniority integration proceedings."
The west pilots point out that Judge Silver said that SCS, USAPA would have not rights. Could it be that the APA's and company's attorneys disagreed with that point? In any case, all party agreed with USAPA's participation, not with the west's.
I don't know the answer to your question. I have a feeling a lot is going to happen in the next week. Rumor is the NMB will rule again as soon as Monday. I'm curious how Wilson will respond to the letter published in the Cactuspilot update. I hope things will be clearer by this time next week.Originally Posted by R57 relay
Frisco,I've asked the question, but no one took a bite at it. Maybe you know. I'd come to believe that the APA would just wait until SCS then appoint a west merger committee. Any idea why they didn't?
It's funny that the west cries about the law and cacti likes to talk about the east striking for Nicolau then not accepting his decision(true). But the west has tried and failed twice with Silver(they requested her this time, I believe) but doesn't want to take her word.
"Meaning of McCaskill-Bond
With the limited amount of guidance from CAB, and the parties offering no other legal authority or materials that might help illuminate Congressional intent, the Court is left to arrive at the meaning of McCaskill-Bond on its own. Section 3 requires carriers provide a “fair and equitable” integration process. And Section 13 requires arbitration between “the organization or organizations representing the employee or employees.” The Court is persuaded this statutory text should be interpreted in harmony with those CAB decisions allowing participation only by the employees’ certified representatives. When a certified representative exists, that representative owes a duty of fair representation to all employees.
A “fair and equitable” integration process will involve that representative acting on behalf of the represented employees. And when a certified bargaining representative exists, introducing an independent group, such as the West Pilots, would “interfere with the established representation format” and also “tamper with and inevitably complicate the
procedures used to negotiate seniority list integration.” In addition, allowing the involvement of any employee or group of employees with sufficiently distinct interests would be an invitation to chaos; the seniority
integration process cannot accommodate the participation of whoever might be affected by the final result. Therefore, the process contemplated by McCaskill-Bond allows only the certified bargaining representatives to participate in seniority integration proceedings."
The west pilots point out that Judge Silver said that SCS, USAPA would have not rights. Could it be that the APA's and company's attorneys disagreed with that point? In any case, all party agreed with USAPA's participation, not with the west's.
