Nic ...
09-20-2014, 06:12 AM
#441
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by cactiboss
This is where you go off the rails, the position of west pilots has ZERO bearing on any harm to American pilots. USAIRWAYS brings a fixed numbers of positions to the merger, it matters not wether west or east pilots hold those positions, period. Now you want to complicate things? Don't use the nic. because then you have furloughed west pilots flying FO in group 4 airplanes, airplanes which according to your logic senior west pilots cannot fly, it only gets more convoluted from there. Your concerns about west pilots flooding widebodies is completely unfounded, as everyone understands there will be fences and beyond the fences there will be a number of seats comensurate to the aircraft each side brings.Guess what? the west and east share all of usairways widebodies and the circuit breaker there is the "no bump no flush" provisions of the mou. Anyway you look at this, the Nicolau simplifies the US/AA integration and is more "equitable". Sewerpipedriver is a lawyer yet he omits one of the key tenants of law as well as arbitration, what was the "intent" of the contracts that were made? Usairways has been managed as a single company since 2005, this isn't opinion but legal fact, everything that happen after that date is as a single carrier. Now the arbitrators might ignore the Nic but do you honestly believe they will ignore our 2005 merger? Usapa escaped another DFR simply because they never got rid of the nic. for another seniority list, the MOU and PA pushed off the NIc. to the arbitrators since the legal system decided they could not decide. The intent of the MOU and PA both are clear, the arbitrators decide wether or not George Nicolaus arbitration should be used, period. (caveat being if west gets a seat)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I understand your argument and the fact you (your committee, if awarded status) have no choice BUT to make such an argument if you want any chance for the arbitrators to consider the Nic list as the only recognized list at US Airways in consideration to AA pilots. Your position is that there IS no other list at US Airways that should be considered and integration considerations can ONLY be based on that list. In other words, the present "status quo" (at least as of 12/9/13) is the hypothetical and the unconsummated Nic list is the reality.
Since that list was never implemented regardless of the circumstances and perhaps even more importantly there was no forseeable point in the future it WOULD be implemented, I personally fail to see how the arbitrators will ignore the majority of pilots (89%) that would end up with substantially negative consequences to prioritize the interests of an 11% minority whose pre-merger career expectations were the most limited of all. I support your right to make such an argument, I just have difficulty getting from A to B on that.
Last edited by eaglefly; 09-20-2014 at 06:31 AM.
09-20-2014, 06:24 AM
#442
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by flybywire44
It's good that you hope obstinately. This is especially important during emergency landings, CAT 3 Approaches, and other critical situations where it all rests on your shoulders! easglefly has grown cold toward the Nic award. Eaglefly may believe Nic is the morally sound course of action, but the PA has objectively changed the landscape. Still you poo poo him.
Cacti, you stated: "what was the "intent" of the contracts that were made?" We live in a world where sometimes contracts are meant to be broken. Sometimes groups of people sign things they will make every effort to eventually renege on. Social security is a great example.
Yes, the airlines US Airways merged with American in 2005. But the then technically controlling US/AMWest TA evaporated with the AA/US MOU.
But what's more important than that may be the idea that arbitrators respond to incentive. (Hang on, we're zooming out again.) There are relatively fewer airlines remaining. It's more important than ever that arbitrators, who are chosen based on prior rulings, be considerate to the fact that companies, and unions often hire them with preference to past performance.
Beyond this merger American, and APA will shop for arbitrators again. It would be out side of an arbitrators best interests to upset American and APA with the Nicolau award.
Does this make sense? Incentives are a fairly simple concept. Ie. you love Nic because it incentives you, not because it was an "agreement." If you were a mid seniority East pilot who has ridden the coat tails of USAPA to fly the a330, and then upgrade on the a319 you'd be anti-Nic too! It's all incentives baby!
Lets hope for a mutually beneficial outcome. We need West, East, and AA pilots to all come out ahead on this one. You hoping for anything else may be more self serving here than you realize. We need a socialized arbitration award, and I full believe we will get one because arbitrators may be incentivized by AMR and APA's desires for social harmonization of labor.
Okay, I'm off to accomplish something tangible! God bless you Cacti.
Hang in there everyone!
Cacti, you stated: "what was the "intent" of the contracts that were made?" We live in a world where sometimes contracts are meant to be broken. Sometimes groups of people sign things they will make every effort to eventually renege on. Social security is a great example.
Yes, the airlines US Airways merged with American in 2005. But the then technically controlling US/AMWest TA evaporated with the AA/US MOU.
But what's more important than that may be the idea that arbitrators respond to incentive. (Hang on, we're zooming out again.) There are relatively fewer airlines remaining. It's more important than ever that arbitrators, who are chosen based on prior rulings, be considerate to the fact that companies, and unions often hire them with preference to past performance.
Beyond this merger American, and APA will shop for arbitrators again. It would be out side of an arbitrators best interests to upset American and APA with the Nicolau award.
Does this make sense? Incentives are a fairly simple concept. Ie. you love Nic because it incentives you, not because it was an "agreement." If you were a mid seniority East pilot who has ridden the coat tails of USAPA to fly the a330, and then upgrade on the a319 you'd be anti-Nic too! It's all incentives baby!
Lets hope for a mutually beneficial outcome. We need West, East, and AA pilots to all come out ahead on this one. You hoping for anything else may be more self serving here than you realize. We need a socialized arbitration award, and I full believe we will get one because arbitrators may be incentivized by AMR and APA's desires for social harmonization of labor.
Okay, I'm off to accomplish something tangible! God bless you Cacti.
Hang in there everyone!
As I stated before, the West really has NO alternative but to not recognize any US Airways list besides the Nic as a valid starting point for integration with AA pilots. To do so, would simply be their own admission it's not required to be applicable in this or any other integration and they'd invalidate it before it even had a real chance for consideration. They're committed and since the East negotiators NEVER will accept the Nic, it will be the arbitrators who decide its weight and IMO, considering THESE circumstances and not any previous unfulfilled hypotheticals.
Should the arbitrators not use the Nic (and let's be clear, there is only the Nic or no Nic - "some" similarities of the Nic in the final award is NOT the Nic), I don't see who West pilots could sue for DFR....well, at least win a DFR suit. Not APA and I'm not sure what blood could be siphoned out of a defunct union that will be financially "busted flat in Baton Rouge" at the point of any DFR judgement.
Last edited by eaglefly; 09-20-2014 at 06:44 AM.
09-20-2014, 06:43 AM
#443
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Eaglefly is making some rational observations here.
One point... the "Nicolau list" itself is gone. It's pretty clear that a West committee cannot simply plop down the Nicolau list as he published it, for two major reasons. Firstly, the presumed future "West Committee" cannot reorder folks on the East list. That order is clearly the purview of the East Committee. And there have been some changes since 2007 which need to be accounted for and the West clearly doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily "present" those needed changes as they see them, they need to argue for them, and there would be several points of contention. Secondly, the PA is pretty clear that the three existing lists are what goes into the negotiations. The Nicolau as originally published represents no existing seniority list.
Realistically, what the West Committee would want to do is plop down the West list as it currently exists and then argue for a seniority list integration that "mirrors" the methodology of the Nicolau from back then, plus adding the new hires (3rd listers) to create a combined "LCC list" which is then merged with AA. Sort of a 3 step process. First the AWA-US do-over, then the adding of the new hires (pre Dec. '13) then the LCC-AA. This may seem a fine point of contention vs. "presenting the Nic" but I think it's important.
Only problem is I don't envision the APA and the arbitrators will go for that. USAPA will certainly argue against it and I imagine so will APA. There's also the clauses in the MOU that prevent seniority integration methodologies that materially increase costs for the company. A lot to consider. I think ultimately the arbitrators will certainly consider the expectations engendered by the Nicolau award but I personally see it going down as "3 way" combining 3 lists at once instead of a 3 step process.
One point... the "Nicolau list" itself is gone. It's pretty clear that a West committee cannot simply plop down the Nicolau list as he published it, for two major reasons. Firstly, the presumed future "West Committee" cannot reorder folks on the East list. That order is clearly the purview of the East Committee. And there have been some changes since 2007 which need to be accounted for and the West clearly doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily "present" those needed changes as they see them, they need to argue for them, and there would be several points of contention. Secondly, the PA is pretty clear that the three existing lists are what goes into the negotiations. The Nicolau as originally published represents no existing seniority list.
Realistically, what the West Committee would want to do is plop down the West list as it currently exists and then argue for a seniority list integration that "mirrors" the methodology of the Nicolau from back then, plus adding the new hires (3rd listers) to create a combined "LCC list" which is then merged with AA. Sort of a 3 step process. First the AWA-US do-over, then the adding of the new hires (pre Dec. '13) then the LCC-AA. This may seem a fine point of contention vs. "presenting the Nic" but I think it's important.
Only problem is I don't envision the APA and the arbitrators will go for that. USAPA will certainly argue against it and I imagine so will APA. There's also the clauses in the MOU that prevent seniority integration methodologies that materially increase costs for the company. A lot to consider. I think ultimately the arbitrators will certainly consider the expectations engendered by the Nicolau award but I personally see it going down as "3 way" combining 3 lists at once instead of a 3 step process.
09-20-2014, 06:43 AM
#444
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
I've read over the PA quite a few times since it's release. My feeling is that it won't allow the Nic to be used. A lot of different thoughts and ideas have been put out there, but I like to try and read the actual language and figure out what it really means. Here's my take:
The first question is will a separate merger committee even be allowed for the West pilots? My first inclination is the preliminary arbitration board will say no. It boils down to the simple fact that the West pilots are legally represented by USAPA for SLI purposes, as are the East. The process must be consistent with the M/B process, and that process doesn't allow separate representation, as Judge Silver reiterated. However, anything can happen in arbitration...
So the next question is what happens IF the West is allowed a separate merger committee? This is a little more complicated, but if you read carefully through the PA, the process seems quite clear. So let's assume the West is granted their own merger committee.
The PA quite clearly spells out what can be negotiated. The West committee, if allowed, MUST follow the protocols set out in the PA. Paragraph 8 deals with a possible West committee. And if allowed, Paragraph 8.C.3 says paragraphs 2 and 5 will be reconsidered.
Paragraph 2 deals with the exchange of employment data. So the West will get to verify their own list. Paragraph 2.b says the lists used will be the status quo lists in effect on December 9th, 2013. That's not the Nic. So here the West is tied to using their own separate list in negotiating the items as defined in paragraph 5.
Paragraph 5 defines what is to be negotiated. Paragraph 5.a says the merger committees will negotiate "matters referenced in subparagraph b". So the West will be tied to these items. These items basically define what each party brings to the merger. Pilots, planes, staffing formulas etc...
Paragraph 5.D says the merger committees can limit the arbitration panels authority. They can define exactly what the arbitration panel is to decide. They can "limit the issues to be submitted to the Arbitration Panel for resolution." Paragraph 11 further backs this up as it says that the arbitrators will receive the "stipulations" prior to even beginning the arbitration. I don't think the arbitrators will be given the authority to even consider the Nic.
Paragraph 5.E says "No position nor anything said by any participant during negotiations shall be admissible in the seniority integration arbitration." So even if the West tries to discuss the Nic in negotiations, it can't be mentioned to the arbitrators.
Lastly, paragraph 15 says the integrated list resulting from this process, "whether arrived at through agreement or arbitration" will be binding on everyone.
It's interesting they mention "agreement" in paragraph 15. My personal belief is that they will agree on a integrated list without the arbitration process. There will be a few minor sticking point that they will submit to the arbitrators. The arbitrators will be limited to ONLY those items. Then they will rule and put out an official list that was legally produced through federal arbitration...
Just my opinion...
The first question is will a separate merger committee even be allowed for the West pilots? My first inclination is the preliminary arbitration board will say no. It boils down to the simple fact that the West pilots are legally represented by USAPA for SLI purposes, as are the East. The process must be consistent with the M/B process, and that process doesn't allow separate representation, as Judge Silver reiterated. However, anything can happen in arbitration...
So the next question is what happens IF the West is allowed a separate merger committee? This is a little more complicated, but if you read carefully through the PA, the process seems quite clear. So let's assume the West is granted their own merger committee.
The PA quite clearly spells out what can be negotiated. The West committee, if allowed, MUST follow the protocols set out in the PA. Paragraph 8 deals with a possible West committee. And if allowed, Paragraph 8.C.3 says paragraphs 2 and 5 will be reconsidered.
Paragraph 2 deals with the exchange of employment data. So the West will get to verify their own list. Paragraph 2.b says the lists used will be the status quo lists in effect on December 9th, 2013. That's not the Nic. So here the West is tied to using their own separate list in negotiating the items as defined in paragraph 5.
Paragraph 5 defines what is to be negotiated. Paragraph 5.a says the merger committees will negotiate "matters referenced in subparagraph b". So the West will be tied to these items. These items basically define what each party brings to the merger. Pilots, planes, staffing formulas etc...
Paragraph 5.D says the merger committees can limit the arbitration panels authority. They can define exactly what the arbitration panel is to decide. They can "limit the issues to be submitted to the Arbitration Panel for resolution." Paragraph 11 further backs this up as it says that the arbitrators will receive the "stipulations" prior to even beginning the arbitration. I don't think the arbitrators will be given the authority to even consider the Nic.
Paragraph 5.E says "No position nor anything said by any participant during negotiations shall be admissible in the seniority integration arbitration." So even if the West tries to discuss the Nic in negotiations, it can't be mentioned to the arbitrators.
Lastly, paragraph 15 says the integrated list resulting from this process, "whether arrived at through agreement or arbitration" will be binding on everyone.
It's interesting they mention "agreement" in paragraph 15. My personal belief is that they will agree on a integrated list without the arbitration process. There will be a few minor sticking point that they will submit to the arbitrators. The arbitrators will be limited to ONLY those items. Then they will rule and put out an official list that was legally produced through federal arbitration...
Just my opinion...
09-20-2014, 07:04 AM
#445
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by ackattacker
Eaglefly is making some rational observations here.
One point... the "Nicolau list" itself is gone. It's pretty clear that a West committee cannot simply plop down the Nicolau list as he published it, for two major reasons. Firstly, the presumed future "West Committee" cannot reorder folks on the East list. That order is clearly the purview of the East Committee. And there have been some changes since 2007 which need to be accounted for and the West clearly doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily "present" those needed changes as they see them, they need to argue for them, and there would be several points of contention. Secondly, the PA is pretty clear that the three existing lists are what goes into the negotiations. The Nicolau as originally published represents no existing seniority list.
One point... the "Nicolau list" itself is gone. It's pretty clear that a West committee cannot simply plop down the Nicolau list as he published it, for two major reasons. Firstly, the presumed future "West Committee" cannot reorder folks on the East list. That order is clearly the purview of the East Committee. And there have been some changes since 2007 which need to be accounted for and the West clearly doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily "present" those needed changes as they see them, they need to argue for them, and there would be several points of contention. Secondly, the PA is pretty clear that the three existing lists are what goes into the negotiations. The Nicolau as originally published represents no existing seniority list.
That would be "leapfrogging". I'd be VERY surprised if it did.
Originally Posted by ackattacker
Realistically, what the West Committee would want to do is plop down the West list as it currently exists and then argue for a seniority list integration that "mirrors" the methodology of the Nicolau from back then, plus adding the new hires (3rd listers) to create a combined "LCC list" which is then merged with AA. Sort of a 3 step process. First the AWA-US do-over, then the adding of the new hires (pre Dec. '13) then the LCC-AA. This may seem a fine point of contention vs. "presenting the Nic" but I think it's important.
Only problem is I don't envision the APA and the arbitrators will go for that. USAPA will certainly argue against it and I imagine so will APA. There's also the clauses in the MOU that prevent seniority integration methodologies that materially increase costs for the company. A lot to consider. I think ultimately the arbitrators will certainly consider the expectations engendered by the Nicolau award but I personally see it going down as "3 way" combining 3 lists at once instead of a 3 step process.
Only problem is I don't envision the APA and the arbitrators will go for that. USAPA will certainly argue against it and I imagine so will APA. There's also the clauses in the MOU that prevent seniority integration methodologies that materially increase costs for the company. A lot to consider. I think ultimately the arbitrators will certainly consider the expectations engendered by the Nicolau award but I personally see it going down as "3 way" combining 3 lists at once instead of a 3 step process.
09-20-2014, 07:16 AM
#446
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by algflyr
I've read over the PA quite a few times since it's release. My feeling is that it won't allow the Nic to be used. A lot of different thoughts and ideas have been put out there, but I like to try and read the actual language and figure out what it really means. Here's my take:
The first question is will a separate merger committee even be allowed for the West pilots? My first inclination is the preliminary arbitration board will say no. It boils down to the simple fact that the West pilots are legally represented by USAPA for SLI purposes, as are the East. The process must be consistent with the M/B process, and that process doesn't allow separate representation, as Judge Silver reiterated. However, anything can happen in arbitration...
The first question is will a separate merger committee even be allowed for the West pilots? My first inclination is the preliminary arbitration board will say no. It boils down to the simple fact that the West pilots are legally represented by USAPA for SLI purposes, as are the East. The process must be consistent with the M/B process, and that process doesn't allow separate representation, as Judge Silver reiterated. However, anything can happen in arbitration...
Originally Posted by algflyr
, but if you read carefully through the PA, the process seems quite clear. So let's assume the West is granted their own merger committee.
The PA quite clearly spells out what can be negotiated. The West committee, if allowed, MUST follow the protocols set out in the PA. Paragraph 8 deals with a possible West committee. And if allowed, Paragraph 8.C.3 says paragraphs 2 and 5 will be reconsidered.
Paragraph 2 deals with the exchange of employment data. So the West will get to verify their own list. Paragraph 2.b says the lists used will be the status quo lists in effect on December 9th, 2013. That's not the Nic. So here the West is tied to using their own separate list in negotiating the items as defined in paragraph 5.
Paragraph 5 defines what is to be negotiated. Paragraph 5.a says the merger committees will negotiate "matters referenced in subparagraph b". So the West will be tied to these items. These items basically define what each party brings to the merger. Pilots, planes, staffing formulas etc...
Paragraph 5.D says the merger committees can limit the arbitration panels authority. They can define exactly what the arbitration panel is to decide. They can "limit the issues to be submitted to the Arbitration Panel for resolution." Paragraph 11 further backs this up as it says that the arbitrators will receive the "stipulations" prior to even beginning the arbitration. I don't think the arbitrators will be given the authority to even consider the Nic.
Paragraph 5.E says "No position nor anything said by any participant during negotiations shall be admissible in the seniority integration arbitration." So even if the West tries to discuss the Nic in negotiations, it can't be mentioned to the arbitrators.
Lastly, paragraph 15 says the integrated list resulting from this process, "whether arrived at through agreement or arbitration" will be binding on everyone.
It's interesting they mention "agreement" in paragraph 15. My personal belief is that they will agree on a integrated list without the arbitration process. There will be a few minor sticking point that they will submit to the arbitrators. The arbitrators will be limited to ONLY those items. Then they will rule and put out an official list that was legally produced through federal arbitration...
Just my opinion...
The PA quite clearly spells out what can be negotiated. The West committee, if allowed, MUST follow the protocols set out in the PA. Paragraph 8 deals with a possible West committee. And if allowed, Paragraph 8.C.3 says paragraphs 2 and 5 will be reconsidered.
Paragraph 2 deals with the exchange of employment data. So the West will get to verify their own list. Paragraph 2.b says the lists used will be the status quo lists in effect on December 9th, 2013. That's not the Nic. So here the West is tied to using their own separate list in negotiating the items as defined in paragraph 5.
Paragraph 5 defines what is to be negotiated. Paragraph 5.a says the merger committees will negotiate "matters referenced in subparagraph b". So the West will be tied to these items. These items basically define what each party brings to the merger. Pilots, planes, staffing formulas etc...
Paragraph 5.D says the merger committees can limit the arbitration panels authority. They can define exactly what the arbitration panel is to decide. They can "limit the issues to be submitted to the Arbitration Panel for resolution." Paragraph 11 further backs this up as it says that the arbitrators will receive the "stipulations" prior to even beginning the arbitration. I don't think the arbitrators will be given the authority to even consider the Nic.
Paragraph 5.E says "No position nor anything said by any participant during negotiations shall be admissible in the seniority integration arbitration." So even if the West tries to discuss the Nic in negotiations, it can't be mentioned to the arbitrators.
Lastly, paragraph 15 says the integrated list resulting from this process, "whether arrived at through agreement or arbitration" will be binding on everyone.
It's interesting they mention "agreement" in paragraph 15. My personal belief is that they will agree on a integrated list without the arbitration process. There will be a few minor sticking point that they will submit to the arbitrators. The arbitrators will be limited to ONLY those items. Then they will rule and put out an official list that was legally produced through federal arbitration...
Just my opinion...
09-20-2014, 07:19 AM
#447
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
There are West pilots who went East. Then got rearranged on the East list.
There are even furloughed East pilots who took recall to the West at one point.
There are retirements, furloughs, medical leaves, military leaves, voluntary leave of absence, deferred recall, management pilots etc.
Some (not all) of those things can result in slight reordering of the list or leapfrogging, yes. It needs to be addressed. A lot has happened since 2007. Hell a lot happened between 2005 and 2007 which is one of the big "problems" with the Nic.
Point is the Nicolau award as published doesn't represent any existing seniority order and doesn't even include all the people on property.
Second point is that the Nicolau award is a "list" with East pilots on it. The PA is very clear that any West Committee doesn't represent the East Pilots. So how can they present a combined list? All they can do is present their list and argue for how it should be combined. They can say "combine it just like Nicolau" but they can't present the Nicolau list as an accomplished thing.
There are even furloughed East pilots who took recall to the West at one point.
There are retirements, furloughs, medical leaves, military leaves, voluntary leave of absence, deferred recall, management pilots etc.
Some (not all) of those things can result in slight reordering of the list or leapfrogging, yes. It needs to be addressed. A lot has happened since 2007. Hell a lot happened between 2005 and 2007 which is one of the big "problems" with the Nic.
Point is the Nicolau award as published doesn't represent any existing seniority order and doesn't even include all the people on property.
Second point is that the Nicolau award is a "list" with East pilots on it. The PA is very clear that any West Committee doesn't represent the East Pilots. So how can they present a combined list? All they can do is present their list and argue for how it should be combined. They can say "combine it just like Nicolau" but they can't present the Nicolau list as an accomplished thing.
09-20-2014, 07:36 AM
#448
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by ackattacker
There are West pilots who went East. Then got rearranged on the East list.
There are even furloughed East pilots who took recall to the West at one point.
There are retirements, furloughs, medical leaves, military leaves, voluntary leave of absence, deferred recall, management pilots etc.
Some (not all) of those things can result in slight reordering of the list or leapfrogging, yes. It needs to be addressed.
There are even furloughed East pilots who took recall to the West at one point.
There are retirements, furloughs, medical leaves, military leaves, voluntary leave of absence, deferred recall, management pilots etc.
Some (not all) of those things can result in slight reordering of the list or leapfrogging, yes. It needs to be addressed.
Originally Posted by ackattacker
Point is the Nicolau award as published doesn't represent any existing seniority order and doesn't even include all the people on property.
Originally Posted by ackattacker
Second point is that the Nicolau award is a "list" with East pilots on it. The PA is very clear that any West Committee doesn't represent the East Pilots. So how can they present a combined list? All they can do is present their list and argue for how it should be combined. They can say "combine it just like Nicolau" but they can't present the Nicolau list as an accomplished thing.
09-20-2014, 08:13 AM
#449
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by eaglefly
So, just to be clear, the NIC LIST adjusted the relative seniority of some US/AWA pre-merger pilots from previous positions on their respective lists at the time the list was constructed by Nicolau, i.e., that some pre-merger East pilots became more senior to East pilots they were previously junior to and/or likewise for some West pilots ?
I'll try to provide a concrete example, although there are many possible scenarios.
Let's say, for example, that you are sitting in the right seat during a particular inflight emergency and become semi-famous. You decide to take a personal leave of absence to better explore the opportunities fame presents. You continue to accrue seniority for 12 months, but then seniority accrual *stops* per the contract and people start passing you on the seniority list.
So, your relative position on the East list is now *changed* from when the Nicolau list was created. People who where junior to you, are now senior to you. If you went back and used the Nicalau, it would put you back as senior to those folks who passed you. Hardly fair. So, the only way to correct that is to recompute the Nic list using the Nicolau methodology but with the East list as it currently exists... make sense?
Now, I'm sure one could come up with all kinds of calculations to "fix" these problems... but that's hardly the purview of a West Merger Committee to state exactly how they should be "fixed". It becomes part of the negotiations... and no longer is the Nicolau list!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
