11 page grievance . . .

Summary which points to us getting nothing:

The Profit Sharing was supposed to be based on the results of UAL NOT the combined entity of UAL and CAL. Therefore the profits from the CAL side should not accrue to UAL pilots. Furthermore, UCH had no restrictions written or otherwise to sharing CAL's profit with CAL pilots.

Not my message, but I think the lawyers win this one again. . .

Management just restated their losing argument. We've heard that before. Maybe losers think that continuing to re-state their losing position will make them feel better.

"You Have To Keep Repeating Things To Catapult The Propaganda"
#43. :D

Say lies enough times and it can become reality (in some minds).

In my 29 years at United Airlines there has never been a pay raise or bonus paid to pilots that was not contractual. This management, (CAL Management) apparently felt that since their pilots were part of the same workforce they deserved to share in the profit sharing. And in fact, paid them a profit sharing check without regard to whether they had a contract or not. While you can't argue with the generosity of Management, You can point to a lack of language in their CBA that was negotiated prior to the merger AND you can point to the TPA which was signed before the merger was finalized, language that specifically forbids unequal treatment so as not to show favoritism for one group against the other. Each labor group had a contract and until the merger that is what each group worked under.

They paid SOME of the pilots a payment outside their CBA, but did not pay OTHER pilots a payment outside their CBA. So they said "Hey let's give these buys a bonus and not these guys."

So where are we with regard to this grievance?

The company doesn't currently seem obligated to follow the directions of the arb when they lose a grievance. Does it really matter where we are?