Parties must comply with the arbitrator’s decision unless they initiate a court challenge, claiming that the agreement, or the presentation and/or administration of the agreement, is unconscionable.
That is one incredibly high legal hurdle to climb. If the east had been stapled to the bottom of the west, perhaps an argument can be made that the arbitration was
unconscionable, but even then the chances of vacating the decision would be remote.
In this case, the east would have a hard time making an argument that an arbitrators decision that awarded them the top 500+ positions and then melded the two seniority lists, effectively preserving each active pilots relative seniority, is
unconscionable, given the similar gauge of equipment
.
That being said, if the east feels that they can vacate this decision in court, then they ought to take it to court. Dumping ALPA for USAPA will not vacate this decision, nor can the seniority of the west pilots be negotiated away by USAPA in favor of the east pilots in future negotiations. That would be a gross violation of USAPA's duty of fair representation.
The east pilots agreed to binding arbitration and they agreed that Nicolau would be that arbitrator, now they are bound by that, regardless of who represents them.
The notion that changing your representation, after arbitration, vacates the arbitrators decision is just wrong. It's equivalent to stating that if you just change lawyers after a civil decision has been rendered, the decision is then vacated because you've changed lawyers. That just simply is not the case.