The record in this case reflects at least one anomaly: The parties to this process have presented pre-merger seniority lists that reflect differing approaches to Date of Hire calculations. All lists reflect the hire date as the time the pilot first enters training. According to the record, however, Pinnacle pilots, at times, were not paid until completion of the training. Contending thiat this is when the PCL date of hire should commence, the Mesaba and Colgan representatives direct the Arbitrator’s attention to Part 3C2d of the ALPA merger policy, which states, in relevant part:
“The date of hire shall be the date upon which a pilot first appears upon the Company’s payroll as a pilot and also begins initial operational training required to perform such duties in airline operations.”
The Mesaba and Colgan groups claim that Pinnacle pilots were not “on the payroll” until after training and that, therefore, the assumption of an earlier hire date is inconsistent with ALPA policy. This dispute, which surfaced after the arbitration hearing and after submission of post- hearing arguments and rebuttals, raises the precise question of whether, when the drafters of the Merger Policy used the words “...upon the Company’s payroll” they intended that to mean the pilot would be receiving pay. Alternatively, it is at least arguable that the drafters contemplated a broader meaning. Thus, for example, if it was understood that a pilot was an employee as of the first day of training whose continued tenure was contingent only upon successful completion of the training and the check ride (notwithstanding the absence of salary during that period), one might contend that, for all intents and purposes, the pilot had satisfied the ALPA policy requirement that he or she be on the “payroll.”
For several reasons, the Arbitrator need not, therefore does not, resolve the interpretive issue presented. To the extent an ambiguity exists as to the intended meaning of the above-cited provision, it is an issue that ought be resolved by the parties themselves, or by the drafters. It is at least unclear that this type of interpretive exercise is properly within the scope of this Arbitrator in this case and, in any event, there is no evidence whatsoever as to either the drafting history or, for that matter, the precise manner in which the policy has been applied. Most importantly, resolution of that issue is not required for purposes of implementing the methodologies set forth below. The use of a “ratioed” Status and Category approach devitalizes the impact of most potential date of hire calculation discrepancies.