A judge would likely take the intent of the RLA into account when faced with this situation. The entire purpose of the RLA is to lead to dispute resolution rather than job actions. Self help is to be as difficult as possible so neither side is able to bring unequal force against the other. That way, both sides are encouraged to reach an agreement rather than continue self help. With CHAOS, self help brings little pain for labor since they continue to receive a paycheck, but much pain against the company, because everyone starts booking away to avoid the CHAOS activities. This gives labor far more power than management, rather than it being equal, which violates the intent of the Act.
I have never heard that, even from ALPA attorneys and advisors that assisted with SP(s)C ops I've worked on in the past. In fact, in preliminary discussions, a CHAOS-type strike was one of the strategies we were packaging for our MEC.
Just curious.
If you're still doing ALPA work, I can give you some names of attorneys to talk to. Send me a PM. You have to talk to the guys in Legal, because the Contract Administrators from the Representation Department aren't the experts in this kind of stuff. In-depth legal interpretations of the RLA fall under the Legal Departmnet.
