I see no legal requirement that east and west be on a single contract prior to a merger. Why? Who would require it?
How will USAPA negotiate a new transition agreement and fairly represent the west? Again, from the company filing in the DJ case
That said, as also noted in US Airways’ prior briefs, the case law makes clear that either party can propose amendments to the binding Transition Agreement pursuant to the terms of that Agreement and Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act – so long as the amendments are consistent with USAPA’s DFR to the West Pilots. The question to be resolved by this Court is whether the amendment to the Transition Agreement that USAPA is constitutionally bound to require is, or is not, consistent with its DFR.
What you just said is self-contradictory. Either east/west is required to be on a single contract prior to the merger or they are not. If they are not, and USAPA breaches their DFR in the West's eye's, that doesn't stop them from doing it, it just opens them up to a future lawsuit. And the outcome of such a future lawsuit is not at all clear, the courts have not ruled that using something other than the Nic is a clear DFR violation. Perhaps Judge Silver will make this clear soon, until then it's not at all obvious what would happen.
Absolutely, they can do it, but they can and will be found guilty of a dfr. They were found guilty in Judge Wakes court room. And it will be easier this time. If it ever comes to that, which I doubt it will hence the DJ case.
Do you really believe judge silver will side with the east? And if so, on what grounds? Serious question.