I stand corrected. Found this on the b6 board.
The Company asked Kevin Fitzpatrick to draft the base language for all the documents which in turn were passed back and forth between PVC and the ELT for editing.
The PVC voted 7-0 to reject the documents on the original Jan 28th dead line and again (7-0) when presented with ELT’s final offer on Feb 4th. On March 1-2 the PVC was asked to meet with ELT to further modify the documents in order to reach an agreement on the language. On March 2nd the PVC agreed to the documents by a vote of 4-0-3 contingent on concepts introduced that evening being included in the language (Scott, Israel, Grasley, Yoder voted YES and Cates, Cooper, Tarvin ABSTAINED).
This vote occurred prior to seeing the language in writing - the reason I abstained. The secondary reason is a few MAJOR items were conceded by the PVC in order to reach the verbal agreement. One of the items was the ability to act together to enforce contract violations.
The PVC and ELT now disagree on what that verbal agreement was. The final version, provided by the ELT on Tuesday, March 22nd, which failed to correctly incorporate the verbal changes and now indicates the conceded items as "agreed to", was unanimously rejected by the PVC. Following ELT’s release of the documents the PVC will likely meet to create a communication package which will include the following:
- Language proposed by the PVC which was ultimately rejected by management
- The PVC's opinion on why the proposed language is needed by the individual pilot
- A legal analysis from Kevin Fitzpatrick of all five documents as they compare to industry norms
- Possibly a second, independant, legal analysis of our entire legal structure as compared to the industry
(if the PVC is able to obtain funding from Management)
BC