Rumor has it that LOA 93 Arbitrator Has Ruled

[charlie2]

You are also saying that an arbitrator looks beyond the merits of the case and makes decisions based on those. The reason I doubt it is they want to selected for more in the future for more big pay. If there is an arbitration on giving a pilot his job back after shooting a hole in the cockpit and if the company thinks he will consider that they violated the RLA and had a judge order the company to bargain in good faith or that the CEO has had a DUI then maybe he wont get selected.

 

[TWA Dude]

I don't buy that Kasher gives a crap about USAPA's response either. I could believe the company and/or USAPA requesting a delay (and indeed that happened at least once).

 

[charlie2]

I don't buy that Kasher gives a crap about USAPA's response either. I could believe the company and/or USAPA requesting a delay (and indeed that happened at least once).

A delay in the issuance of the award? I don't remember that.

 

[PCL_128]

You are also saying that an arbitrator looks beyond the merits of the case

Absolutely. If you think otherwise, you haven't dealt much with arbitrators. There are many factors that go into their decisions, and the merit of the case is just one of those factors. That's why arbitration is far from a perfect system.

The reason I doubt it is they want to selected for more in the future for more big pay.

Of course. And how often do you think Mr. Kasher will get struck by USAPA in the future after he issues an award against them in this high-profile case? Just as they'll never use Nicolau (probably the best and most fair arbitrator in the country), they would never use him again after a ruling against them on LOA 93. He's better off waiting as long as possible, avoiding the problems that will come from the ruling, and hoping like hell that the contract gets sorted out on its own while he stalls.

 

[TWA Dude]

A delay in the issuance of the award? I don't remember that.

A month. The arb tells both sides how he's ruled and the parties can delay the report for a month. That's how we know to expect the announcement very, very soon.

 

[charlie2]

Absolutely. If you think otherwise, you haven't dealt much with arbitrators. There are many factors that go into their decisions, and the merit of the case is just one of those factors. That's why arbitration is far from a perfect system.

I have never dealt with an arbitrator...never fired my gun in the cockpit!

Of course. And how often do you think Mr. Kasher will get struck by USAPA in the future after he issues an award against them in this high-profile case? Just as they'll never use Nicolau (probably the best and most fair arbitrator in the country), they would never use him again after a ruling against them on LOA 93. He's better off waiting as long as possible, avoiding the problems that will come from the ruling, and hoping like hell that the contract gets sorted out on its own while he stalls.

I disagree a little. If he has sound precedent and RLA rules to use in his decision then we will have to agree and move on. I have posted this at least twice and no one responds so I'll try one more time and then I will never try again...I promise! A contract with many sections has an amendable date at the end of the contract not after each section, paragraph or sentence. This LOA clearly has a start and end date after the pay "freeze" language...why?

 

[charlie2]

A month. The arb tells both sides how he's ruled and the parties can delay the report for a month. That's how we know to expect the announcement very, very soon.

OK but he told our reps in June that he knows he owes us a decision and will have one in two months and by my calandar it's October...unless I forgot to wind it.

 

[PCL_128]

I disagree a little. If he has sound precedent and RLA rules to use in his decision then we will have to agree and move on. I have posted this at least twice and no one responds so I'll try one more time and then I will never try again...I promise! A contract with many sections has an amendable date at the end of the contract not after each section, paragraph or sentence. This LOA clearly has a start and end date after the pay "freeze" language...why?

The problem you have is that the language is not completely clear. Arbitrators love to have language that is really clear, because they can rest their decision on the clear language and not have to worry about the rest. But in this case, it never actually uses words like "expires" or "amendable." That makes the language vague. When that happens, arbitrators move on to other criteria to make a decision. The next thing they'll look for is original intent, if it can be determined. Your biggest problem here is the evidence that your own reps didn't' believe that those rates were amendable. Your own reps testified that they didn't expire. I believe it was your PHL council that sent out a message making it clear way back then that the rates didn't expire. All of that is part of the record in the arbitration hearing. It looks really, really bad for you.

Look, as much as I despise USAPA, I'd like you guys to win. That $124/hr Airbus and 737 rate is a real anchor on pattern bargaining for everyone else right now. UAL/CAL are in Section 6 right now, and Alaska, Delta, and Southwest open up next year. The last thing anyone needs is a $124/hr SNB rate when we're all trying to get it above $200/hr again (or keep it there in the case of SWA). That Airways rate really needs to go up, or this bargaining cycle won't be very easy. I just don't see how you can do it with LOA 93. You need a new CBA.

 

[charlie2]

The problem you have is that the language is not completely clear. Arbitrators love to have language that is really clear, because they can rest their decision on the clear language and not have to worry about the rest. But in this case, it never actually uses words like "expires" or "amendable." That makes the language vague. When that happens, arbitrators move on to other criteria to make a decision. The next thing they'll look for is original intent, if it can be determined. Your biggest problem here is the evidence that your own reps didn't' believe that those rates were amendable. Your own reps testified that they didn't expire. I believe it was your PHL council that sent out a message making it clear way back then that the rates didn't expire. All of that is part of the record in the arbitration hearing. It looks really, really bad for you.

But it doesn't look really "bad" for us, we just want a decision, remember Kasher can't lower our rates or "Kashtrate us". I think once we get it there might be a change of heart for some easties...even you, an Airtran guy, "hopes" we win so how do you think a lot of our guys feel?

Look, as much as I despise USAPA, I'd like you guys to win. That $124/hr Airbus and 737 rate is a real anchor on pattern bargaining for everyone else right now. UAL/CAL are in Section 6 right now, and Alaska, Delta, and Southwest open up next year. The last thing anyone needs is a $124/hr SNB rate when we're all trying to get it above $200/hr again (or keep it there in the case of SWA). That Airways rate really needs to go up, or this bargaining cycle won't be very easy. I just don't see how you can do it with LOA 93. You need a new CBA.

Once LOA 93 is in the past there might be a lot more pressure on our NAC to get it moving.

 

[PCL_128]

Once LOA 93 is in the past there might be a lot more pressure on our NAC to get it moving.

A good point. I doubt there's much holding him up at this point. Hopefully you'll have the decision soon.