Not trying to start a food fight here, honest. I'm to lazy to read thru every post on FI to find the answer. So maybe somebody can help without drama. I'm wondering if either party to that merger could have called upon the provisions of McCaskell/Bond (forgive misspelling) to arbitrate the seniority list. Thats really all I want to know... did the two parties have that option. If not, why?
thanks,
windblown
Well, it might very well start a food fight or ruffle feathers (at the least I expect General Lee to impart his infinite wisdom on 'fairness'), but here's an honest answer:
The provisions of McCatskill-Bond are vague on their face, using terms like "fair" and "equitable," without defining them. It speaks of bargaining, mediation, and arbitration. In fact, SWAPA's CBA with the company recognizes MB in its merger/acquisition clause. So, literally, MB WAS complied with. There was bargaining, and an agreement was made and voted on before getting to the mediation or arbitration stages.
The company expressed a desire to have a negotiated list rather than an arbitrated one, and was very involved in the negotiation process. In fact, the company designed the main framework of both AIPs that resulted. The two unions then filled in the rest. The first AIP never got voted on (approved by SWAPA's BOD but rejected by Airtran's MEC), and the second one is the one that was voted on and approved by both unions. During negotiation for the second AIP, the company made it clear that it REALLY wanted a negotiated list rather than an arbitrated list, and suggested that it could operate Airtran separately rather than integrate, should a negotiated list not happen.
Apparently, the bottom line was that it was more important to the company to have a negotiated list (for its "culture" reasons), than it was to gain the synergies of their acquisition by forming a combined company, and made that point clear. This is distinctive because to the best of my knowledge, it's never happened before. Managements normally just let the unions slug it out until it is arbitrated because they want the merger to happen more than anything else.
If either side had voted down (or not let it go to a vote), mediation and arbitration would have happened in accordance with MB and the transistion agreement. However MB only requires the process ending with arbitration and the
creation of a integrated list; it cannot force the company to actually
use the arbitrated list and merge operations. That's a financial and operational decision that's left to the owners and management, and that's where SWA management spoke up. MB merely says that IF you merge the lists, you have to use the "fair and equitable" provisions.
At any rate, here we are. We have an agreed-and-voted-upon seniority list and the appropriate CBA amendments, and we'll go forward from here. Trust me, there's plenty of people on
both sides unhappy with the process and the result. However, approx 84% of the pilots on both sides voted for it, rather than face any of the possible alternatives. Personally, I like to believe that the overwhelming majority of both sides are now ready to accept it and move forward. Does that answer your question?
Bubba
