Hydroplane
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Posts
- 5
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0152p-06.pdf
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that theCBA pilot-integration provision is not in conflict with McCaskill-Bond; AFFIRM itsdetermination that it had jurisdiction to order the Carriers to act in conformity with the CBA,which requires that they either accept the ISL or submit to expedited grievance arbitration;VACATE the preliminary injunction to the extent it permits the Carriers to do the former andremoves the option to do the latter; and REMAND this matter to the district court for furtherproceedings consistent with this opinion.
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that theCBA pilot-integration provision is not in conflict with McCaskill-Bond; AFFIRM itsdetermination that it had jurisdiction to order the Carriers to act in conformity with the CBA,which requires that they either accept the ISL or submit to expedited grievance arbitration;VACATE the preliminary injunction to the extent it permits the Carriers to do the former andremoves the option to do the latter; and REMAND this matter to the district court for furtherproceedings consistent with this opinion.
Last edited: