Guppiedriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Posts
- 544
You paraphrased a little wrong with your own opinion there. They in fact said the opposite of you. They didn't say the minute USAPA implements ANYTHING other than the nic. They stated unequivocally that when a contract is voted in, then the ripeness question is met. THEY did not tie, ripeness and whether the seniority list had to be nic together. In fact they STATED that even IF the contract does NOT contain the NIC, it doesn't necessarily mean a breach of DFR exists.....
reread the notes and chew on that for a bit...
You guys seems to want the tie the matter of ripeness to the NIC. They are separate. The court basically said, nothing has happened yet, so a determination of breach of DFR is not RIPE, can NOT be determined at this time.
They seemed to do everyone a favor, and stated, that just because the seniority list does not contain the NIC, again doesn't necessarily indicate a breach of DFR. They stated that simply, you have to get a contract, (which hits the ripeness criteria) THEN look at what is contained in that contract to determine if a breach of DFR has happened, and the fact that an INTERNAL UNION PROCESS (from a different union) doesn't mean you have a breach of DFR........
So Easy even a caveman can do it....
It's amusing to me that you find interpretation of the law to be so simple. Neither of us can read what was decided by the 9th and determine exactly what they meant.
One thing is certain....you guys signed on the dotted line and agreed that final and binding would be just that. If the courts allow you to weasel out of your obligations, it will turn the world of arbitration upside down. I don't see that happening.