LOA 93 Update
Although the Union does not discuss arbitrators' decisions when in a draft form, we have very unusual and extenuating circumstances, which we believe dictate a change in our long standing practice of maintaining strict confidentiality -- for this specific dispute only.
Arbitrator Kasher suffered a very serious medical emergency approximately two weeks ago. He is recovering; however, he informed both USAPA and the Company that he would not continue his work until released from his doctor to do so.
During the second week of November a draft decision was released to the parties, and the Union requested an Executive Session, which was scheduled for December 13. Obviously, that has now been postponed indefinitely.
Unfortunately, the Union did not prevail.
It appears that the Arbitrator found that we did not carry our burden of proof.
In order to prevail in this grievance ALPA's negotiators were required to do the following:
The ALPA negotiators must have intended to have the pay restored on January 1, 2010; and
The ALPA negotiators were required to clearly convey and communicate this to the Company negotiators during the course of negotiations.
We were able to present only one negotiator.
The former ALPA negotiator testified that he had communicated these points to the Company; however, he was unable to produce any notes to substantiate his testimony.
The Company produced three negotiators who were able to support their testimony with contemporaneous notes taken during ALPA's presentation of the pay reduction proposal, which contradicted the testimony of the Union witness.
We are still in the early stages of planning our strategy for the Executive Session, but it is unlikely that we will be able to get the Arbitrator to reverse his decision.
We will ask the Arbitrator to clarify several issues in the draft decision.
We do not see any grounds to appeal his decision to federal court.
Given the very recent receipt of the decision and the delicate procedural stage, we do not want to discuss this any further at this point, but we will give more detail after the Executive Session has taken place and the final decision has been issued, at which time the entire record will be immediately made available to all pilots.
Despite justifiable disappointment with the apparent rejection of the Union's grievance in LOA-93, we caution that no pilot may engage in any slowdown or other interference with normal operations. The injunction issued by the United States District Court remains in effect and continues to prohibit each pilot from engaging in any slowdown, strike, work stoppage, sick-out, work to rule campaign, or any other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the RLA. The injunction does not diminish or interfere with the duty of a pilot in command to insure the safety of his or her passengers and equipment, but safety concerns may not be used as an excuse to engage in any slowdown or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations.
Although the Union does not discuss arbitrators' decisions when in a draft form, we have very unusual and extenuating circumstances, which we believe dictate a change in our long standing practice of maintaining strict confidentiality -- for this specific dispute only.
Arbitrator Kasher suffered a very serious medical emergency approximately two weeks ago. He is recovering; however, he informed both USAPA and the Company that he would not continue his work until released from his doctor to do so.
During the second week of November a draft decision was released to the parties, and the Union requested an Executive Session, which was scheduled for December 13. Obviously, that has now been postponed indefinitely.
Unfortunately, the Union did not prevail.
It appears that the Arbitrator found that we did not carry our burden of proof.
In order to prevail in this grievance ALPA's negotiators were required to do the following:
The ALPA negotiators must have intended to have the pay restored on January 1, 2010; and
The ALPA negotiators were required to clearly convey and communicate this to the Company negotiators during the course of negotiations.
We were able to present only one negotiator.
The former ALPA negotiator testified that he had communicated these points to the Company; however, he was unable to produce any notes to substantiate his testimony.
The Company produced three negotiators who were able to support their testimony with contemporaneous notes taken during ALPA's presentation of the pay reduction proposal, which contradicted the testimony of the Union witness.
We are still in the early stages of planning our strategy for the Executive Session, but it is unlikely that we will be able to get the Arbitrator to reverse his decision.
We will ask the Arbitrator to clarify several issues in the draft decision.
We do not see any grounds to appeal his decision to federal court.
Given the very recent receipt of the decision and the delicate procedural stage, we do not want to discuss this any further at this point, but we will give more detail after the Executive Session has taken place and the final decision has been issued, at which time the entire record will be immediately made available to all pilots.
Despite justifiable disappointment with the apparent rejection of the Union's grievance in LOA-93, we caution that no pilot may engage in any slowdown or other interference with normal operations. The injunction issued by the United States District Court remains in effect and continues to prohibit each pilot from engaging in any slowdown, strike, work stoppage, sick-out, work to rule campaign, or any other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations in violation of the RLA. The injunction does not diminish or interfere with the duty of a pilot in command to insure the safety of his or her passengers and equipment, but safety concerns may not be used as an excuse to engage in any slowdown or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations.