Richard I. Bloch, Jeffrey R. Freund, Daniel M. Katz, Bruce York
March 16, 2011 Proceedings Database
The author proposes means (including the active intervention of the NMB) by which the various parties to airline industry negotiations can effectively negotiate collective bargaining agreements in the years following 2007 (the post-bankruptcy era).
A brief history of the Railway Labor Act, the shortcomings of the current dispute resolution process, and alternative processes that might be more effective are presented. The authors urge NAA members to explore alternative approaches beyond prosaic arbitration.
The author recommends the use of non-traditional approaches to dispute resolution, increased sharing of information, and the involvement of neutrals with expertise in the industry. The author observes that disputes are most efficaciously resolved by mutual respect and compromise.
The parties have incorporated mechanisms for intervention by special panels where they have encountered difficulty in the implementation of particular contract language. These have included a Sick Leave Harassment Panel, and reduction in force and seniority protest panels. In this panel discussion, the participants discuss their perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of the arrangements.
Panelists representing the management of US Airways, the pilots union, the CWA (representing employees at the ticket counters, gates and in reservations), and flight attendants discuss the effects on contract negotiations and employee relations of 9/11 and the subsequent filing for bankruptcy of the airline.
A description of formalized procedures for interest arbitration that have been adopted in the airline industry, the purposes served by the procedures, and the role of the interest arbitrator. The impact of presidential advisory boards (PABs) and of the Airline Labor Dispute Resolution Act are also discussed.