Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDDuck  Umm... No?
In his preliminary finding he said that, but in the final issuance he said the PNCL Holdings was not governed by the contract between 9EALPA and PNCL Airlines.
Or at least that's what I thought. |
The ruling is very conflicting. The latest ruling said that: 1. Pinnacle Airlines is in violation of the scope clause 2. Pinnacle Corp is operating as an "alter-ego" of Pinnacle Airlines, and 3: Pinnacle Corp is not required to bring itself in compliance with the scope clause, despite the violation
Basically it says that Pinnacle Corp is the same thing as Pinnacle Airlines, but that they don't have to comply with his own interpretation of the scope clause. The problem here is that the arbitrator doesn't seem to be quite sure whether he has jurisdiction of Pinnacle Corp. He knows they're in violation, but he doesn't seem to know whether he can force them to comply. Very strange situation. That's why ALPA is seeking a clarification to see exactly what all of this means.