Northwest Mechanics Deal

[rjemery]

I read an article in the NY Times (4/10/2001) on the Northwest labor agreement with its mechanics. A sentence therein stated: "The Northwest deal came a few days before an emergency board appointed last month by President Bush was scheduled to issue a settlement proposal." The article also stated that Northwest previously agreed to accept the proposal in the event a deal between it and its mechanics union was not reached, a promise the union declined to match.

Elsewhere in the article and from other news sources, I got the impression that this proposed settlement would have been considered binding on both parties, and that is my question:

Is any settlement proposal issued by the emergency board or the National Mediation Board (assumed to be two different entities) considered to be binding arbitration, to be imposed on the parties involved? That seems a bit draconian.

------------------
R. J. Emery

[Rogaine addict]

Under the Railway Labor act, the National Mediation Board will offer binding arbitration as one of the final steps in the bargaining process, but both parties must agree for it to be binding. If just one party declines the NMB will declare the 2nd Impasse and the 30 day cooling off period will start until self help can begin (strike or lockout). In the event of a PEB, the parties are delayed from pursuing self help but may be required to be at the bargaining table by law. The PEB could perform binding arbitration probably only if both parties agree to it. Also with a PEB, congress could impose the terms of a new contract (scary).