Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis
Dell,
The vast majority of collective bargaining contract language is ambiguous on purpose - to protect both sides. And to your point, given the deck stacked against them, an arbitrator would usually side with the union, especially in the scenario you present.
However there almost always exists language that is hard and fast; that which pertains to wages, vacation time, vacation selection, sick leave, COLA adjustments in multi year contracts, etc.
For there to be no language to directly correlate wage schedules based upon a sliding scale relative to the total amount of racing days granted by the commission (the CBA predated the commission's assignment of racing days) seems foolhardy.
If the AFSCME bargaining agreement had binding language regarding the amount of racing dates vs. work days, there would be no leg to stand on in arbitration.
|
they would have never signed it!
Possibly the only counter move Fairmont has is 'do' an a'la Arlington and start stacking up on fire insurance. The fact a track will basically shut down because of six jobs is 'poetic' justice.