Two MTA Board members, one with close ties to labor, have come out against the agency’s decision to appeal the binding TWU arbitration win. Mitchell Pally and Norman Seabrook, the head of the New York City Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, urged the transit authority to drop its suit challenging the arbitration award. The MTA is attempting to appeal the guaranteed 11 percent raises over three years on the grounds that it would be a financial hardship to pay them. Seabrook said that the MTA’s legal maneuverings present a “clear message to all municipal workers in the city and state that managers want to have their cake and eat it, too – that if a decision comes down they don’t like, they’ll take you to court and strip you of it.” He also presented a Board motion to halt the challenge, and the Board will discuss the motion at its meeting on Wednesday.
previous post
3 comments
Seabrook and Pally get it…..why doesn’t anyone else?
Isn’t binding arbitration just that — binding? If the MTA wasn’t willing to go by the arbiter’s decision, they shouldn’t have agreed to it in the first place.
…binding arbitration (job or contract disputes) can only be overturned upon the showing of an actual conflict of interest, demonstrable bias, or other material reason why the arbitrator was unduly influenced by factors outside the scope of what was being arbitrated. Just because the decision seems unusual or contrary to “common sense” isn’t enough….
Read more: http://www.justanswer.com/ques.....z0RVYlvYUF
http://www.justanswer.com/ques.....-contested