Viewing page 2 of 130

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Council 28
Colonial Airlines
June 13, 1952

Mr. M. Schy
Legal & Conciliation Dept.
Airline Pilots Association
Chicago, Ill.

Dear Mr. Schy:

In reference to your letter of May 12, 1952 on the Gitt Case, there is a question in our minds as to whether or not any further action can be taken. In refering to our contract, the section covering the system board of adjustment Section (m) as amendended states: "That the majority vote of the board shall be final, binding, and conclusive between the Company and the Association and anyone that may represent having an interest in the dispute."

Further, refering to your letter wherein you state the Crouse case accentuated the injustice done to Capt Gitt, we feel there is no similarity between the two cases. In the Crouse case, the bid was for a two week period and a junior man was assigned to fly the trip in order to maintain the schedule. The Company took the position that it would take the two week period of the bid to qualify Crouse after which time he would not have been needed. In our first contact with the Company, they agreed to abide by the contract and compensate Crouse for the bid.

To complete our file we would appreciate a copy of Judge Simmons's reply in answer to your letter of June 30, 1950.

Any further advise or assistance will be greatly appreciated. 

Yours very truly,
H. Huston
Chairman
O.L. Jacobs
Vice Chairman
L. E. Whitaker
Sr. Copilot Rep.
Thomas R. Crane
Copilot rep.