Viewing page 46 of 130

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

188-40B 71st Crescent 
Flushing, New York 
April 17, 1950 

Mr. Maurice Schy
Legal & Conciliation Dept.
Air Line Pilots Assoc. 
3145 West 63rd St.
Chicago 29 

Dear Mr. Schy:

The information of Judge Simmons' denial of my grievance against Colonial, contained in your letter of April 14, 1950, was a real surprise. It only proves once again the truth of the saying, "The best laid plans of mice and men often so astray". 

Frankly, I am at a loss to understand just what happened particularly since I do not yet have a copy of the Judge's decision. However, from the information contained in your letter, it appears that the Judge answered the wrong question. The question that we wanted answered was; Does the Company have the right to extend a bid in order to give a particular individual more time to make up his mind, and isn't the company by doing so using the bidding system as a selection system rather than a free competitive bidding system? Now what the Judge has said in his decision is, that the company may cancel a bid and that the extension of the bid on May 27, 1949 was merely a cancellation of the original bid. Now by this decision has the Judge answered the original question or has he legalized the company's action when he changes the extension into a cancellation of the original bid. 

For your information the company has posted bids and later cancelled them prior to May 27, 1949 and since May 27, 1949. Nobody has questioned the company's right in doing so, because as it so happened the contemplated schedule increase did not materialize. However, for the Judge to call an extension of a bid in effect a cancellation of an original bid, even though it was for the express purpose of granting a certain individual more time to make up his mind is a travesty. I am mighty curious to learn by what stretch of the imagination did he arrive at that conclusion.