Viewing page 111 of 116

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

of Eastern's control of Colonial, had been cancelled on July 30, 1954, and that that contract had been eliminated completely as a matter to be considered in determining the question of control. 

In view of the foregoing, Colonial's invitation to bid which was sent to both National and Eastern on September 24, 1954; Eastern's offer which was submitted on December 20, 1954; and Colonial's acceptance of Eastern's offer on January 28, 1955 -- all occurred after Eastern's control of Colonial had been terminated. We, therefore, conclude that the acquisition agreement currently before us was in no way affected by Eastern's prior control of Colonial and that there are no valid objections to our approval of the agreement. 12/

The labor protective conditions recommended by the Examiner have been previously examined and approved by us. They are acceptable to IAM and are not challenged by the carrier parties. During the hearing, ALPA suggested various changes which the Examiner rejected. ALPA's exceptions, however, do not relate to these matters, but, instead ALPA requests that the labor protective conditions be clarified to make certain that an alleged pension agreement between Colonial and its employees be included as one of the benefits to be retained by employees affected by the acquisition.

12/ In any event, whatever may have been the fact as to control on December 20, it is evident that Colonial had ample opportunity to reject Eastern's offer after December 30, the date to which, according to National's theory, our finding of termination of control must be related. Indeed, twenty-eight days elapsed after December 30, before Colonial's Board of Directors voted to accept Eastern's offer. And since Colonial was demonstrably free from control of Eastern when the offer was accepted, it cannot properly be said that the agreement is tainted by Eastern's control of Colonial.