AFA Files Suit In Federal Court

[BABABOOY]

Interesting information
Delta Flight attendants legal represenative is not only a union lawyer, working in-house for the United Mine Workers, the Association of Flight Attendants, and the Air Line Pilots Association but found the following:

http://www.dlapiper.com/marilyn_pearson/
from dlapiper
Marilyn Pearson has an extensive practice in the area of labor and employment law. Ms. Pearson advises clients on a broad range of issues including collective bargaining and all aspects of contract administration, strategic planning, public relations and employee communications, strike preparedness and employee job actions, preparation or review of employee handbooks, transactional due diligence, downsizing, and bankruptcy. Ms. Pearson has served as the lead negotiator for collective bargaining, including negotiations for consensual modifications to labor agreements and retiree medical benefits pursuant to Sections 1113 and 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code. She regularly represents clients in arbitrations and mediations involving discharge, discipline and contract disputes. Ms. Pearson has also conducted workshops for managers on negotiations, all aspects of contract administration and enforcement of discipline policies, and alternative dispute resolution.

Ms. Pearson advises clients on a broad range of employment issues, including federal and state employment discrimination, drug and alcohol testing, federal and state WARN Act, FMLA, USERRA, and ADA compliance. Ms. Pearson has also successfully defended employers facing whistleblower charges in the safety-sensitive aviation industry. She advises clients on employment contracts, including confidentiality and non-compete clauses. Ms. Pearson is skillful in assisting clients in investigations of employee misconduct and has conducted such investigations on behalf of her clients.

Working on a pro bono basis, Ms. Pearson is the general counsel of the Greater Chicago Food Depository.
Admissions
District of Columbia
Illinois
Minnesota

Memberships
American Bar Association
Chicago Bar Association
National Transportation Safety Board Bar Association

Seminars
"Strategies for Getting the Best Results in the Mediation Caucus,â€￾ ABA CLE (2004)
“Avoiding the Whistleblower Trap,â€￾ Lexis Nexis Martindale Hubbell Counsel to Counsel Forum (2005)
Trainer, Grievance Mediation Seminar, Mediation Research and Education Project (2004)
“The Purchase, Sale, Relocation, or Shutdown of a Businessâ€￾ supplement for Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education’s Labor Law Handbook
Adjunct Professor for Negotiations Seminar, Northwestern University School of Law (2000 – 2006)

Civic and Charitable
Member, Board of Advisors, Kellogg School of Management Dispute Resolution Research Center
Member, Board of Directors, The Wetlands Initiative

 

[BoeingBoy]

The DL/NW merger will be the first that falls under the new federal law concerning merging work groups, so it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

It appears that AFA may have attempted to circumvent the federal law by filing for and getting a representational election at DL earlier this year. Becoming the CBA for DL F/A's would have meant that AFA represented F/A's on both sides of this merger.

However, a strict reading of the law would indicate that merely having the same union representing both sides does not circumvent the law's requirement that section 3 & 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's be followed. To escape the requirements of the law, it appears that not only must the same union represent both sides but that the union must have contract language giving the same merger protections as section 3 & 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's.

Depending on events, this merger may provide the test case that results in a judge determining how the new federal law will be interpreted.

Jim

 

[North by Northwest]

The DL/NW merger will be the first that falls under the new federal law concerning merging work groups, so it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

It appears that AFA may have attempted to circumvent the federal law by filing for and getting a representational election at DL earlier this year. Becoming the CBA for DL F/A's would have meant that AFA represented F/A's on both sides of this merger.

However, a strict reading of the law would indicate that merely having the same union representing both sides does not circumvent the law's requirement that section 3 & 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's be followed. To escape the requirements of the law, it appears that not only must the same union represent both sides but that the union must have contract language giving the same merger protections as section 3 & 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's.

Depending on events, this merger may provide the test case that results in a judge determining how the new federal law will be interpreted.

Jim

This is only partially true. "but that the union must have contract language giving the same merger protections as section 3 & 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPP's."


The exact legislations states that there is a slight difference between the procedure of union and non union merging groups under Allegheny-Mohawk LLP's, vs. same union (ala alpa). Which means Northwest FA expectation of what is contained in their CBA (DOH) is greater than that of A-M LLP's.

Delta is in a hurry for one reason and one reason ONLY. An attempt to rush the seniority issue in order to start their song and dance of "you don't need a union now" (even IF...Delta FA could lose out with the fair and equitable equation). The NMB is responsible for selecting the group of arbitrators, so wouldn't it be nice if Delta could force this issue prior to President Obama taking offce? Of course it would, hence the NMB's attempt to change the rules earlier this year but was shut down by Congress and and the Unions with the threat of Congressional oversight of the Board, something the current President has no power over.

AFA did the proper thing in filing a suit for interference in a pending election. It is my opinion Delta is acting in conflict with the intent of the RLA in a round about move to settle the seniority issue OUTSIDE of the election. SCOPE is a major part of any airline union's CBA, central to scope is seniority and intergration in the event of a merger. Delta doesn't like it that way because they know many more of those 60% will vote for a union under the pending seniority issue. It appears, Delta would prefer to gamble with the seniority of their FAs to suit their desired to save hundreds of millions of dollars by having a non union work force. Shows you who's interest they are looking out for. Delta FA's...on't be fooled.

Not only was it proper for AFA to sue immediately, they are required to under their fiduciary duty as representatives of Northwest Union members. Seniority is DIRECTLY related to the pending election of representation and it is clearly intervention by trying to manipulate seniority prior to the election. Notice Delta's spokesperson did not mention the specific law they referred to when claiming AFA was in error in it's law suit filing.

AFA is 100% correct and I predict will win the injunction.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Soy_n...lient=firefox-a

Moreover, Delta has YET to achieve a single operating certificate approval from the FAA, therefore, there is no legal grounds for pushing a single seniority list UNTIL that is achieved. Both group of employees are required BY LAW to operate as two separate carriers...so seniority at this point is moot...a dead issue, only to be used by Delta as a sly *maneuvering* attack on the pending Union election.

 

[Dignity]

Seniority is DIRECTLY related to the pending election of representation

I actually agree with most of your comments, however this may be one issue that is a bit more in-depth of legal interpretation based on that new law that gives each group a right to have seniority issues placed separately of an election.

I tend to believe if it was directly related the need for a lawsuit would not be necessary.

 

[North by Northwest]

Separate or not...Seniority is a dead issue UNTIL there is a single operating certif., of which is several months away. When that is achieved, Delta can insist on moving forward with seniority.

This is being used by Delta as a preemptive move on the UNION election and nothing more. When one loses one path (as in this summer when their little NMB flunky tried to change the rules) you move on to plan B. Delta is running out of options as the clock is ticking for the new administration. Have no doubt, they will use and try everything this round, including throwing the kitchen sink!

 

[Dignity]

Separate or not...Seniority is a dead issue UNTIL there is a single operating certif.

that should be an issue both parties are actively particiapting together during the entire process before, even if it is simply an attempt to discuss this issue(which would probably be best considering both groups will eventually work together at some point) it is disheartening.. in my opinion to see any form of division arise(even if not intended), but I clearly understand the implications and view points.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

to be fair, there is nothing preventing the two groups meeting and discussing how seniority will be eventually integrated(as no list could go into effect until operating under one certificate regardless... when two airlines are operating under two different certificates). keep in mind there are two certificates and those policies only apply to the group who is currently being represented under the separate certificate(at this time).
If a combined list is attempted to be made effective prior to the representation vote and both operating under separate certificates there is a valid issue, if a combined list is determined how it will be handled and is *pending* and made available after operating under one certificate there is no basis or claim(at this time).

Maybe I'm not understanding you completely but in another post I believe you said the representational election and seniority integration are two different matters. I think the AFA disagrees and their lawsuit is based on their belief that the outcome of the (pre-union-vote) integrated seniority list could (and probably would) influence the way a f/a would vote in the election. For instance, if a f/a feels that their seniority is better with, say hypothetically, a ratioed list (negotated pre-AFA vote) that boosted their relative seniority, they might tend to say "thanks, but no thanks" to AFA--because of their constitutional by-law that requires a strict date-of-hire ranking.

 

[Dignity]

Maybe I'm not understanding you completely but in another post I believe you said the representational election and seniority integration are two different matters.

to my understanding it is separate, I could be wrong based solely how the new law will be interpreted(this is an opinion not exactly how it will be ultimately determined). My view point is simply there is nothing preventing any meeting to discuss this issue prior(if only outcome is discussion and a pending resolution). I do not believe a list can be made effective(go into effect) while both groups are under different operating certificates, but possibly can be determined how it will eventually be handled after.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

It appears that AFA may have attempted to circumvent the federal law by filing for and getting a representational election at DL earlier this year. Becoming the CBA for DL F/A's would have meant that AFA represented F/A's on both sides of this merger.

Jim

Jim, I don't think this would be the case as AFA filed for the election in mid February earlier this year. The merger wasn't even announced until April 14th and just now approved by DOJ on Oct. 29th.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

to my understanding it is separate, I could be wrong based solely how the new law will be interpreted(this is an opinion not exactly how it will be ultimately determined). My view point is simply there is nothing preventing any meeting to discuss this issue prior(if only outcome is discussion and a pending resolution). I do not believe a list can be made effective(go into effect) while both groups are under different operating certificates, but possibly can be determined how it will eventually be handled after.

But Dignity, the meetings Delta is scheduling aren't just to sit down and discuss things. These are active meetings where they are looking for a resolution to the integration issue. I was told (by an Inflite Supvsr for whatever that's worth) that they want this to be done with by January (which could give NxNW's view that they are trying to get it done before Obama takes office some credence). In other words, they want a combined list by January. AFA legal is saying that will influence the vote-which will come later in 09. Hence, the interference charge.

 

[North by Northwest]

to my understanding it is separate, I could be wrong based solely how the new law will be interpreted(this is an opinion not exactly how it will be ultimately determined). My view point is simply there is nothing preventing any meeting to discuss this issue prior(if only outcome is discussion and a pending resolution). I do not believe a list can be made effective(go into effect) while both groups are under different operating certificates, but possibly can be determined how it will eventually be handled after.

D-

Delta, it appears, is attempting to skirt the law in two manners. First, by maneuvering employee groups to pretend they are under one operating certificate, thus allowing for the commencement of seniority negotiations, if after *20* days, there is no agreement, either party could demand an arbitrator. THERE is NO single certificate. Nor are they allowed to meddle in a Union election, which it appears is the motive behind this rush.

This issue of seniority should not and does not need to be addressed at this time, it simply serves NO PURPOSE except to influence that 60% in the pending election. That is why AFA will WIN this injunction, they are well within the law. What does Delta have to lose by attempting it. A "no you can't do this right now Delta"...BIG deal.

Don't you think they weight the consequences prior to working the "edge".

December and Jan. deadlines are important to them BECAUSE that is when they LOSE their corporate upper hand on Labor. They are banking on the rank and file not to fully understand what they are doing.

Dignity...you and I know full well to view any and EVERYTHING RA does that is "supposed to benefit employees"...with serious CAUTION.

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

This issue of seniority should not and does not need to be addressed at this time, it simply serves NO PURPOSE except to influence that 60% in the pending election.

I don't think it's just the 60% they are trying to influence. I really don't mean this in a cynical way but let's face it..I'm not so sure that the 40% of DL f/a's who voted in favor of representation in May wouldn't be influenced by a higher relative seniority placement (vs date-of-hire...Remember our board friend Cooper who chose to "wait" for something "better" than DOH?) Seniority is the single most powerful "aphrodisiac", if you will, to a f/a.

 

[BABABOOY]

Question.
Wouldn't the answer be to have the AFA immediatley call for an election?

Can't they call for one immediatley without cards because of the
whole 30% thing?

 

[Dignity]

This issue of seniority should not and does not need to be addressed at this time

I understand,
however even with the pilots seniority already being in arbitration and list delivered mid December.. to my understanding that list would not go into effect
until both parties are working under one certificate? it seems it is a separate issue for all involved(but this is just my interpretation which of course I stand corrected).

 

[North by Northwest]

Question.
Wouldn't the answer be to have the AFA immediatley call for an election?

Can't they call for one immediatley without cards because of the
whole 30% thing?

Not until Delta is declared one company under one certificate...otherwise, AFA and NW FAs have nothing to do with Delta or it's FAs.

Delta is simply trying to jump the gun to seek an advantage in preventing another union on the property outside of the pilots. The pilots may be able to halt the airline because they fly the plane during labor discord...but what Delta is really afraid of is the power of the largest potential union on the property...the Flight Attendants. As the largest airline in the world, Delta Flight Attendants can demand the best contract in the world JUST like Delta pilots...or they withhold their labor...and just like that, the airline is grounded.

What is at stake here is hundreds of millions of dollars that would go from "bonuses" for Delta management, to pay and benefits for FAs, and other Unions...mustn't allow that!

We are not the only union that has taken this position. Look for the IAM to jump into the battle as well. Former NW bosses will NEVER give up a nickel with out a battle...they want to pay as little as they can while demanding your productivity is TWICE that of other airlines...Steenland didn't get $22 million for nothing (I am sure you saw how much RA, and Campbell, Hurst were paid)
------------

Dignity, you are correct. The pilot list sits on the shelf UNTIL there is a single authorized company.