TRAVIS
Veteran
NONE AS THE NMB STATES:
DISCUSSION
Section 1203.2 of the NMB’s Rules and Section 1.02 of the Board’s
Representation Manual (Manual) set forth the requirements for applications for
the services of the NMB under Section 2, Ninth, to investigate a representation
dispute among a carrier’s employees. AMFA’s application fails to meet these
requirements.
Manual Section 1.02 states that “only applications with original
Signatures submitted to the NMB’s office in Washington, DC, and accompanied
By original authorization cards will be accepted. Applications and
Authorization cards will not be accepted by facsimile or electronic mail.”
Accordingly, the facsimile application from AMFA received by the Board on May
28, 2013 is not a valid application.
Manual Section 1.02 further provides that the requirements of NMB Rule
1203.2 must be satisfied and therefore to be valid. Manual Section 1.02 (1)
May 31, 2013
Page - 3 -
States that the application must be “signed by the chief executive officer of the international or national organization or other specifically designated and
authorized officers.” (Emphasis added). Neither the facsimile application received May 28, 2013 nor the original application received May 29, 2013 was signed by AMFA’s chief executive officer of the international or national organization. Both were signed by George Diamantopoulos whose title is listed as “Attorney.” He is an attorney with the firm of Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen in White Plains, New York. No specific designation or authorization from AMFA’s chief executive officer to Mr. Diamantopoulos for purposes of filing an application was provided to the Board. Accordingly, AMFA’s May 29, 2013 original application is not a valid application.
Manual Section 1.02(4) requires that the application be “accompanied by signed authorization cards from the employees in the craft or class in dispute.” AMFA’s May 28, 2013 facsimile application was not accompanied by cards. While the May 29, 2013 original application was accompanied by original signed authorization cards, as discussed above, it did not contain the required signatures.
Even assuming AMFA’s May 29, 2013 original application was validly signed, the supporting authorization cards were received after the Carrier had filed the List and signature samples. It is the Board’s longstanding practice and policy not to accept authorization cards after the List and signature samples have been filed. See United Airlines, 8 NMB 508 (1983) (denying intervenor status to organization whose only authorization cards were filed with the Board after the carrier filed applicable list of potential eligible voters).
The Manual Section 3.3 states that an “applicant or intervenor may present the Investigator with additional cards up until 4 p.m., Eastern Time on the day the Investigator receives the applicable list and signature samples.” AMFA’s cards were not received until the day after American filed the List and samples. Accordingly, these authorization cards cannot be accepted by the Investigators to support AMFA’s application. See, Northwest Airlines, 5 NMB 250 (1976), upheld by Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. National Mediation Board, 409 F.Supp. 113 (D.D.C. 1976)(finding Board’s rejection of intervenor’s untimely showing of interest was a decision within Board’s discretion and unreviewable).
As I said IMO AMFA was short cards and the NMB confirms Lack of AMFA support at AA!
http://www.teamster.org/sites/teamster.org/files/53113R7365LettertoParticipantsAAIBTAMFATWU.pdf
HAVE A HAPPY IBT DAY!
