You got a better shot a hitting lotto with no ticket!14,403(2)? eligible voters, 7,228 signed cards equals more than 50% plus one. So what gives??
AMFA deserves their questions answered. Explanations on why and how they came across their ruling(s). More and more corruption against AMFA.
Maybe Bret will get his motion heard by someone else way up the ladder at the NMB. Once I read where the 3rd panelist was a previous IAM attorney I had a feeling this outcome was coming. And of course once the IAM heard that the TWU was planning their own back stabbing move to kill off the IAM if there would be an election, they had to make a move to seal their fate to retain to be viable in the end, hence the corrupted move to sit him in on the board's 3 panel committee.
Wonder if maybe AMFA could file for some kind of independent investigation to be done by the DOT or other entity to get involved "with no ties" to any parties involved.
Here's the letter from AMFA's N.D. for a motion to reconsider:
Added: In hopes another card drive (if needed) will draw thousands more signers after all the corruption has been brought to light...
National Director Letter to American Airlines AMFA re Motion to Reconsider
September 7, 2021 -- Today, AMFA filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the National Mediation Board (NMB) in response to the NMB’s determination on NMB Case No. R-7557. The supposed neutral NMB investigation established that AMFA failed to support its application with the required number of authorization cards from the employees in the craft or class as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1206.2(a) of the Board’s rules.
Download:20210907_ ND_Update_to_AA_AMTs_re_AMFAs_Motion_to_Reconsider.pdf
AMFA Organizing Drive to Replace Association
- Thread starter TWU informer
- Start date
- Status
Kev3188
Veteran
At the end of the day, this is all that matters. All the rest is white noise.
There was a lot of BS, but there was a lot of good stuff too. Someday people will take those lessons to heart...
Thunderdome
Member
- Nov 20, 2020
- 29
- 13
Has there EVER been a case of the NMB reconsidering there decision?
Just curious as to when the SWA's AMTs will figure out how many thousands of dollars of their union dues AMFA is spending on legal fees to try and convince the NMB that they didn't lose the representation vote at AA?
That's your dues money boys and girls....
That's your dues money boys and girls....
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,465
- 5,258
AMFA is nothing more than a cash cow for the Seeham, Seeham, Meltz and Peterson Law firm. Maybe it’s time someone gives those SWA AMT’s the red pill so they can see how deep the Rabbit hole goes?
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
JimmyBOP; There is more than one carrier represented by AMFA, that the National is collecting dues from. Before you ask what AMFA is spending on it's attempt to Bring in future members ask Just HOW MUCH the IAM/TWU spend every day of the dues they collect without any approval from YOU. Why is it there are members of the executive staff of each of these industrial unions that just file/type but they make more than you. How much do the Local Officers spend on stuff that you think is a waste of time? How much of your dues money was spent during AA's and the ASSOciations negotiation process on meals/drinks and whatever else they deemed necessary for their comfort?
If AMFA does get the M&R division of AA just How much money would they gain? Why do you think the IAM/TWU are fighting to keep M&R in the fold DUES.
Find out how much money the National Officers at AMFA get paid vers the IAM/TWU Leadership? That is ALL dues money as well.
Think before you ask what dues money is being spent by AMFA.
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
It may not be over yet.14,403(2)? eligible voters, 7,228 signed cards equals more than 50% plus one. So what gives??
AMFA deserves their questions answered. Explanations on why and how they came across their ruling(s). More and more corruption against AMFA.
Maybe Bret will get his motion heard by someone else way up the ladder at the NMB. Once I read where the 3rd panelist was a previous IAM attorney I had a feeling this outcome was coming. And of course once the IAM heard that the TWU was planning their own back stabbing move to kill off the IAM if there would be an election, they had to make a move to seal their fate to retain to be viable in the end, hence the corrupted move to sit him in on the board's 3 panel committee.
Wonder if maybe AMFA could file for some kind of independent investigation to be done by the DOT or other entity to get involved "with no ties" to any parties involved.
Here's the letter from AMFA's N.D. for a motion to reconsider:
Added: In hopes another card drive (if needed) will draw thousands more signers after all the corruption has been brought to light...
National Director Letter to American Airlines AMFA re Motion to Reconsider
September 7, 2021 -- Today, AMFA filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the National Mediation Board (NMB) in response to the NMB’s determination on NMB Case No. R-7557. The supposed neutral NMB investigation established that AMFA failed to support its application with the required number of authorization cards from the employees in the craft or class as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1206.2(a) of the Board’s rules.
Download:
Cards were removed by the NMB that didn’t match the companies mechanic n related list. No problem there since some were signed by lav truck drivers n deicers and were not mechanic n related.
Peterson gets the number of accepted cards by the NMB which is supposed to be “confidential” and turns in his inflated list. He starts running his mouth in December about how the Ass members are short of cards. All but one name is accepted on Peterson’s list even though his list doesn’t match the companies list of mechanic n related.
There is only one problem with this. The cards that were removed by the NMB that didn’t match the companies list of mech n related DO match names on Peterson’s list that WAS accepted by the NMB.
These cards need to be put back into the count. Guess what happens then? The Ass members are above 50% plus one again!!! Put the cards back or remove the names NMB!
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,465
- 5,258
Don’t forget about the thousands of cards that were chucked because the signatures didn’t match. Maybe the forgers should have just marked cards with an X instead, .
I will wait for the results of the AMFA filing on what will happen next. Too much guessing and don't wanna start any misinfo or confuse any worse than it already is.
I understand your thoughts though, don't get me wrong and I hope you are correct, but like I said, I will wait for the entire investigation to conclude completely...
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
I’ll repost this,
A reversal will not happen. American Airlines found out with the CWA and the customer service employee's in 2012/2013 when trying to fight a NMB decision and the RLA.
See Case: 12-10-10680 final decision (10-03-2012) and Case: 4:12-cv-00276-Y opinions vacated. (pdf attached)
"Judicial review of NMB decisions pursuant to the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958) is only appropriate where there is a "plain" violation of an unambiguous and mandatory provision of the statute," or in other words, where the NMB has committed "egregious error".
See NMB arguments Case 12-10-10680 (07/10/2012) (pdf attached)
"The RLA was enacted to ensure "the prompt and orderly settlement of" labor-management disputes in the railroad and airline industries, see 45 U.S.C. 151A. Thus, courts have not applied "conventional principles of judicial review" to the Board's decision under the RLA. See, e.g., Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. NMB, 956 F.2d 1245, 1250 (2d Cir. 1999) (refusing to apply the Administrative Procedure Act). As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the congressional "intent seems plain - the dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law." (recognizing "statutory command to attain a prompt and orderly settlement of labor disputes"). Thus, speed is an "RLA objective of the first order." The RLA "puts a premium on speed of resolution," and is intended to prevent representation disputes from being dragged out. "
"1. In keeping with the statutory "premium on speed of resolution," for more than sixty years it has been well-settled doctrine that actions taken by the Board in representation disputes under the RLA are generally unreviewable. In Switchmen's Union, the Supreme Court held that, under the RLA, Congress entrusted the responsibility for protecting the collective bargaining rights of employees exclusively to the Board, not the courts. Accordingly, the Court declared that the Board's determinations in representation disputes were unreviewable "whether the (alleged) error be one of fact or law," The supreme Court confirmed this doctrine"
"Consistent with Switchmen's Union, the courts have universally agreed that the details and procedures of representational disputes are committed solely to the Board's discretion. Indeed, judicial review under the RLA is "one of the narrowest known to law. IAM v. TWA, 839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988) amended, 848 F.2d 232 (D.C. Cir 1988). Judicial review of the Board's decision may be available only where the plaintiff has established, on the face of the pleadings, that the decision involved "patent official bad faith"; violated the constitutional rights of the employer, employee, of the union; or was a "gross violation" of the RLA. A "gross violation" of the RLA occurs only in the NMB's action are "in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the act,""
Of course some will argue this is a single carrier determination and not a representation dispute yet.
We will see.
A reversal will not happen. American Airlines found out with the CWA and the customer service employee's in 2012/2013 when trying to fight a NMB decision and the RLA.
See Case: 12-10-10680 final decision (10-03-2012) and Case: 4:12-cv-00276-Y opinions vacated. (pdf attached)
"Judicial review of NMB decisions pursuant to the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958) is only appropriate where there is a "plain" violation of an unambiguous and mandatory provision of the statute," or in other words, where the NMB has committed "egregious error".
See NMB arguments Case 12-10-10680 (07/10/2012) (pdf attached)
"The RLA was enacted to ensure "the prompt and orderly settlement of" labor-management disputes in the railroad and airline industries, see 45 U.S.C. 151A. Thus, courts have not applied "conventional principles of judicial review" to the Board's decision under the RLA. See, e.g., Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. NMB, 956 F.2d 1245, 1250 (2d Cir. 1999) (refusing to apply the Administrative Procedure Act). As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the congressional "intent seems plain - the dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law." (recognizing "statutory command to attain a prompt and orderly settlement of labor disputes"). Thus, speed is an "RLA objective of the first order." The RLA "puts a premium on speed of resolution," and is intended to prevent representation disputes from being dragged out. "
"1. In keeping with the statutory "premium on speed of resolution," for more than sixty years it has been well-settled doctrine that actions taken by the Board in representation disputes under the RLA are generally unreviewable. In Switchmen's Union, the Supreme Court held that, under the RLA, Congress entrusted the responsibility for protecting the collective bargaining rights of employees exclusively to the Board, not the courts. Accordingly, the Court declared that the Board's determinations in representation disputes were unreviewable "whether the (alleged) error be one of fact or law," The supreme Court confirmed this doctrine"
"Consistent with Switchmen's Union, the courts have universally agreed that the details and procedures of representational disputes are committed solely to the Board's discretion. Indeed, judicial review under the RLA is "one of the narrowest known to law. IAM v. TWA, 839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988) amended, 848 F.2d 232 (D.C. Cir 1988). Judicial review of the Board's decision may be available only where the plaintiff has established, on the face of the pleadings, that the decision involved "patent official bad faith"; violated the constitutional rights of the employer, employee, of the union; or was a "gross violation" of the RLA. A "gross violation" of the RLA occurs only in the NMB's action are "in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the act,""
Of course some will argue this is a single carrier determination and not a representation dispute yet.
We will see.
AMFA = No Transparency. How much was spent on this card drive?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
