Amfa's Appeal To The Nmb

[Bob Owens]

ZINK, ROBERT A.,EL#18668

If this is the same Bob Zink, from JFK, I think he retired in 1995!

His son in law works at JFK so if we have to do the cards over it wont be a problem getting one from him.

I wonder if the company is still cutting him a 40 hour paycheck? I find it hard to believe that the company does not know who is on active payroll and who is not!

 

[Radman]

Looks like the same list that was presented several times before! This list has already been proven to be inaccurate. Like I said their is no surprises in this list and the majority have already been removed from the original objections. From what this is the list will go up after the NMB reviews the submissions bt the other parties involved!!!

Don't be fooled by all this rhetoric! Their is two areas in Question and have been addressed already!!!!!

I bet you have not even seen the list of who was added and who was not. If you want to come over to local 12 and you can see the list. Isn't it funny how easy it is to get info from us but the general membership for 514 is kept in the dark by their own union.

 

[dreese]

+How on earth can you TWU faithful sleep at night defended those names that everyone knows should be of t he list have you no shame. But if we have to do another card drive, and we will your new osifers have made it almost to easy haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. we will never go away 9000+ mechs signed cards dont you get that. God you are truly fools know wonder the lines hate us in tulsa.

 

[Decision 2004]

ZINK, ROBERT A.,EL#18668

If this is the same Bob Zink, from JFK, I think he retired in 1995!

His son in law works at JFK so if we have to do the cards over it wont be a problem getting one from him.

I wonder if the company is still cutting him a 40 hour paycheck? I find it hard to believe that the company does not know who is on active payroll and who is not!

Bob,

We had some guys on the list that retired from TWA in 1983-1984.

 

[Nightwatch]

Whhhaaaaaaaaa.......I cought AMFA in lie after lie...was told...."it's only politics!", "whatever we have to do to get a vote!"......whaaaaaaaaa....

So Dave...you gonna be changing your alias or continue to wear the loser name?..HAHAHA!

 

[Checking it Out]

--------This is no laughing matter to the more than 9000 Mechanics and Related Employees at AA and to members of other crafts or classes who sign authorization cards in order to have the NMB hold fair election to select their representative under the Railway Labor Act. This appeal sets forth why an additional approximately 2,759 individuals previously challenged by AMFA, with
supporting substantive evidence, should also be deemed ineligible voters in this
representation dispute. The AMFA filing in this NMB case, a filing in excess of 9,000 authorization cards is a sufficient showing of interest by any measure to overcome the rationale of avoiding a frivolous election, especially when the Mechanics and Related Employees collected authorization cards far in excess over what they believed they needed based on the number of employees reported by the NMB in American Airlines, Inc., 29 NMB 240, 245 (2002).

The AMFA and the 9,000 plus Mechanics and Related Employees signing authorization cards on behalf of the AMFA reasonably relied on the 16,501 number reported in American Airlines, Inc., 29 NMB 240, 245 (2002) as the approximate number of eligible voters in an election. The number of cards collected and filed by AMFA significantly exceeded the number of cards required to have a showing of interest under the Board’s Manual and regulations for the 16,501 number. It is entirely inappropriate and would amount to an abuse of authority, in a craft or class population of this magnitude for the Board to merely say that there is not a sufficient showing of interest by AMFA in the instant case simply because AMFA may not have garnered a technical majority of authorization card signers based on the Investigator’s Rulings, which are extremely deferential to AA’s response to Challenges and Objections by AMFA, which lack---------

It seems Amfa keeps reducing the number of cards they presented! Good thing this is the last objections from Amfa! Soon they will be publishing the numbers I posted earlier in the Year!!!!! This is before the NMB has even review and thrown out the ineligible signers like Management!!!!

So that means Amfa needs to remove a minimum of 700 names to even have an attempt to have an election!! Will not Happen from my view!!!!!


Like I said, in an attempt to rally the troops Amfa has allowed this to go out for everyone to see. This is the same list that has been submitted several times before! No smoking guns, But they are attempting to play on your emotions and want to deny all eligible members according to the NMB the right to vote!!!!!

 

[Decision 2004]

Whhhaaaaaaaaa.......I cought AMFA in lie after lie...was told...."it's only politics!", "whatever we have to do to get a vote!"......whaaaaaaaaa....

So Dave...you gonna be changing your alias or continue to wear the loser name?..HAHAHA!

What does "cought" mean and what lies are you talking about?

I will likely change my alias soon, why?

 

[Radman]

Whhhaaaaaaaaa.......I cought AMFA in lie after lie...was told...."it's only politics!", "whatever we have to do to get a vote!"......whaaaaaaaaa....

As 2004 said "What lie"? You say this again and again and don't come up with any proof of a lie, because there are none.

 

[Rusty]

It seems Amfa keeps reducing the number of cards they presented! Good thing this is the last objections from Amfa! Soon they will be publishing the numbers I posted earlier in the Year!!!!! This is before the NMB has even review and thrown out the ineligible signers like Management!!!!

So that means Amfa needs to remove a minimum of 700 names to even have an attempt to have an election!! Will not Happen from my view!!!!!

Where do you come up with that we keep reducing the number cards signed. You really have stumped me on this one cio. It reads there are more than 9000 mechanic and related signed cards, which there is more than 9000 mechanic and related signed cards. Maybe I am missing your point. I do realize the twu would have said 10,000 rounding off to the nearest 10,000 but, we are definitely different breeds of people, is that your point???

The 2,759 ineligible voters that the company and their company union have colluded to put on the list is proof that they are in bed together doing the funky chicken.

Kevin, we know that all of the local 514 officers never work off of their boxes from the time they are in office until they are voted out, even though they are paid by the company. So here is my question:

After the election and the twu is thrown out of the mechanic and related sector here at AA, will the twu officers who are paid by the company to post on these boards continue to be paid by the company to do so, or will the company ask them to go back to their boxes? Take your time answering, I know this is one of their greatest fears and you will probably have to bite a bullet while typing but, I know you can do it.

 

[Checking it Out]

Sorry Rusty, I receive no pay to write on these Boards. I believe the TWU is far superior to Amfa in Representation, Knowledge, Training, politics, And looking out for the long term of the membership!!!!!

Since Amfa has failed to find any new evidence to counter the NMB I doubt an election will ever happen. The members made the decision by not signing an Amfa card.

I also know most who write on these boards and they do not hold an office.

 

[Rusty]

Sorry Rusty, I receive no pay to write on these Boards. I believe the TWU is far superior to Amfa in Representation, Knowledge, Training, politics, And looking out for the long term of the membership!!!!!

Since Amfa has failed to find any new evidence to counter the NMB I doubt an election will ever happen. The members made the decision by not signing an Amfa card.

I also know most who write on these boards and they do not hold an office.

I see, you mean you are on vacation or have the day off today. You are correct on one individual that is err at MCI. He works night shift and from what I understand he is not paid by union, but, he is paid by the company. Can you figure out who this is and what time he is at work?

 

[Rusty]

1. The ineligibility of 24 retired employees, Attachment B to Investigator’s Rulings;
2. The ineligibility of 20 employees, who have resigned, Attachment C to Investigator’s Rulings;
3. The ineligibility of 144 Fleet Service Clerks, Attachment E to Investigator’s Rulings;
4. The ineligibility of 89 former employees laid-off while on probation without any recall rights, Attachment F to Investigator’s Rulings (AMFA’s Exhibit E – Probationary Layoff –No Recall Rights), (AA’s Exhibit E – Employees laid off from probation);
5. The ineligibility of 4 Management Employees, Attachment G to Investigator’s Rulings;
6. The ineligibility of 1 Former TWA Employee Without an Employer-Employee Relationship With AA And Without Recall Rights, Attachment H to Investigator’s Rulings;
7. The ineligibility of 24 Former Employees Working At Other Airlines, Attachment I to Investigator’s Rulings;
8. The ineligibility of 25 Furloughed Employees Who Have Waived/Declined Recall, Attachment K to Investigator’s Rulings;
9. The ineligibility of 1 Employee Working Outside the Craft or Class, Attachment L to Investigator’s Rulings;
10. The ineligibility of 1 Terminated Employee, Attachment M to Investigator’s Rulings;
11. The ineligibility of 249 Fleet Service Fuelers, Attachment N to Investigator’s Rulings, (AMFA’s Exhibit M – Fleet Service Fueler), (AA’s Exhibit M – Fleet Service Clerk/Fuelers), (AA’s Addendum to Exhibit M, Fuelers);
12. The ineligibility of 366 Cleaners and 149 Janitors, (AMFA’s Schaible (2) Decl. and Schaible (3) Decl);
13. The ineligibility of 244 Miscellaneous Other Exclusions contained within Declarations accompanying AMFA’s April 22, 2004 Challenges and Objections, which were not considered in the Rulings,
a. The ineligibility of 10 additional retired employees not considered in the Rulings,
b. The ineligibility of 104 additional employees who have resigned not considered in the Rulings,
c. The ineligibility of 4 additional Fleet Service Clerks not considered in the Rulings,
d. The ineligibility of 6 additional former employees laid-off while on probation without any recall rights not considered in the Rulings,
e. The ineligibility of 5 additional management employees not considered in the Rulings,
f. The ineligibility of 21 additional Former TWA Employees Without an Employer-Employee Relationship With AA And Without Recall Rights not considered in the Rulings,
g. The ineligibility of 12 additional Former Employees Working At Other Airlines not considered in the Rulings,
h. The ineligibility of 3 additional Deceased Employees not considered in the Rulings,
i. The ineligibility of 65 additional Furloughed Employees Who Have Waived/Declined Recall not considered in the Rulings,
j. The ineligibility of 7 additional Terminated Employee not considered in the Rulings,
k. The ineligibility of 8 additional miscellaneous individuals ineligible for various reasons and not considered in the Rulings.
14. The ineligibility of 1,167 Cabin Cleaning and Lavatory Service Personnel, Attachment O to Investigator’s Rulings,
a. 15 duplicates not removed from Attachment O,
b. 2 additional duplicates not removed from Attachment O,
c. 28 names on eligibility list not removed from Attachment O,
d. 2 names removed from Attachment O but not removed from eligibility list,
e. Double counting of 14 individuals alleged to be Cabin Cleaning and Lavatory Service Personnel who have been counted as Fuelers,
f. 5 ineligible AA employees should not have been added to the AA eligibility list,
g. 1,167 Ineligible Fleet Service Clerks.
15. The ineligibility of 21 Former TWA Furloughees, Attachment P to Investigator’s Rulings;
16. The ineligibility of 46 Individuals from AMFA’s May 24, 2004 Submission, Exhibit “O†entitled “AA Eligibility List – TWA Exhibit D – Additional Info Acquired From,†not considered in the Rulings;
17. The ineligibility of 36 additional retired employees from Flagship News not considered in the Rulings;
18. The ineligibility of 150 additional TWA employees Not on TWU’ Exhibit D and therefore without contractual recall rights, not considered in the Rulings;