Details Of Amfa's Protest

[Decision 2004]

Although this is legal talk, it is well worth the read to understand what is happening in this process to date:

AMFA's Submission to the NMB Protesting the AA List - CLICK HERE

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Jim, attached is information about the eligibility list regarding the upcoming election between the twu and AMFA.

Second, the twu filed their objection, and it should come as NO surprise that not only did they NOT object to the inclusion of 16 deceased persons, but the twu also neglected to object to the 269 Retirees, 140 Resignations, 72 Terminations, as well as numerous other inconsistencies, including objecting to 10 names that were never even on the company supplied list. Click here to read the original twu objection document. Now, if that weren't enough, the twu also filed 2 objection attachments to ADD an additional 2087 names that weren't on the company supplied eligibility list! Included on the same objection list to be ADDED to the Craft and Class of Mechanic and Related are Fleet Service Clerks, Food Service Employees, Fleet Service Clerk Helpers as well as many other names which we have not yet even been able to identify! Click here to read that list. Also, a list of apparently previous TWA employees was added as an attachment. Click here to read this list.


It is very simple to understand the twu's actions:


THE twu SMELLS FEAR... AND IT IS THEIR OWN!

What is it about a fair, democratic election that scares you? I am disgusted at the twu's actions in their belief that Fleet Service Clerks, Food Service Employees, Fleet Service Clerk Helpers belong in my Craft & Class. I am a bit surprised though that you did not include the Casino Dealers and Bus Drivers that you also suck dues money from in the eligibility list. There will be an election between the twu and AMFA. The twu will lose. One last question Jim. Were the deceased individuals included on the eligibility list able to vote on our FULL REVOTE? Oh, that's right, you never followed through on your promise for a FULL REVOTE.

I am c/cing this e-mail to other AA AMTs because I feel that they should be aware of any answer you might fabricate to my question to you.

Ken MacTiernan
AMT Crew Chief SAN

Will jim answer me?

 

[Checking it Out]

First Question,

The numbers do not add up to 2458. Why is this? You claim AA has inflated the numbers why doing the same! Is this like calling the kettle Black?

Lies, Intimidations and Half-truths? Typical Amfa rhetoric!

 

[Decision 2004]

First Question,

The numbers do not add up to 2458. Why is this? You claim AA has inflated the numbers why doing the same! Is this like calling the kettle Black?

Lies, Intimidations and Half-truths? Typical Amfa rhetoric!

There is a "reasonable explanation" as the Company Lawyers put it, in a previous correspondence.

Ask Jim Little, he has the rest of the paperwork that will explain the information regarding the others.

It has something to do with NOT getting the required extension and difficulty finding information on the rest of the ghost members of the inflated numbers. Check the XVII Miscellaneous Other Exclusions.

As you can see from the detailed protest, more time was needed to clear the air of the rest.

We were hoping the TWU would be honest and remove the rest, but all they did was add even more ineligible.

Why is that you rely on AMFA Organizers for information? Doesn't your three official members of appearance communicate with you?

 

[Checking it Out]

So you admit you have inflated your own list! Just like the card numbers?

Why did amfa exclude members who they know should have been added? With the TWU finding over 2000 names I'm sure the Amfa seen them too. Especially since they are using the same list in their briefs!

 

[Decision 2004]

So you admit you have inflated your own list! Just like the card numbers?

Why did amfa exclude members who they know should have been added? With the TWU finding over 2000 names I'm sure the Amfa seen them too. Especially since they are using the same list in their briefs!

How many times do you have to be told AMFA did not submit an eligibility list? That is the Companies domain, just as you try to blame AMFA for Lay-Offs at NWA and UAL, it is only the TWU that confuses the companies responsibilities with the union's. That must be because the TWU is such a company union they cannot tell the difference.

AMFA protested names OFF the companies list and we want an election. The TWU seeks everything imaginable to prevent an election.

The attached declarations to the brief cover the balance.

We did NOT inflate any list as you are attempting to do, and we did NOT inflate any card numbers either.

I remember you saying we had cards expiring at a rate of 7 per day and we would not file.

Now you look the truth in the face, and you still lie!

Well over 70% of your inflated list has already been researched, we will be done soon and on May 6th, 2004 you will face even more truth.

 

[Checking it Out]

Decision wrote;

How many times do you have to be told AMFA did not submit an eligibility list? That is the Companies domain, just as you try to blame AMFA for Lay-Offs at NWA and UAL, it is only the TWU that confuses the companies responsibilities with the union's. That must be because the TWU is such a company union they cannot tell the difference.

This is a nothing more than lies and an attempt to divert the real issue! Everyone knows because of the language and amfa's interference, both airline AMT's have suffered! One thing I do see is! It's never amfa's fault! As the tens of thousands of jobs are outsourced!

Amfa by their own admission has inflated the list they submitted. This is the real issue!

Chaulk one up for the TWU!

 

[cheetah]

CIO, you are not to bright! you were just told that AMFA does NOT submit a list the CO. and the TWU does!!!!!!!!

 

[Checking it Out]

So the 2458 names are all fictitious? That’s better yet! Is this a list or not?

Second question!

Why is Amfa not posting all the documentation that went with these 18 pages?

All I can figure, they have something to hide? Or is it they might be afraid of the real truth! Confidential that is Amfa's claim?

 

[Decision 2004]

Second question!

Why is Amfa not posting all the documentation that went with these 18 pages?

All I can figure, they have something to hide? Or is it they might be afraid of the real truth! Confidential that is Amfa's claim?

It is because the documents weighed 22 lbs per party copy.

I don't have a terabyte in server space, if you want to pay for the server I will sure post the documents? 😛h34r:

Maybe once AMFA is certified we will have that kind of server capabiltiy and instead of spending money on worthless political campaigns, we will actually inform the memebrship about what is happening with the union and the industry.

There is nothing to hide, your TWU union leadership and lawyers have a copy. How come you beg AMFA for information instead of simply reading your own union's copy? Is it because they wont let you see it or give you a copy? Again, why don't you try holding your own union to the same standard you hold us "wannabe's" ??????

I think you visit this board so often because you obtain more information from AMFA Organizers than you do from your own union leadership.

 

[Decision 2004]

So the 2458 names are all fictitious? That’s better yet! Is this a list or not?

The "list" is the companies list.

The 2458 are protest regarding that list.

Are you at all even familiar with what we are going through here? Or are you just shooting your mouth from the hip without a clue?

I am beginning to think CIO stands for:

Clue-less In Oklahoma

 

[twuer]

There is nothing to hide, your TWU union leadership and lawyers have a copy. How come you beg AMFA for information instead of simply reading your own union's copy? Is it because they wont let you see it or give you a copy? Again, why don't you try holding your own union to the same standard you hold us "wannabe's" ????


????HUH?????
😉 😉

 

[Checking it Out]

So you are admitting amfa does selective releases of information? Just like only releasing parts of the protests to the NMB? 2 out of 4?

22 pounds? I doubt that! The information you are releasing is for propoganda purposes!

Your list of names you are objecting to is still inflated!

 

[Checking it Out]

Question 3

Page 15,

Accordingly, all fleet service fuelers on the carrier's eligibility list (estimated at appoximately 233) should be deemed ineligible---------

Why are you using estimates? Inflating the List?

Schaible and Cunningham do not have a clue what their talking about!

 

[Boomer]

I've seen plenty of "deer-in-the headlights" looks from the TWU; but, this is probably the most enjoyable.

I.)The compAAny submits a list to the NMB.

II.)AMFA claims that list is inflated by some 2400 names; in an objection filing with the NMB.

III.)The TWU claims that the compAAny list is short some 2090 names; in an objection filing with the NMB.

AMFA claims that the list of Eligible Voters is some 4,490 Employees shorter than is claimed by the compAAny plus the TWU.

Neither the compAAny or the TWU has admitted that there are DECEASED, FIRED, or QUIT EMPLOYEES on the list- because if they admitted the lists provided were inaccurate, they would be admitting the commision of a fraud or being an accomplice to the perpetration of a fraud.

In the event that there were DECEASED, FIRED or QUIT EMPLOYEES included on the list, due diligence would require that both the compAAny and the TWU provide:1) copies of paychecks from the compAAny; and, 2) dues payments from those checks to the appropriate Union Locals or reciepts from the Local Treasurers recognizing the dues payment from those individuals.

The admission, or acceptance, of a list claiming to contain Eligible Voters for the Maintenance & Related class and craft during a Representational Dispute covered under the RLA, and crossing state lines, would seem to invite some kind of law enforcement activity---after all, it is a Federal Violation to lie to a Federal Agent.

Of course, we all know that neither of the two would try to fool someone into making a decision based on incomplete information and, "without further ratification," right?