swamt said:
Huge differences here. First of all it was brought in front of the membership as a "proposed alliance" and the membership did have a vote "prior" to the IBT/CWA filing with the NMB. Key ways of communicating to the membership was that the 2 unions were proposing thew alliance of combining the 2 unions into one to continue representation. They also state that they will offer this proposal to the membership prior to filing with the NMB to find out if the membership wants the combination of the 2 unions into the alliance. A whole world of difference the way the TWU and IAM rammed this to the membership even if there is a vote it was still done wrong, unprofessional, and not with the memberships needs put up front, only the needs of the TWU and IAM still maintaining a presence within the aviation mechanics class and that is the only reason they are forming this alliance plain and simple. The way the TWU/IAM presented and disrespected the membership of both carriers by just assuming they all wanted and formed the alliance instead of proposing the alliance first, then forming, then filing with NMB, then having a vote by membership.
Can anyone from this IBT/CWA alliance when the AWA and US merged answer this question please; What were the options on the ballot when they proposed this alliance to the membership? Was it as the mechanics are being told with one being a No or Non-union option? Or is this just a scare tactic by the TWU/IAM to get the membership forced into the alliance? Maybe you know Bob Owens. Thx in advance for any input...
From reading the Article the IBT didn't even have a contract so there wasn't much for an Association to iron out, the IBT members had nothing to lose with the Association and the CWA probably didn't want to battle it out with the much bigger IBT.
700 states that the rules were changed, I'd like to see a reference to that.
It is my understanding, but I do not recall the source that the Internal ballot for the CWA/IBT was Association or No Association, and I have little doubt that both Unions took it upon themselves to mislead, either through implication or omission, their members that voting No Association meant decertifying the Union, IMO all that internal vote could have determined was whether or not they were interested in the Association and if they would have voted it down they would have remained as they were until a filing was made for Single Carrier Status. At that point the CWA would have automatically been on the ballot and the IBT would have had to collect cards from CWA members to get on the Ballot. The NMB accepted those results as there was no dispute to settle and the members actively consented by approving the internal vote.
The question is in the case of a new Collective Bargaining Agent is membership in a consenting Collective bargaining agent considered Consent without a vote? If it was then there would be no reason to ever have a vote in a merger and zero chance or any reason to have "No Union" on the ballot. Clearly active consent must be given to any change.
We were told we would get a ballot, and some have claimed it would be the same as the IBT/CWA with a choice of either the Association or decertification of both unions, then we were told that despite being told there would be a Vote that the Association petitioned to get accepted without a vote. However, even though I have little faith in the NMB as far as integrity I think they have to at least keep up the "pretense of consent" by allowing a vote since none was ever conducted. They may advise the Unions to do their own internal one and accept the result as with CWA/IBT, or they may run through the NMB but I think that simply accepting the Associations petition, in light of all the evidence of opposition and the fact that we were told there would be a vote, would do too much damage to what little credibility the NMB has. Such a decision would be as offensive to the right as it is to the left. A blatant disregard for the whole concept of representation by consent. So one way or the other I believe there will be a vote. Putting aside the showing of interest part , going by the NMB rules there has to be at least three choices in an election conducted by the NMB, the petitioner, no union, or write in. But then again they change the rules as they see fit, and from where they are sitting they have both the Company and the Unions in favor of this, they really don't care what we think. So I will clarify or correct what I said earlier, if we get a ballott that simply says Association or No Association, then that would be an internal ballot, if we vote it down then we remain as we are, if we get a ballot from the NMB, by their current rules there would be at least three options, and I will not support the option of Association.
And while I personally have not spoken to a lawyer about I would support legal action ensuring that our rights of consent to representation are upheld.
