Nwa Distorted Report On Pfaa's Lawsuit

[North by Northwest]

7.5 "Unless the PFAA Constitution is accepted by both sides under the current CBA, it really is a moot point" Clearly you do not understand the depth of a corporate governance. As PFAA is legally bound to respect and deal with NWA according to NWA's corporate governace and the Federal laws that supercede them. Ditto for NWA and PFAA.

 

[justanadd]

This certainly looks like a delaying tactic by the PFAA, in hopes that the industry will begin to recover by the time the drawn out RLA process would come to a boiling point.

[post="250611"][/post]​

And I suppose you want us to believe that NWA management has never been guilty of a "delaying tatic"? It is clear that NWA management has no intentions of holding out any olive branches. If they were really interested in working together with PFAA they should stop delaying dues-check off and union shop.

 

[Bear96]

7.5 "Unless the PFAA Constitution is accepted by both sides under the current CBA, it really is a moot point" Clearly you do not understand the depth of a corporate governance. As PFAA is legally bound to respect and deal with NWA according to NWA's corporate governace and the Federal laws that supercede them. Ditto for NWA and PFAA.

[post="250635"][/post]​

Huh?

I really don't understand PFAA's legal position here.

How is NW legally bound by what is essentially an internal document and the contract between PFAA and its members? The PFAA Constitution is a document written by PFAA. Did NW management have a hand in developing PFAA's internal procedures? Wouldn't this be like NW management writing an employee handbook and declaring within it, "From now on all F/As will take a 50% paycut." Means nothing (legally) unless PFAA agrees to it.

Also, someone mentioned that the RLA says members have a right to observe negotiations. Can someone post a link to that in the RLA text? I have never heard of that provision, and I can't help but wonder that if this is true, how come it is not SOP in airline labor negotiations to have such obervers always in the room.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Huh?

I really don't understand PFAA's legal position here.

How is NW legally bound by what is essentially an internal document and the contract between PFAA and its members? The PFAA Constitution is a document written by PFAA. Did NW management have a hand in developing PFAA's internal procedures? Wouldn't this be like NW management writing an employee handbook and declaring within it, "From now on all F/As will take a 50% paycut." Means nothing (legally) unless PFAA agrees to it.

Also, someone mentioned that the RLA says members have a right to observe negotiations. Can someone post a link to that in the RLA text? I have never heard of that provision, and I can't help but wonder that if this is true, how come it is not SOP in airline labor negotiations to have such obervers always in the room.

[post="251249"][/post]​

Actually, union constitutions are far more than an 'internal document'. Union constitutions are required to be filed with the US Department of Labor and are given the force of law in how the union conducts itself under US Code Title 29, Chapter 11, better known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA provides that a union is required to follow its constitution and provides the means for members to seek redress of grievances against their union through the DOL.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1_29_10_11.html

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/lmrda-act.htm

In addition, unions are required to comply with the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, which also prescribes their conduct regarding the rights of their members.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...01_29_10_7.html

These are just some of the laws that labor organizations are required to comply with in addition to the RLA or NLRA, whichever is applicable. If the 'employee handbook' you used in your example was subject to such provisions, which it is not, instead of being covered by the RLA, then your argument would have more validity.

The fact is that NWA has previously conducted negotiations with members present and not only raised no objections, or accused the members of interfering with negotiations, but at the conclusion of those negotiations commended the members for their demeanor during, and contribution to, the negotiations.

I am not aware of any provision of the RLA which guarantees the right of members to observe negotiations, and a cursory search turned up no such provisions, but I too would be interested if someone could post a link to any such information. The fact that it is not SOP does not mean it isn't a good idea.

 

[Bear96]

If the 'employee handbook' you used in your example was subject to such provisions, which it is not...

[post="251312"][/post]​

Right, and that is my point. (Not sure what the rest of what you posted had to do with anything relevant here, but thanks for the info, I guess -- I am fairly well versed in labor law. Just because some PFAA document may fall under the jurisdiction of some labor law or other, doesn't mean that it has become binding on NWA.)

NWA is not legally obligated to respect the PFAA Constitutional provision that appears to be at issue, any more than PFAA would be legally obligated to respect a unilateral decision by NWA that F/A pay will be cut by 50%.

In both cases, both sides have to come together and agree to the terms.

 

[North by Northwest]

"Just because some PFAA document may fall under the jurisdiction of some labor law or other, doesn't mean that it has become binding on NWA.)" Not true. As the legally elected representitives of the FA group, NWA has no choice but to respect the contistutional parameters set forth by the Union(as it falls under the NLRB guidelines.) These are governaces that NWA does NOT have a legal right to ignore. The interpretation of the law will decied. Beyond the issue of observers, lies the issue of "who deciedes what part of a Union's constitution is respected and who deciedes which part can be ignored." That is what is at the crux of the lawsuit.
It is my belief that NWA will lose this one. Based on the rule of law and previous acceptance of the observers.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Right, and that is my point.

[post="251567"][/post]​

Your point was that the PFAA constitution is a purely "internal document", (your words), which NWA can freely ignore, and I have clearly showed that this is not the case and explained the mechanism by which the government compels the PFAA to comply with that document.

(Not sure what the rest of what you posted had to do with anything relevant here, but thanks for the info, I guess -- I am fairly well versed in labor law...

Apparently not, or you would have realized that the union is legally required to abide by their constitution, just as NWA is required to follow SEC regulations, and other laws, in the operation of their organization. Your initial post shows that this was clearly not your understanding of the issue.

Just because some PFAA document may fall under the jurisdiction of some labor law or other, doesn't mean that it has become binding on NWA.)

If the PFAA were to demand, as a condition of negotiations, that NWA violate some provision in the laws which they are required to comply with by the government, would you consider that reasonable? That is what NWA is doing.

NWA is not legally obligated to respect the PFAA Constitutional provision that appears to be at issue, any more than PFAA would be legally obligated to respect a unilateral decision by NWA that F/A pay will be cut by 50%.

In both cases, both sides have to come together and agree to the terms.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The example you're using is flawed because you're talking about two different types of laws and trying to say they're the same thing.

If NWA unilaterally alters the terms and conditions of service by cutting pay 50%, that is a violation of the RLA. The RLA is a law equally incumbent on both parties which specifically prohibits such unilateral action.

The LMRDA and LMRA are specifically incumbent only on the PFAA and other labor unions, just as the SEC regulations and other laws governing the operation of corporations are specifically incumbent on NWA, not the PFAA. While the laws in this case are not specifically incumbent on both parties, they do affect the interaction of those parties.

My point is that in addition to the RLA, both sides have legal obligations they must meet and that for NWA to unilaterally demand that the PFAA, or any other organization, ignore their own legal obligations while respecting those of NWA is less than reasonable, particularly in light of past practice.

Either way it's hardly a tactic designed to ensure the speedy conclusion of negotiations or a willingness on the part of the unions to give the concessions NWA demands.

 

[North by Northwest]

NWA/Amt, I commend you on your thoroughly interesting post. It is one based in facts and rationality. Lets hope this creates a more equal playing field. NWA is far more likely to reason after a legal defeat.

 

[NWA/AMT]

NWA/Amt, I commend you on your thoroughly interesting post. It is one based in facts and rationality. Lets hope this creates a more equal playing field. NWA is far more likely to reason after a legal defeat.

[post="251664"][/post]​

Thank you for the kind words.

However, I do not expect that NWA will lose on the subject of observers. As we saw in the case of NWA/AMFA recently, the judge essentially left the question up to the NMB - who were the only ones opposed to observers all along, although they have never bothered to give a reason for their opposition that hasn't already been proven false. (Perhaps they just don't care for public scrutiny of their operations, something the NMB has always avoided.)

In the case of NWA/AMFA, the judge declined to address the issue of the DOL and the AMFA constitution, leaving AMFA with a legal requirement they can't meet, except to say that the judge and NMB won't let them meet it. Whether this will carry any weight with the DOL remains to be seen.

Apparently all the "activist judges" out there aren't of the 'left wing' variety. I'm sure that in the case of NWA/PFAA, NWA will have found one that will serve their purposes and turn a blind eye to those laws which are inconvenient.

There's a reason that NWA is the "most-struck" airline in the US, and this issue is just another example of the reasons behind that fact. I can tell you for certain that their recent actions regarding AMFA, whether on the subject of negotiations or their MAC 2020 plan, have served to 'poison the well' as far as the NWA technicians are concerned. At this point I'm fairly certain that any tentative agreement containing concessions will be rejected.

 

[Bear96]

"Just because some PFAA document may fall under the jurisdiction of some labor law or other, doesn't mean that it has become binding on NWA.)" Not true. As the legally elected representitives of the FA group, NWA has no choice but to respect the contistutional parameters set forth by the Union(as it falls under the NLRB guidelines.)

[post="251597"][/post]​

I disagree. If the PFAA governing body decided to write into their constitution, "On January 1 each year, NWA will pay $5million to the PFAA," is NWA therefore legally obligated to give $5million to the PFAA each year? No.

you would have realized that the union is legally required to abide by their constitution

Yes, the union is legally required to abide by their constitution. In this case, it would apparently mean the PFAA cannot prevent member access to negotiations. But, if the constitution states Northwest is required to give the union or its members some specific benefit (for example, agreeing to let members in to observe negotiations), that is an item that must be negotiated and agreed to by Northwest.

Was the issue of observers in negotiations negotiated with and agreed to by Northwest? If so, I stand corrected, but I didn't believe this to be the case.

If the PFAA were to demand, as a condition of negotiations, that NWA violate some provision in the laws which they are required to comply with by the government

If I am understanding you correctly, this is the second time this has been alluded to: that something in labor law (NLRA, RLA, not sure what laws are being referred to) requires NWA to permit PFAA members in as observers. (If this is not what you are getting at, I apologize.) If this is what you are getting at, again I ask, as I did in an earlier post, could you please quote that particular provision and give the source?

However, I do not expect that NWA will lose on the subject of observers.

But, how can that be, if PFAA's legal case is so airtight? :blink:

 

[NWA/AMT]

If the PFAA governing body decided to write into their constitution, "On January 1 each year, NWA will pay $5million to the PFAA," is NWA therefore legally obligated to give $5million to the PFAA each year? No.

[post="252377"][/post]​

Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges, and using a rather absurd example to do so. Again, what you use as an example is an issue that would be negotiated under the RLA rather than a legal requirement incumbent on one party.

Yes, the union is legally required to abide by their constitution. In this case, it would apparently mean the PFAA cannot prevent member access to negotiations. But, if the constitution states Northwest is required to give the union or its members some specific benefit (for example, agreeing to let members in to observe negotiations), that is an item that must be negotiated and agreed to by Northwest.

Was the issue of observers in negotiations negotiated with and agreed to by Northwest? If so, I stand corrected, but I didn't believe this to be the case

The basis for both the AMFA and PFAA suits was that NWA refused to negotiate that issue when negotiating the particulars of the negotiation process as required by the RLA.

Lets compare apples to apples by using an example that applies to the negotiating process: If NWA said they wanted the NWA corporate flag mounted on the wall behind their negotiators, the PFAA would be required by the RLA to negotiate that issue. Refusal to do so would be bargaining in bad faith, an infraction that, apparently, only the union can commit.

If I am understanding you correctly, this is the second time this has been alluded to: that something in labor law (NLRA, RLA, not sure what laws are being referred to) requires NWA to permit PFAA members in as observers. (If this is not what you are getting at, I apologize.) If this is what you are getting at, again I ask, as I did in an earlier post, could you please quote that particular provision and give the source?

Again, it is necessary to understand the differences in the legal requirements of the various laws. The RLA, (the NLRA does not apply to an airline), is incumbent upon BOTH parties and governs the actual process of negotiations. As I have previously stated, clearly, I have seen no such provision in the RLA, only the requirement to agree upon the particulars of the negotiating process. One of those particulars would be the presence of observers if one party places the issue on the table.

However, there are other laws, incumbent upon only one party to the negotiations, that affect the negotiations as well, by affecting what they attempt to do under the laws that are incumbent upon both. For one side to refuse to recognize that fact serves no useful purpose and serves only to increase animosity at the table

But, how can that be, if PFAA's legal case is so airtight?

The fact that NWA succeeded in keeping AMFA members from observing the actual negotiating table does not change the constitutional requirement, enforcable by the DOL (and the courts), that members be allowed to observe negotiations, nor does it prevent the presence of those members in the AMFA caucus room, to which the negotiators retire when not at the table and where most of the decisions are made.

For AMFA and the PFAA to avoid violating their constitutions, they need to at least allow the observers to get as close to the table as they can, which now would mean into the caucus room.

Previously, when the negotiators retired to the caucus room, the observers, having observed the negotiations, were aware of the issues that had most recently been discussed. Now, time will be lost explaining the current issues to the observers, causing the exact opposite of what NWA claims they want; faster negotiations.

As this scenario no doubt occurred to NWA when they refused to allow observers at the table, one must wonder what their intent could have been...