I remember some of the people here saying over and over that the twu international owns the contract, I am pretty sure someone ,Bob maybe, that even mentioned a court case where this info came out.
Now this legal firm is saying the opposite is true.
Did I miss understand something ?
Perhaps I was not clear enough, the" Locals" under the TWU -AA system are not "party" to the agreement. The International is, on behalf of the entire membership. So they "own" it as long as the membership allows them to. The Locals do not have the authority to act on behalf of the membership beyond whatever authority the International gives them, that being local issues and discipline. The problem with this set up is the International is not elected solely or directly by the membership, so the membership is essentially turning over control of its contract to a body where they do not get to choose who administers their contract. The International in turn picks and appoints people in the ATD to administer the contract, often people that the members voted out of office are chosen to be their representatives to top level management, it doesnt take too much to realize what a problem this can be. People rejected by the members sitting in authority over people elected by the members determining what happens to our contracts. People who likely have little loyalty to the rank and file that rejected them and would reject them from their appointed position if given the opportunity.
So yes technically the members do own the contract, but under the TWU structure we do not get to choose who administers it beyond the Local level. Sure they have mock negotiations but thats only so the members blame their elected local leaders for the substandard contracts we get to vote on. The Local leaders, who are elected have no real say or legal authority over the contract or even the Union and the only option for the members is accept it, try and vote in people to attempt to change it (people who really do not have the authority to do so except at the Convention) or decertify the Union.
Appointed people who can not be held accountable through normal elections hold the contract for the members. Thats why no matter how many times people vote out their Local leaders we always end up with substandard deals. As the elected faces change the same people in the ATD remain because they do not face elections anymore. If too many elected faces wont play ball they do things like "self determination" or "Restructuring" to shake things up and try and regain control. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a Union when they put people in these positions that the members do not want, may as well just have another Boss. In fact it seems that people who get voted out who "played ball" have two new career paths, management or the International, with not really much difference between the two except the International job pays better and gets better flight benefits, pensions etc. Unions are supposed to give us a united powerful voice elected by the members that the company cant ignore, instead the AA-ATD has created a structure where the members can only elect people to represent us to the ATD which is routineley ignored by people who use the Union as a means to a new, much better paying career. Evidence of that is local 591, which the members said they did not want, yet it was forced upon us just like the concessions of 2003, the four years of negotiations without asking for a release and the concessions of 2012, all pushed in place by unelected appointees who did not have to live under the trems they helped put in place. The unanimous endorsement by the IEC of Local 591, which is made up of TWU representatives from locals that operate under a completely different structure that grants Locals much more authority over their contracts makes it very unlikely that signifcant changes to the way we are structured can be achieved at the next Convention.