TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[blue collar]

Oh I know the name, very well, he is a friend of mine and anyone at US is free to contact him, they know who he is.
 
I'm scared of nothing, but it seems you are, I woner why a SWA employee is so concerned what happens with US and AA.
 
Yep you have the best pay, but you dont have the best scope at WN.
 
And you will see that the NMB will be holding the vote or recognizing the Alliance, I hope you are ready to eat your words.
Just as TSH has explained to you many times.

His name is Tom Regan, 700 has posted it before in some other thread.

 

[john john]

You dont seem very smart.

It would be very bad it the Passenger Service Agents at US had the same scope in their contracts as IAM at UA and if the company mirror the TWU and the IAM contract at US and AA

 

[700UW]

1AA,
 
This is not a normal merger election between two different unions, you can all keep quoting something that isnt the situation that is occurring.

 

[700UW]

It would be very bad it the Passenger Service Agents at US had the same scope in their contracts as IAM at UA and if the company mirror the TWU and the IAM contract at US and AA

You do realize the IAM at US has new CBAs, the ramp scope is the best in the industry.
 
How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?

 

[1AA]

1AA,
 
This is not a normal merger election between two different unions, you can all keep quoting something that isnt the situation that is occurring.

If it is under the control of the NMB then these are the only rules they currently have.
Is there an alternate set of regulations that only you and a few others know about?
Like I said UNLESS the rules change then this is what the NMB will proceed with. Show us what other proof you have from the NMB in writing that they will not follow their own regulations. Please no Q & A from the unions side. I still have a strong feeling the two unions are going to try to pull a fast one around a vote by the members.

 

[700UW]

It is not representational dispute, now is it?
 
Are there cards being submitted to call for the Alliance vote?
 
You cant apply rules and regulations to a totally different situation.
 
We will see what the NMB does when the Alliance files for the vote.
 
You do know the IAM and the TWU have had meetings with the NMB about this right?

 

[blue collar]

You do know the IAM and the TWU have had meetings with the NMB about this right?

Are they still going to try and ram it through without a vote?

 

[700UW]

Who knows what they will do.

 

[1AA]

It is not representational dispute, now is it?
 
Are there cards being submitted to call for the Alliance vote?
 
You cant apply rules and regulations to a totally different situation.
 
We will see what the NMB does when the Alliance files for the vote.
 
You do know the IAM and the TWU have had meetings with the NMB about this right?

So answer my question, what are the regulations by the NMB because if you say otherwise from the NMB they do not seem to back your version. Proof or just keep yapping. Show us all on this board what we do not know. Yes I do know the unions are in meetings with the NMB. Why? Because the rules are what they are and they are afraid of decertification. They are trying to find a way to convince the NMB to just pass this through without a memberships vote OR have only two choices on the ballot. But those two choices they want are Alliance or No union. Then if they succeed the fear of almighty hell will come from the unions if we decide to pick No union or No alliance accordingly. So yes the regulations are what they are and the unions are trying to circumvent them and instill fear in the membership in voting in a Alliance. Like Bob Owens said earlier, I will just through my ballot in the trash. We should all do so that way there will be no clear winner and decertification will proceed. How sad that members are even thinking about decertification instead of having this alliance shoved down our throats.

 

[700UW]

How is it fear if its the truth?
 
If the ballots say yes to the Alliance or non-union?
 
The NMB Manual addresses a representational dispute, can you not understand the difference?

 

[NYer]

Unless the current NMB rules change the choices will be more than two.
 
14.201
Official NMB Mail Ballots
 
It is NMB practice to list the incumbent, the applicant, the intervenor, the “write-in” option, and the “no representative” option in descending order on the ballot. If there is no incumbent and more than one applicant, the Investigator will determine the placement of the names on the ballot.
 
14.305-2
Valid Ballots
 
Voters will have the opportunity to vote for representation
by an organization or individual or for “no representative.” Where the voter’s intent to vote for representation is clear, the ballot is valid and will be counted as a vote for representation. If an organization or individual receives a majority of votes cast, it will be certified as the representative. If the majority of votes cast are for “no representative,” there will be no representative certified. In the event of a tie vote between votes for representation and votes for no representation, no representative will be certified.
Valid ballots cast for representation include “write-in” ballots which clearly indicate the voter’s desire for representation. Voters must “write-in” the name of a specific organization or individual to cast a valid vote.
 
 
16.0 RUN-OFF ELECTIONS
When an election results in no option receiving a majority of the valid ballots, or in the event of a tie, the Board shall hold a run-off election between the two options receiving the largest number of votes. The procedures for run-off elections are set forth in the NMB Rules § 1206.1 (29 CFR § 1206.1).
In a run-off election, the ballot will not include a space for “write-in” votes. The option receiving the highest number of votes in the run-off is declared the winner. (See 29 C.F.R. § 1206.1).
 
§ 1206.1
      Run-off elections.
      (a) If in an election among any craft or class no organization or individual receives a majority of the legal votes cast, or in the event of a tie vote, a second or run-off election shall be held forthwith: Provided, That a written request by an individual or organization entitled to appear on the run-off ballot is submitted to the Board within ten (10) days after the date of the report of results of the first election.
      In the event a run-off election is authorized by the Board, the names of the two individuals or organizations which received the highest number of votes cast in the first election shall be placed on the run-off ballot, and no blank line on which votes may write in the name of any organization or individual will be provided on the run-off ballot.
      (c) Employees who were eligible to vote at the conclusion of the first election shall be eligible to vote in the run-off election except (1) those employees whose employment relationship has terminated, and (2) those employees who are no longer employed in the craft or class.
 
 
References:
NMB representational Manual
 
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/representation/representation-manual.pdf
 
 
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29-Labor, referencing Part 1206
HANDLING REPRESENTATION DISPUTES UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2009-title29-vol4-part1206.xml

None of those pertain to a representational vote concerning a merger. The only organization that would be placed on a ballot are those that submit a validated application. In this case the organization submitting for the vote would be the Alliance. Therefore that would be the only choice, aside from no representation. In order for another organization to be placed on the ballot they would have to submit the proper application to the NMB.

 

[NYer]

It is not representational dispute, now is it?
 
Are there cards being submitted to call for the Alliance vote?
 
You cant apply rules and regulations to a totally different situation.
 
We will see what the NMB does when the Alliance files for the vote.
 
You do know the IAM and the TWU have had meetings with the NMB about this right?

In order to not have a vote an incumbent union would have to submit an application and show they already represent at least 50% of the combined work forces. In other words, if the TWU submitted alone, they would automatically be the representative body for all. If the IAM submitted alone, they wouldn't have enough and a vote would be needed. In the case of the Alliance, it is a new entity that would need to be voted on.

 

[MetalMover]

I think voting for an alliance of two unions is a little different than just voting between two unions.
Since I am not an expert on the NMB and labor law like some on this forum obviously are, it is possible that the vote might be YES for the alliance and No to the alliance. Which means there will have to be another vote for representation between the TWU and IAM.
 
I don't know how anyone can be so certain what the ballot will state. Let's wit and see and not speculate.

 

[NYer]

I think voting for an alliance of two unions is a little different than just voting between two unions.
Since I am not an expert on the NMB and labor law like some on this forum obviously are, it is possible that the vote might be YES for the alliance and No to the alliance. Which means there will have to be another vote for representation between the TWU and IAM.
 
I don;t know how anyone can be so certain what the ballot will state. Let's wit and see and not speculate.

Unless another organization gets involved in the initial request to the NMB, the choices would be Alliance and no representation. once the Alliance is voted in they will become the representative and no other vote under these circumstances would take place.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Gentlemen,
 
Here is a link to the NMB website. The representation manual is the 6th bullet point down.
 
http://www.nmb.gov/s...representation/
 
Refer to section 19 on mergers its fairly straight forward.
 
Again, I sincerely doubt the NMB will expose themselves to legal/political fallout that would ensue if they tried to certify the IAM/TWU alliance without a vote.