TWU and IAM representation alliance vote
- Thread starter chellow
- Start date
- Status
Travis, can you post each and every letter from the 591 web site? Instead of just the link it would be more powerful to post each letter from each side involved. Trust me, too many people are too lazy to do their own work, they all want to be spoon fed. Spread these letters like wild fire brother. The more members from both sides that read these will further understand what is really going on. Most out here don't even know what is really going on. Hell, I don't work for either of the 2 airlines and I know more, way more, than 99% of the members at both. Get involved folks. It's your futures, not mine...
TRAVIS
Veteran
Transport Workers Union of America
Air Transport Local 591
September 2, 2014
Mary Johnson, General Counsel
National Mediation Board
1301 K Street, NW, Ste. 250E
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Single Carrier Filing by the TWU-IAM Alliance
NMB File No. CR-7131
Dear Ms. Johnson:
We read the IAM submission, dated August 28, 2014, with great disappointment.
Local 591’s only objective is to protect our members’ freedom to vote in a non-coercive
environment. Pursuant to the NMB Representation Manual, these workers have the right to have
only those unions that have demonstrated support from at least 50% of the employees listed on
the ballot. As required by law, any other union candidate should be relegated to the write-in
column, not forced upon our members with the complicity of the United States government.
These two incumbent unions should not be given the right to waltz in and name a new union – be
it the “TWU/IAM Association” or the Bakers Union had those chosen to list them instead – as
the inheritor of TWU or IAM members through a “perceived or perverse showing of interest.”
And that is precisely what the IAM proposes.
The IAM submission consists of three basic arguments. The first is that our demands for fairness
on behalf of American Airlines employees can safely be ignored because “the TWU
International Union is the certified represented [sic] under the Railway Labor Act” -- a curious
argument given the IAM’s goal of stripping our members of the right to vote for the TWU.
The NMB need not yield to this technicality, nor should it ignore the submission on behalf of
over 4,000 Local 591 members, that they be allowed to vote for their “incumbent” union. NMB
precedent establishes that, once a representation election has been initiated, the Board exercises
“broad discretion … concerning the manner in which it conducts investigations in representation
disputes ….” Arkansas Midland Railroad Co. 23 NMB 260, 271 (1996). See also Air Logistics,
27 NMB 570, 577 (2000)(“with respect to those matters subject to the Board's authority, the
determination of the particular investigative approach is wholly within the Board's discretion.”).
It is both shameful, and legally incorrect, to argue that the NMB should turn a blind eye to TWU
members’ rights to choose TWU or the “Association” independent of IAM; and the IAMmembership should independently enjoy the same right to choose IAM over the “Association.”
If the “Association” is so good for members, both Unions should easily be able to garner support
for and receive over 50% + 1 of their members’ votes for the “Association.”
The IAM’s second argument is that the NMB should install on the ballot a new union,1 which
has not satisfied any of the legal criteria satisfying a showing of interest, because the Board has
done so in the past. The IAM chiefly relies on Dobbs Int’l Servs. Inc. d/b/a Gate Gourmet,
which it both incorrectly cites2 and mischaracterizes. In Dobbs, which involved a union
coalition referred to as “the Council,” the NMB ultimately proceeded on the basis that Dobbs and
the Council had entered into a voluntary recognition agreement and collective bargaining
agreement covering all employees in the craft or class formerly represented by the coalition
partners separately. Dobbs Int’l Servs. Inc. d/b/a Gate Gourmet, 28 NMB 7, 10 (2000). In short,
it was the Council itself that demonstrated its own showing of interest based on its prior actions
as a labor organization. By contrast, in the instant case, the IAM seeks to allow the
“Association” a place on the ballot to oust the incumbent TWU, without any showing of interest
whatsoever. The TWU-IAM Association has never obtained a voluntary recognition agreement,
never negotiated a joint collective bargaining agreement, and never collected a single
authorization card.
The IAM’s reliance on US Airways/America West Airlines, 33 NMB 151 (2006) can only be
described as perversely ironic. In that case, the Board recognized the merged CWA-IBT entity
based on a prior membership voting process conducted by both predecessor unions. Specifically,
the NMB premised its recognition of the new entity on its finding that:
There is no evidence of fraud or gross abuse in the affiliation or election process
conducted by the IBT and CWA. Each organization conducted a secret ballot of
its members. In each election a substantial majority of those who voted, voted in
support of the formation of the Association and the request to transfer individual
certifications to the Association. Based on its investigation, the Board finds that
the IBT and CWA have affiliated for the purpose of representing Passenger
Service Employees at the combined carrier.
Id. at 168. It is a measure of the IAM’s desperation that it relies on the US Airways/America
West Airlines decision as precedent. In that case, the members’ democratic rights were
respected; in this case, they are being brazenly trampled underfoot.
Finally, the IAM concedes that “the RLA prohibits two or more unions from bargaining
separately for employees in the same craft or class ….” IAM Submission at 3. The IAM seeks
1 As discussed in detail in our prior submission, the TWU/IAM Association is bound by prior
representations in federal court that the objective of the current application is to “oust” the TWU
and “replace” it with a “new” union – the Association itself.
2 The IAM cites the case as Dobbs Int’l Servs. Inc. d/b/a Gate Gourmet, 27 NMB 537, 545-46
(2000). The correct cite is 27 NMB 1, 5 (2000).to circumvent this statutory prohibition by creating a false distinction between “bargaining”
(which the IAM claims the TWU and IAM will do jointly) and contract “enforcement” (which
will be performed by the unmerged predecessor unions, with segregated grievance and
arbitration processes, within their pre-merger spheres of influence).3
That this distinction is a false one is manifest to anyone with even a modicum of labor relations
experience. As the Supreme Court has recognized, collective bargaining “involves day-to-day
adjustments in the contract and other working rules, resolution of new problems not covered by
existing agreements, and the protection of employee rights already secured by contract.” Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). See also, NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967)
(“the duty to bargain unquestionably extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and
applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement”) (citations omitted);
International Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961) (“The assumption as well
as the aim of [the Railway Labor Act] is a process of permanent conference and negotiation
between the carriers on the one hand and the employees through their unions on the other”),
quoting Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 753 (1945) (Frankfurter, J.,
dissenting).
Even assuming that the self-styled TWU-IAM Association were to obtain the necessary showing
of interest to be awarded a position on the ballot, to permit that Association, as currently
structured, to represent the employees of the post-merger American Airlines would be to allow
the destructive division of union representation that, as the IAM concedes, the RLA has
prohibited.
Local 591 once again respectfully requests that the NMB honor the employees’ right to an honest
and lawful single carrier election process pursuant to which – barring the requisite showing of
interest by either the IAM or another union intervenor – the TWU appear as the only specifically
listed union candidate on the ballot, or, alternatively, that the TWU’s certification be extended to
cover the combined crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Peterson
President
Local 591
3 Even if the NMB resolves this “singleness of agency” issue in the IAM’s favor, the TWU-IAM
Association would still have no right to be placed on the ballot without the required showing of
interest.
Air Transport Local 591
September 2, 2014
Mary Johnson, General Counsel
National Mediation Board
1301 K Street, NW, Ste. 250E
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Single Carrier Filing by the TWU-IAM Alliance
NMB File No. CR-7131
Dear Ms. Johnson:
We read the IAM submission, dated August 28, 2014, with great disappointment.
Local 591’s only objective is to protect our members’ freedom to vote in a non-coercive
environment. Pursuant to the NMB Representation Manual, these workers have the right to have
only those unions that have demonstrated support from at least 50% of the employees listed on
the ballot. As required by law, any other union candidate should be relegated to the write-in
column, not forced upon our members with the complicity of the United States government.
These two incumbent unions should not be given the right to waltz in and name a new union – be
it the “TWU/IAM Association” or the Bakers Union had those chosen to list them instead – as
the inheritor of TWU or IAM members through a “perceived or perverse showing of interest.”
And that is precisely what the IAM proposes.
The IAM submission consists of three basic arguments. The first is that our demands for fairness
on behalf of American Airlines employees can safely be ignored because “the TWU
International Union is the certified represented [sic] under the Railway Labor Act” -- a curious
argument given the IAM’s goal of stripping our members of the right to vote for the TWU.
The NMB need not yield to this technicality, nor should it ignore the submission on behalf of
over 4,000 Local 591 members, that they be allowed to vote for their “incumbent” union. NMB
precedent establishes that, once a representation election has been initiated, the Board exercises
“broad discretion … concerning the manner in which it conducts investigations in representation
disputes ….” Arkansas Midland Railroad Co. 23 NMB 260, 271 (1996). See also Air Logistics,
27 NMB 570, 577 (2000)(“with respect to those matters subject to the Board's authority, the
determination of the particular investigative approach is wholly within the Board's discretion.”).
It is both shameful, and legally incorrect, to argue that the NMB should turn a blind eye to TWU
members’ rights to choose TWU or the “Association” independent of IAM; and the IAMmembership should independently enjoy the same right to choose IAM over the “Association.”
If the “Association” is so good for members, both Unions should easily be able to garner support
for and receive over 50% + 1 of their members’ votes for the “Association.”
The IAM’s second argument is that the NMB should install on the ballot a new union,1 which
has not satisfied any of the legal criteria satisfying a showing of interest, because the Board has
done so in the past. The IAM chiefly relies on Dobbs Int’l Servs. Inc. d/b/a Gate Gourmet,
which it both incorrectly cites2 and mischaracterizes. In Dobbs, which involved a union
coalition referred to as “the Council,” the NMB ultimately proceeded on the basis that Dobbs and
the Council had entered into a voluntary recognition agreement and collective bargaining
agreement covering all employees in the craft or class formerly represented by the coalition
partners separately. Dobbs Int’l Servs. Inc. d/b/a Gate Gourmet, 28 NMB 7, 10 (2000). In short,
it was the Council itself that demonstrated its own showing of interest based on its prior actions
as a labor organization. By contrast, in the instant case, the IAM seeks to allow the
“Association” a place on the ballot to oust the incumbent TWU, without any showing of interest
whatsoever. The TWU-IAM Association has never obtained a voluntary recognition agreement,
never negotiated a joint collective bargaining agreement, and never collected a single
authorization card.
The IAM’s reliance on US Airways/America West Airlines, 33 NMB 151 (2006) can only be
described as perversely ironic. In that case, the Board recognized the merged CWA-IBT entity
based on a prior membership voting process conducted by both predecessor unions. Specifically,
the NMB premised its recognition of the new entity on its finding that:
There is no evidence of fraud or gross abuse in the affiliation or election process
conducted by the IBT and CWA. Each organization conducted a secret ballot of
its members. In each election a substantial majority of those who voted, voted in
support of the formation of the Association and the request to transfer individual
certifications to the Association. Based on its investigation, the Board finds that
the IBT and CWA have affiliated for the purpose of representing Passenger
Service Employees at the combined carrier.
Id. at 168. It is a measure of the IAM’s desperation that it relies on the US Airways/America
West Airlines decision as precedent. In that case, the members’ democratic rights were
respected; in this case, they are being brazenly trampled underfoot.
Finally, the IAM concedes that “the RLA prohibits two or more unions from bargaining
separately for employees in the same craft or class ….” IAM Submission at 3. The IAM seeks
1 As discussed in detail in our prior submission, the TWU/IAM Association is bound by prior
representations in federal court that the objective of the current application is to “oust” the TWU
and “replace” it with a “new” union – the Association itself.
2 The IAM cites the case as Dobbs Int’l Servs. Inc. d/b/a Gate Gourmet, 27 NMB 537, 545-46
(2000). The correct cite is 27 NMB 1, 5 (2000).to circumvent this statutory prohibition by creating a false distinction between “bargaining”
(which the IAM claims the TWU and IAM will do jointly) and contract “enforcement” (which
will be performed by the unmerged predecessor unions, with segregated grievance and
arbitration processes, within their pre-merger spheres of influence).3
That this distinction is a false one is manifest to anyone with even a modicum of labor relations
experience. As the Supreme Court has recognized, collective bargaining “involves day-to-day
adjustments in the contract and other working rules, resolution of new problems not covered by
existing agreements, and the protection of employee rights already secured by contract.” Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). See also, NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967)
(“the duty to bargain unquestionably extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and
applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement”) (citations omitted);
International Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961) (“The assumption as well
as the aim of [the Railway Labor Act] is a process of permanent conference and negotiation
between the carriers on the one hand and the employees through their unions on the other”),
quoting Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 753 (1945) (Frankfurter, J.,
dissenting).
Even assuming that the self-styled TWU-IAM Association were to obtain the necessary showing
of interest to be awarded a position on the ballot, to permit that Association, as currently
structured, to represent the employees of the post-merger American Airlines would be to allow
the destructive division of union representation that, as the IAM concedes, the RLA has
prohibited.
Local 591 once again respectfully requests that the NMB honor the employees’ right to an honest
and lawful single carrier election process pursuant to which – barring the requisite showing of
interest by either the IAM or another union intervenor – the TWU appear as the only specifically
listed union candidate on the ballot, or, alternatively, that the TWU’s certification be extended to
cover the combined crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Peterson
President
Local 591
3 Even if the NMB resolves this “singleness of agency” issue in the IAM’s favor, the TWU-IAM
Association would still have no right to be placed on the ballot without the required showing of
interest.
TRAVIS
Veteran
TWU/IAM Association NMB Appeal
Posted On: Aug 24, 2014 - Updated On: Sep 03, 2014
August 21, 2014
VIA UPS
Mary Johnson, General Counsel
National Mediation Board
1301 K Street, NW, Ste. 250E
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Single Carrier Filing by the TWU-IAM Alliance
NMB File No. CR-7131
Dear Ms. Johnson:
The National Mediation Board (NMB) has issued a Notice to Employees stating that an entity identified as the “Airline and Related Employee Association TWU/IAM” (hereinafter, “TWU/IAM Association”) seeks to represent the Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks of the single carrier resulting from the merger of American Airlines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. (Exhibit A). The Notice identifies the incumbent union representatives of the Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks as the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) at American and US Airways, respectively.
This letter is submitted on behalf of Local 591 of the Transport Workers Union in opposition to any ballot to be issued by the National Mediation Board (NMB) that would designate the TWU/IAM Association as the “incumbent” for purposes of a single carrier union election for the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees and the craft or class of Stock Clerks. It is Local 591’s position that, in violation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and the NMB Representation Manual, the TWU/IAM Association’s application seeks to obtain a position on the NMB ballot as an “incumbent” to which it is not entitled and undermines the right of the Carrier’s employees to vote for their actual incumbent union representatives.
In addition, the designation of the TWU/IAM Association as a union candidate on the NMB ballot would violate the statutory requirement that the representation of a craft or class at a single carrier be delegated to a single labor union.
Local 591 represents approximately 3,800 Mechanics and Related Employees and 570 Stock Clerks at the pre-merger American Airlines, Inc. (American).
Factual Background
The NMB Notice to Employees recognizes the TWU as the incumbent union representative of the Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks at American and the IAM as the incumbent union representative of these same two crafts at US Airways. Recent NMB decisions confirm the separate incumbency status of the two unions at the respective carriers for the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees. In re Representation of Employees of US Airways, 40 NMB 257 (August 13, 2013)(NMB certification of the IAM as the exclusive representative of the Mechanics and Related Employees at US Airways); In re Representation of Employees at American Airlines, 40 NMB 259 (August 19, 2013)(NMB recognition of the TWU as exclusive representative of the Mechanics and Related employees at American). Likewise, a recent NMB decision recognizes the incumbency of the TWU and the IAM for the craft or class of Stock Clerks at American and US Airways, respectively. American Airlines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc., 41 NMB 174, 184-85 (2014)(referred to by the new job classification title Material Logistics Specialists).
On or about May 9, 2013, the TWU and IAM entered into an “Association Agreement” pursuant to which the two unions agreed to share representation rights at the single carrier emerging from the future merger of American and US Airways with respect to Mechanics and Related Employees. (Exhibit B). The agreement does not provide for a merger of the TWU and the IAM, but rather designates the two unions as “Labor Partners” that will continue to operate autonomously with respect to the representation of mechanics at those maintenance stations predominantly staffed by employees represented by the respective unions. In other words, at pre-merger stations predominantly staffed by American mechanics, the TWU will continue to provide representation services and at pre-merger stations predominantly staffed by US Airways employees, the IAM will continue to provide representation services; however, adjustments to representation can be made by the TWU and IAM International Presidents or their designees. (Exhibit B, ¶¶ 3-4 at 2 and Appendix B). The TWU and the IAM “pledge” their ongoing cooperation so that “both Labor Partners are able to properly represent the Craft or Class of Mechanic and Related Employees of the Carrier.” (Exhibit B, ¶ 6 at 4).
The Association Agreement does not provide for employee membership in the Association; rather, the Association Constitution defines membership as limited to the International Presidents of the TWU and the IAM and their “designees.” (Exhibit B, Appendix A at 3). ). An employee’s union membership will reside within the TWU or IAM, not the Association, depending on their location, and will transition from TWU to IAM or IAM to TWU, based on which union “handles the representation” in the location; irrespective of whether the employee voluntarily transfers or is involuntarily moved by a reduction-in-force. Furthermore, the amount of monthly union dues will vary for the employee depending on whether he is required to become a member of the TWU or the IAM. (Exhibit B, ¶ 8 at 5).
The craft or class of Stock Clerks is subject to a parallel agreement with substantially similar provisions. (Exhibit C).
With respect to both crafts, the duration of the Association is “coextensive” with representation of the craft at the “new American Airlines” or “until dissolved by agreement of TWU and IAM.” (Exhibit B, Appendix A at 1; Exhibit C, Appendix A at 1).
Violation of Employees’ Right to Vote for Incumbent Unions
The NMB’s grant of a ballot listing to specific union candidates provides those unions with an electoral advantage which, historically speaking, is virtually insuperable. Consequently, the NMB Representation Manual closely regulates under what terms unions receive this government-provided advantage.
In order to be listed on a single carrier union election ballot, the NMB Representation Manual provides that: “All applicants must submit evidence of representation or showing of interest from at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in the craft or class.” NMB Representation Manual § 19.601 (emphasis supplied).
Nevertheless, the NMB draws a sharp distinction with respect to the form in which incumbents, as distinguished from non-incumbents, may satisfy their showing of interest:
Evidence of representation or showing of interest from incumbent organizations or individuals on the affected carrier(s) includes, but is not limited to, a seniority list, dues check-off list, a current collective bargaining agreement or a certification, or other indicia of current representation.
If the organization or individual filing the application does not represent any of the employees covered by the application, showing of interest is proved by valid authorization cards. (See Section 3.0).
Id. Thus, pursuant to the NMB Representation Manual, the incumbent TWU is entitled to a listing on the ballot because over fifty (50) percent of the employees in the combined American/US Airways crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks work under a TWU-negotiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and have executed dues check-off cards in favor of the TWU. The incumbent IAM would be entitled to a listing on the ballot if it were to supplement its CBA-based showing of interest with a number of authorization cards sufficient to demonstrate the support of “at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in [each] craft or class.”
By contrast, even assuming that the TWU/IAM Association could be properly designated as a single labor union – which Local 591 disputes, as discussed in the section below – it is a non-incumbent labor union that cannot lawfully be listed on the ballot without providing valid authorization cards executed by at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in the combined craft or class.
The fact that the TWU/IAM Association constitutes a new entity, which cannot be accorded incumbent status, cannot be disputed because it has been repeatedly asserted before a federal court by the TWU’s legal counsel.
In the context of a duty of fair representation lawsuit brought by current members of Local 591 seeking to enjoin the TWU from discriminatory conduct, the TWU has argued that an injunction against the TWU would be meaningless because the effect of the single carrier union election process would be to “oust” the TWU as the incumbent union and “replace” it with the TWU/IAM Association as the “new” union. Thus, in its Motion to Dismiss, the TWU asserted:
f American emerges from bankruptcy and merges with U.S. Airways, TWU has entered into a “Joint Council” representation agreement with the International Association of Machinists (“IAM”) under which the Joint Council would become the bargaining representative for a joint AA-U.S. Airways M&R craft or class.
(Exhibit D at 16-17).
The TWU reiterated its position, in a reply brief submitted to the federal court, that:
[T]he TWU may be ousted as the collective bargaining representative and the Joint Council [of the TWU/IAM Association] may assume that status. As a matter of law, the duty of fair representation arises from a union’s designation as the collective bargaining representative. The duty of representation is owed by, and is imposed only upon, the entity that serves as the exclusive bargaining representative. If the Joint Council, rather than the TWU, is designated as the collective bargaining representative of the mechanics at the merged American, than [sic] as a matter of law it is the Joint Council, not the TWU, that will owe the mechanics a duty of fair representation.
(Exhibit E at 9)(emphasis in the original).
Finally, at oral argument before the federal court, TWU legal counsel asserted that, due to the candidacy of the TWU/IAM Association, neither the TWU nor the IAM would be the future labor representative of the post-merger American Mechanics and Related Employees:
[T]here's going to be an Association -- not the Transport Workers Union, not the Machinists -- that is going to be the new collective bargaining representative.
(Exhibit F at 15-16)(emphasis supplied).
The TWU/IAM Association has never been certified as the union representative of Mechanics and Related Employees or Stock Clerks at American or US Airways. No airline employee at either of these two airlines is covered by a CBA negotiated by this new entity nor has any airline employee executed a dues check-off card on behalf of the TWU/IAM Association. In view of the representations of TWU legal counsel, even assuming arguendo that the TWU/IAM Association could be considered a single labor union, the Association must be required to submit authorization cards by at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in the combined craft or class in order to be listed on the ballot.
As required by statute and the NMB Representation Manual, American and US Airways employees must be allowed to vote for their incumbent representatives, rather than permitting the manipulation of an NMB ballot to shove a new representative down their throats that has never satisfied the requisite showing of interest.
Violation of NMB Policy of One Union Per Carrier Per Craft
In view of the federal court representations cited above, the TWU/IAM Association is estopped from arguing before the NMB that it is anything other than a “new collective bargaining representative” the goal of which is to have the incumbent unions “ousted.”[SIZE=12pt][1][/SIZE]
Nevertheless, Local 591 anticipates that the TWU/IAM Association will argue that it constitutes a hybrid organization that is entitled to assert the united incumbency status of both the TWU and IAM. Even if such blatantly inconsistent argumentation were to be allowed, the candidacy of the TWU/IAM Association must be disallowed on the grounds that it violates the statutory requirement that the representation of a craft or class at a single carrier be delegated to a single labor union.
We are cognizant of the fact that the NMB’s representation process is not concerned with organization status and that the legalities of union governance are within the purview of the federal courts and the United States Department of Labor. DHL Airways, Inc., 18 NMB 117, 124 (1991); Orion Lift Service, Inc., 15 NMB 358 (1988). Nevertheless, one of the key foundations of the RLA is that a selected representative is the exclusive representative of the entire craft or class of employees. American Eagle Airlines, 33 NMB 243, 255 (2006).
NMB precedent starkly sets forth that the requirement of “singleness of agency” emanates from the United States Congress itself, allowing the Board no discretion to deviate from this standard:
[T]he Board is of the view that the idea of collective bargaining with a carrier denotes the collective participation of all the carrier's employees included in a single craft or class in its negotiations with the carrier by the method of representation. The word "collective" denotes singleness of agency in the same sense as the phrase "e pluribus unum" symbolizes the national unity of the States. It connotes not a part or parts of a subject but a collection of all the parts into one body, which applied in the case before us, means singleness of representation with a single carrier. On this point the Act seems literally definite as it reads:
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of the Act.
Note that the Act speaks of a majority of a craft or class determining "who shall be the representative" (not the representatives). The subjects "craft or class" and "representative" are both given in the singular number.
[SIZE=13pt]New York Central RR Co.,[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt] 1 NMB 197, 209 (1941)(emphasis provided).[/SIZE]
If the TWU/IAM Association is permitted to circumvent the representations it has made in federal court in order to maintain that the Association is in fact a mere alliance of two pre-existing incumbents rather than a new union, then even a cursory analysis of the Association’s structure confirms that it would result in the division of the craft or class into two subgroups each represented by an independent labor union. Of particular note are the following:
[SIZE=13pt]In sum, a single carrier election resulting in the designation of the TWU/IAM Association will effectively result in the perpetuation of pre-merger dual carrier representation. The employees will suffer the most from this deviation from RLA policy due to the loss of collective power and coherence that comes with the statute’s requirement of “singleness of agency.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]Where a single carrier exists, the RLA requires a single union representative for the entirety of the craft or class. Local 591 respectfully requests that the NMB honor the employees’ right to an honest and lawful single carrier election process pursuant to which – barring the requisite showing of interest by either the IAM or another union intervenor – the TWU appear as the only specifically listed union candidate on the ballot, or, alternatively, that the TWU’s certification be extended to cover the combined crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks.[/SIZE]
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Peterson
President
Local 591 – TWU
[SIZE=12pt][1][/SIZE] Judicial estoppel bars a litigant from asserting a position that is inconsistent with one that the litigant previously took before a court or agency. See, e.g.,Taylor v. Mooney Aircraft Corp., 265 Fed.Appx. 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2008); Montrose Med. Group Participating Savings Plan v. Bulger, 243 F.3d 773, 779 (3d Cir. 2001). It applies to assertions of both factual and legal positions, and may be applied based on the assertion of a party or a party's counsel. AFN, Inc. v. Schlott, Inc.,798 F.Supp. 219, 224 (D.N.J. 1992). "Thus, a position taken or a representation made by counsel in a legal brief or in argument to the court may provide a basis for estoppel." Id.
Download:
Aug 21 2014 NMB Final.pdf
Exhibits A-F.pdf
Posted On: Aug 24, 2014 - Updated On: Sep 03, 2014
August 21, 2014
VIA UPS
Mary Johnson, General Counsel
National Mediation Board
1301 K Street, NW, Ste. 250E
Washington, DC 20005
Re: Single Carrier Filing by the TWU-IAM Alliance
NMB File No. CR-7131
Dear Ms. Johnson:
The National Mediation Board (NMB) has issued a Notice to Employees stating that an entity identified as the “Airline and Related Employee Association TWU/IAM” (hereinafter, “TWU/IAM Association”) seeks to represent the Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks of the single carrier resulting from the merger of American Airlines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. (Exhibit A). The Notice identifies the incumbent union representatives of the Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks as the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) at American and US Airways, respectively.
This letter is submitted on behalf of Local 591 of the Transport Workers Union in opposition to any ballot to be issued by the National Mediation Board (NMB) that would designate the TWU/IAM Association as the “incumbent” for purposes of a single carrier union election for the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees and the craft or class of Stock Clerks. It is Local 591’s position that, in violation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and the NMB Representation Manual, the TWU/IAM Association’s application seeks to obtain a position on the NMB ballot as an “incumbent” to which it is not entitled and undermines the right of the Carrier’s employees to vote for their actual incumbent union representatives.
In addition, the designation of the TWU/IAM Association as a union candidate on the NMB ballot would violate the statutory requirement that the representation of a craft or class at a single carrier be delegated to a single labor union.
Local 591 represents approximately 3,800 Mechanics and Related Employees and 570 Stock Clerks at the pre-merger American Airlines, Inc. (American).
Factual Background
The NMB Notice to Employees recognizes the TWU as the incumbent union representative of the Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks at American and the IAM as the incumbent union representative of these same two crafts at US Airways. Recent NMB decisions confirm the separate incumbency status of the two unions at the respective carriers for the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees. In re Representation of Employees of US Airways, 40 NMB 257 (August 13, 2013)(NMB certification of the IAM as the exclusive representative of the Mechanics and Related Employees at US Airways); In re Representation of Employees at American Airlines, 40 NMB 259 (August 19, 2013)(NMB recognition of the TWU as exclusive representative of the Mechanics and Related employees at American). Likewise, a recent NMB decision recognizes the incumbency of the TWU and the IAM for the craft or class of Stock Clerks at American and US Airways, respectively. American Airlines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc., 41 NMB 174, 184-85 (2014)(referred to by the new job classification title Material Logistics Specialists).
On or about May 9, 2013, the TWU and IAM entered into an “Association Agreement” pursuant to which the two unions agreed to share representation rights at the single carrier emerging from the future merger of American and US Airways with respect to Mechanics and Related Employees. (Exhibit B). The agreement does not provide for a merger of the TWU and the IAM, but rather designates the two unions as “Labor Partners” that will continue to operate autonomously with respect to the representation of mechanics at those maintenance stations predominantly staffed by employees represented by the respective unions. In other words, at pre-merger stations predominantly staffed by American mechanics, the TWU will continue to provide representation services and at pre-merger stations predominantly staffed by US Airways employees, the IAM will continue to provide representation services; however, adjustments to representation can be made by the TWU and IAM International Presidents or their designees. (Exhibit B, ¶¶ 3-4 at 2 and Appendix B). The TWU and the IAM “pledge” their ongoing cooperation so that “both Labor Partners are able to properly represent the Craft or Class of Mechanic and Related Employees of the Carrier.” (Exhibit B, ¶ 6 at 4).
The Association Agreement does not provide for employee membership in the Association; rather, the Association Constitution defines membership as limited to the International Presidents of the TWU and the IAM and their “designees.” (Exhibit B, Appendix A at 3). ). An employee’s union membership will reside within the TWU or IAM, not the Association, depending on their location, and will transition from TWU to IAM or IAM to TWU, based on which union “handles the representation” in the location; irrespective of whether the employee voluntarily transfers or is involuntarily moved by a reduction-in-force. Furthermore, the amount of monthly union dues will vary for the employee depending on whether he is required to become a member of the TWU or the IAM. (Exhibit B, ¶ 8 at 5).
The craft or class of Stock Clerks is subject to a parallel agreement with substantially similar provisions. (Exhibit C).
With respect to both crafts, the duration of the Association is “coextensive” with representation of the craft at the “new American Airlines” or “until dissolved by agreement of TWU and IAM.” (Exhibit B, Appendix A at 1; Exhibit C, Appendix A at 1).
Violation of Employees’ Right to Vote for Incumbent Unions
The NMB’s grant of a ballot listing to specific union candidates provides those unions with an electoral advantage which, historically speaking, is virtually insuperable. Consequently, the NMB Representation Manual closely regulates under what terms unions receive this government-provided advantage.
In order to be listed on a single carrier union election ballot, the NMB Representation Manual provides that: “All applicants must submit evidence of representation or showing of interest from at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in the craft or class.” NMB Representation Manual § 19.601 (emphasis supplied).
Nevertheless, the NMB draws a sharp distinction with respect to the form in which incumbents, as distinguished from non-incumbents, may satisfy their showing of interest:
Evidence of representation or showing of interest from incumbent organizations or individuals on the affected carrier(s) includes, but is not limited to, a seniority list, dues check-off list, a current collective bargaining agreement or a certification, or other indicia of current representation.
If the organization or individual filing the application does not represent any of the employees covered by the application, showing of interest is proved by valid authorization cards. (See Section 3.0).
Id. Thus, pursuant to the NMB Representation Manual, the incumbent TWU is entitled to a listing on the ballot because over fifty (50) percent of the employees in the combined American/US Airways crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks work under a TWU-negotiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and have executed dues check-off cards in favor of the TWU. The incumbent IAM would be entitled to a listing on the ballot if it were to supplement its CBA-based showing of interest with a number of authorization cards sufficient to demonstrate the support of “at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in [each] craft or class.”
By contrast, even assuming that the TWU/IAM Association could be properly designated as a single labor union – which Local 591 disputes, as discussed in the section below – it is a non-incumbent labor union that cannot lawfully be listed on the ballot without providing valid authorization cards executed by at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in the combined craft or class.
The fact that the TWU/IAM Association constitutes a new entity, which cannot be accorded incumbent status, cannot be disputed because it has been repeatedly asserted before a federal court by the TWU’s legal counsel.
In the context of a duty of fair representation lawsuit brought by current members of Local 591 seeking to enjoin the TWU from discriminatory conduct, the TWU has argued that an injunction against the TWU would be meaningless because the effect of the single carrier union election process would be to “oust” the TWU as the incumbent union and “replace” it with the TWU/IAM Association as the “new” union. Thus, in its Motion to Dismiss, the TWU asserted:
f American emerges from bankruptcy and merges with U.S. Airways, TWU has entered into a “Joint Council” representation agreement with the International Association of Machinists (“IAM”) under which the Joint Council would become the bargaining representative for a joint AA-U.S. Airways M&R craft or class.
* * *
TWU would thus no longer continue as the bargaining representative for the mechanics at the single carrier; it would be replaced by the Joint Council.(Exhibit D at 16-17).
The TWU reiterated its position, in a reply brief submitted to the federal court, that:
[T]he TWU may be ousted as the collective bargaining representative and the Joint Council [of the TWU/IAM Association] may assume that status. As a matter of law, the duty of fair representation arises from a union’s designation as the collective bargaining representative. The duty of representation is owed by, and is imposed only upon, the entity that serves as the exclusive bargaining representative. If the Joint Council, rather than the TWU, is designated as the collective bargaining representative of the mechanics at the merged American, than [sic] as a matter of law it is the Joint Council, not the TWU, that will owe the mechanics a duty of fair representation.
(Exhibit E at 9)(emphasis in the original).
Finally, at oral argument before the federal court, TWU legal counsel asserted that, due to the candidacy of the TWU/IAM Association, neither the TWU nor the IAM would be the future labor representative of the post-merger American Mechanics and Related Employees:
[T]here's going to be an Association -- not the Transport Workers Union, not the Machinists -- that is going to be the new collective bargaining representative.
(Exhibit F at 15-16)(emphasis supplied).
The TWU/IAM Association has never been certified as the union representative of Mechanics and Related Employees or Stock Clerks at American or US Airways. No airline employee at either of these two airlines is covered by a CBA negotiated by this new entity nor has any airline employee executed a dues check-off card on behalf of the TWU/IAM Association. In view of the representations of TWU legal counsel, even assuming arguendo that the TWU/IAM Association could be considered a single labor union, the Association must be required to submit authorization cards by at least fifty (50) percent of the employees in the combined craft or class in order to be listed on the ballot.
As required by statute and the NMB Representation Manual, American and US Airways employees must be allowed to vote for their incumbent representatives, rather than permitting the manipulation of an NMB ballot to shove a new representative down their throats that has never satisfied the requisite showing of interest.
Violation of NMB Policy of One Union Per Carrier Per Craft
In view of the federal court representations cited above, the TWU/IAM Association is estopped from arguing before the NMB that it is anything other than a “new collective bargaining representative” the goal of which is to have the incumbent unions “ousted.”[SIZE=12pt][1][/SIZE]
Nevertheless, Local 591 anticipates that the TWU/IAM Association will argue that it constitutes a hybrid organization that is entitled to assert the united incumbency status of both the TWU and IAM. Even if such blatantly inconsistent argumentation were to be allowed, the candidacy of the TWU/IAM Association must be disallowed on the grounds that it violates the statutory requirement that the representation of a craft or class at a single carrier be delegated to a single labor union.
We are cognizant of the fact that the NMB’s representation process is not concerned with organization status and that the legalities of union governance are within the purview of the federal courts and the United States Department of Labor. DHL Airways, Inc., 18 NMB 117, 124 (1991); Orion Lift Service, Inc., 15 NMB 358 (1988). Nevertheless, one of the key foundations of the RLA is that a selected representative is the exclusive representative of the entire craft or class of employees. American Eagle Airlines, 33 NMB 243, 255 (2006).
NMB precedent starkly sets forth that the requirement of “singleness of agency” emanates from the United States Congress itself, allowing the Board no discretion to deviate from this standard:
[T]he Board is of the view that the idea of collective bargaining with a carrier denotes the collective participation of all the carrier's employees included in a single craft or class in its negotiations with the carrier by the method of representation. The word "collective" denotes singleness of agency in the same sense as the phrase "e pluribus unum" symbolizes the national unity of the States. It connotes not a part or parts of a subject but a collection of all the parts into one body, which applied in the case before us, means singleness of representation with a single carrier. On this point the Act seems literally definite as it reads:
The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of the Act.
Note that the Act speaks of a majority of a craft or class determining "who shall be the representative" (not the representatives). The subjects "craft or class" and "representative" are both given in the singular number.
* * *
The Act leaves the Board in no doubt that Congress had in mind single representation for each craft or class on each carrier when enacting it; and that had the Congress thought of subdivisions of a craft or class or of a carrier as desirable methods of representation it would have made provision for their use.[SIZE=13pt]New York Central RR Co.,[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt] 1 NMB 197, 209 (1941)(emphasis provided).[/SIZE]
If the TWU/IAM Association is permitted to circumvent the representations it has made in federal court in order to maintain that the Association is in fact a mere alliance of two pre-existing incumbents rather than a new union, then even a cursory analysis of the Association’s structure confirms that it would result in the division of the craft or class into two subgroups each represented by an independent labor union. Of particular note are the following:
- Individual employees cannot become members of the Association;
- Individual employees who are currently members of one of the two incumbents may, due to transfer or displacement, be compelled to join the other incumbent;
- The Association Constitution provides that “both” Labor Partners will independently represent their respective members in their pre-merger territories of predominance
[SIZE=13pt]In sum, a single carrier election resulting in the designation of the TWU/IAM Association will effectively result in the perpetuation of pre-merger dual carrier representation. The employees will suffer the most from this deviation from RLA policy due to the loss of collective power and coherence that comes with the statute’s requirement of “singleness of agency.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]Where a single carrier exists, the RLA requires a single union representative for the entirety of the craft or class. Local 591 respectfully requests that the NMB honor the employees’ right to an honest and lawful single carrier election process pursuant to which – barring the requisite showing of interest by either the IAM or another union intervenor – the TWU appear as the only specifically listed union candidate on the ballot, or, alternatively, that the TWU’s certification be extended to cover the combined crafts or classes of Mechanics and Related Employees and Stock Clerks.[/SIZE]
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Peterson
President
Local 591 – TWU
[SIZE=12pt][1][/SIZE] Judicial estoppel bars a litigant from asserting a position that is inconsistent with one that the litigant previously took before a court or agency. See, e.g.,Taylor v. Mooney Aircraft Corp., 265 Fed.Appx. 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2008); Montrose Med. Group Participating Savings Plan v. Bulger, 243 F.3d 773, 779 (3d Cir. 2001). It applies to assertions of both factual and legal positions, and may be applied based on the assertion of a party or a party's counsel. AFN, Inc. v. Schlott, Inc.,798 F.Supp. 219, 224 (D.N.J. 1992). "Thus, a position taken or a representation made by counsel in a legal brief or in argument to the court may provide a basis for estoppel." Id.
Download:
Aug 21 2014 NMB Final.pdf Exhibits A-F.pdf
TRAVIS
Veteran
Looks like the TWU is having internal trouble with this BS alliance.
http://www.local591.com/?zone=/unionactive/private_view_page.cfm&page=22TWU202F20IAM20Association20Info22
GET YOUR AMFA CARD IN NOW!
http://www.local591.com/?zone=/unionactive/private_view_page.cfm&page=22TWU202F20IAM20Association20Info22
GET YOUR AMFA CARD IN NOW!
TRAVIS
Veteran
You would think a certain person on here would have posted this to keep his IAM brothers informed! Like he does with all postings from the unions. LOL
TRAVIS
Veteran
Cant copy and post some of them... People need to go see the rest for them self!swamt said:
http://www.local591.com/?zone=/unionactive/private_view_page.cfm&page=22TWU202F20IAM20Association20Info22
No he will not and this just proves more of how and what he is really doing. He did not want this info out as it is a HUGE negative against this alliance they are trying to put together without a ballot type voting.TRAVIS said:
Glad to see you were able to post some of them. Also, copies need to be made and distributed for all the members to read at their work locations in all cities. I know it's on the web site, but you and I both know the majority does not take the time to go to these sites to get updates. The majority ALWAYS depends on the leaders spoon feeding them the information, and I assure you they are not spoon feeding them this information otherwise we would have seen many forums kicked up before now. This is a big spoiler for the IAM/TWU alliance, however, I am pretty sure the TWU does not care if this alliance never goes thru as they could very possibly be the winner of a run off with the IAM. But they will be very concerned if AMFA is put on the ballot as an incumbent or at least if there is a "write-in" option.
BTW Travis, got your note, no worries, understand. Good luck...
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
Translation 700UW.TRAVIS said:
I figured out he was a lying sycophant a long time ago. I am glad the rest of the forum is "catching up".
Now how long is it going to take for people to see that Ms Tree only uses liberal "civil rights" agendas to push his own anti Christian agenda.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
Obsess much?La Li Lu Le Lo said:
I thought the topic was The IAM/TWU Alliance.
On topic...
Write in AMFA, or prepare to be screwed again.
xUT
Veteran
I may be incorrect but I can not think of one mainline carrier that has stores in the M&R class & craft.chellow said:
Why do you think they are trying to do this?
Good Luck Guys N'Gals as the iam/twu try to prevent any other choice than the crap you have and your convoluted future under an 'association' that will not require/nor desire input from the unwashed masses.
The eligible voters for the M & R class and craft were already determined by the NMB during our last attempt to get AMFA in at AA. That is still fresh in the minds of those of us who wanted the TWU out - only about 10 years ago. The TWU tried to include retired people, dead people, random fleet service clerks, administrative support people, management, the list goes on and on of non eligible types that the TWU attempted to slip in the M & R group to dilute the vote. Why, because they knew that the vast majority of aircraft mechanics wanted out of the TWU. They can try and include stores, but the NMB won't bite.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #869
That doesn’t matter I use to work at a IAM airline, and the way they play it, is if your in the same local (district) - Stores and M&R you all vote together for the same contract. A loaf of bread for M&R cost the same for Stores.swamt said:
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
No class action law suits for vote interference?
- Status
Similar threads
