TWU and Teamsters are mirror images of each other.
- Thread starter Ken MacTiernan
- Start date
I think he is saying that the teamsters are liers. (surely not!)
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
Analnormaly,
Where do you work?
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
Not True. When the IBT replaced the association at UAL, they openly discussed the possibilities of entering in to section 6 negotiations ahead of the amendable date. The same was done by AMFA when they replaced the IAM. The only difference, AMFA could never afford to enter in to sustained negotiations. This is why the association more often elects to extend contracts but this is a different story.
Back to the case with UAL, the option to open was definitely and legally there, but the timing was not the best. At the time, UAL was crying poor, threatening the possibilities of a second bankruptcy, courting US Air as a merging partner after initially being turned down by Continental. Beyond all of that, the year was 2008, and also the time of the highest oil prices in history.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- One year ago, on July 3, 2008, oil prices settled at a record high -- a once-unthinkable $145.29 a barrel. http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/02/markets/year_oil/index.htm
Many thought we should go into negotiations anyway, but the more responsible realized the timing was not the greatest. I agree with the time frame chosen by the Teamsters and the positive results of the contract. The Teamsters are the ONLY union on the sUAL property who have been able to negotiate a contract. While the Pilots have come to an agreement in principal, this is still true today.
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
FACTS ON REPRESENTATION from the TWU...
The question has been raised of whether, under the RLA, a union which succeeds in decertifying and replacing the union which has previously represented a class or craft, may, by serving Section 6 notices on the employer/carrier, obligate that employer/carrier, regardless of how much time remains during which the existing CBA is defined by its own terms as unamendable, to negotiate terms and
conditions of employment with the new union, which differ from these set forth in the CBA. In other words: if a new union replaces TWU as representative of a class or craft at AA, does that union have the legal right to insist that AA negotiate with it to amend the ratified 6 year CBA between AA and TWU?
The answer to this question, which has been accepted without question for many years, is a simple No.
The National Mediation Board made its policy on the issue clear as early as 1934, its first year of operations:“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not
alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.” First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board (1935) pp. 23-24, cited with approval by the court in AFA v. USAir 24 F3d 1432, 143 (DC Cir., 1994). In 1994, the AFA v. USAir court further characterized as still “well established” the principle that “a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreement,” Id. And the ABA/BNA Treatise “The Railway Labor Act” (3d edition, 2012), generally considered an authority in the field, stated, unequivocally, this year: “If a new representative is selected to replace an incumbent, an existing collective bargaining agreement with the carrier remains in effect in accordance with its duration clause, and the new representative becomes responsible for administering that contract,”. pp. 13-14
There is no reported decision or otherwise authoritative opinion that supports the position that a “mere” change of representative--such as would take place at AA should the IBT or AMFA or any other union replace TWU as the bargaining representative of a class or craft as a result of an NMB election--can alter the provisions of a CBA already in effect, including its duration provision. The situation where the change of representative takes place in the context of, and as a result of a merger situation, involves far more complicated factors (including the disappearance of both originally contracting parties, and the disappearance of the original carrier class or craft into the class or craft at the new “single carrier&rdquo
than does a “mere” change of representative. To the extent that anyone—like IBT,
in literature now being distributed--relies on the law in a merger situation to apply to a “mere” change of representative, its reliance is entirely misplaced, and leads to wrong conclusions. The analysis and conclusion applicable to a “mere” change in representative continue to be exactly as stated by the NMB in its First Annual Report, and, most recently, by the 2012 Railway Labor Act Treatise: the existing CBA, including its duration provision, remains in effect to be administered by the new representative. To put it simply, a union which decertifies an incumbent union has no greater bargaining rights under the RLA than the union it replaces.
The question has been raised of whether, under the RLA, a union which succeeds in decertifying and replacing the union which has previously represented a class or craft, may, by serving Section 6 notices on the employer/carrier, obligate that employer/carrier, regardless of how much time remains during which the existing CBA is defined by its own terms as unamendable, to negotiate terms and
conditions of employment with the new union, which differ from these set forth in the CBA. In other words: if a new union replaces TWU as representative of a class or craft at AA, does that union have the legal right to insist that AA negotiate with it to amend the ratified 6 year CBA between AA and TWU?
The answer to this question, which has been accepted without question for many years, is a simple No.
The National Mediation Board made its policy on the issue clear as early as 1934, its first year of operations:“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not
alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.” First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board (1935) pp. 23-24, cited with approval by the court in AFA v. USAir 24 F3d 1432, 143 (DC Cir., 1994). In 1994, the AFA v. USAir court further characterized as still “well established” the principle that “a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreement,” Id. And the ABA/BNA Treatise “The Railway Labor Act” (3d edition, 2012), generally considered an authority in the field, stated, unequivocally, this year: “If a new representative is selected to replace an incumbent, an existing collective bargaining agreement with the carrier remains in effect in accordance with its duration clause, and the new representative becomes responsible for administering that contract,”. pp. 13-14
There is no reported decision or otherwise authoritative opinion that supports the position that a “mere” change of representative--such as would take place at AA should the IBT or AMFA or any other union replace TWU as the bargaining representative of a class or craft as a result of an NMB election--can alter the provisions of a CBA already in effect, including its duration provision. The situation where the change of representative takes place in the context of, and as a result of a merger situation, involves far more complicated factors (including the disappearance of both originally contracting parties, and the disappearance of the original carrier class or craft into the class or craft at the new “single carrier&rdquo
than does a “mere” change of representative. To the extent that anyone—like IBT, in literature now being distributed--relies on the law in a merger situation to apply to a “mere” change of representative, its reliance is entirely misplaced, and leads to wrong conclusions. The analysis and conclusion applicable to a “mere” change in representative continue to be exactly as stated by the NMB in its First Annual Report, and, most recently, by the 2012 Railway Labor Act Treatise: the existing CBA, including its duration provision, remains in effect to be administered by the new representative. To put it simply, a union which decertifies an incumbent union has no greater bargaining rights under the RLA than the union it replaces.
iluvaa
Veteran
- Mar 22, 2007
- 1,228
- 811
FACTS ON REPRESENTATION
August 14, 2012
The question has been raised of whether, under the RLA, a union which succeeds in decertifying and replacing the union which has previously represented a class or craft, may, by serving Section 6 notices on the employer/carrier, obligate that employer/carrier, regardless of how much time remains during which the existing CBA is defined by its own terms as unamendable, to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with the new union, which differ from these set forth in the CBA.
In other words: if a new union replaces TWU as representative of a class or craft at AA, does that union have the legal right to insist that AA negotiate with it to amend the ratified 6 year CBA between AA and TWU?
The answer to this question, which has been accepted without question for many years, is a simple No.
The National Mediation Board made its policy on the issue clear as early as 1934, its first year of operations:
“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.” First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board (1935) pp. 23-24, cited with approval by the court in AFA v. USAir 24 F3d 1432, 143 (DC Cir., 1994). In 1994, the AFA v. USAir court further characterized as still “well established” the principle that “a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreement,” Id. And the ABA/BNA Treatise “The Railway Labor Act” (3d edition, 2012), generally considered an authority in the field, stated, unequivocally, this year: “If a new representative is selected to replace an incumbent, an existing collective bargaining agreement with the carrier remains in effect in accordance with its duration clause, and the new representative becomes responsible for administering that contract,”.pp. 13-14
There is no reported decision or otherwise authoritative opinion that supports the position that a “mere” change of representative–such as would take place at AA should the IBT or AMFA or any other union replace TWU as the bargaining representative of a class or craft as a result of an NMB election can alter the provisions of a CBA already in effect, including its duration provision. The situation where the change of representative takes place in the context of, and as a result of a merger situation, involves far more complicated factors (including the disappearance of both originally contracting parties, and the disappearance of the original carrier class or craft into the class or craft at the new “single carrier&rdquo than does a “mere” change of representative. To the extent that anyone—like IBT, in literature now being distributed–relies on the law in a merger situation to apply to a “mere” change of representative, its reliance is entirely misplaced, and leads to wrong conclusions.
The analysis and conclusion applicable to a “mere” change in representative continue to be exactly as stated by the NMB in its First Annual Report, and, most recently, by the 2012 Railway Labor Act Treatise: the existing CBA, including its duration provision, remains in effect to be administered by the new representative. To put it simply, a union which decertifies an incumbent union has no greater bargaining rights under the RLA than the union it replaces.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks,
Allan Ball
IT/Communications
Transport Workers Union of America Local 514
11945 East Pine Street
Tulsa, Ok 74116
V 918.437.4300
F 918.437.0310
C 918.269.0504
http://TWU514.org
**
The heights by great men reached and kept
Were not attained by sudden flight,
But they, while their companions slept,
Were toiling upward in the night.
Henry W. Longfellow, "The Ladders of St. Augustine"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TWU514 Daily News" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/twumail.org/group/news/?hl=en.
August 14, 2012
The question has been raised of whether, under the RLA, a union which succeeds in decertifying and replacing the union which has previously represented a class or craft, may, by serving Section 6 notices on the employer/carrier, obligate that employer/carrier, regardless of how much time remains during which the existing CBA is defined by its own terms as unamendable, to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with the new union, which differ from these set forth in the CBA.
In other words: if a new union replaces TWU as representative of a class or craft at AA, does that union have the legal right to insist that AA negotiate with it to amend the ratified 6 year CBA between AA and TWU?
The answer to this question, which has been accepted without question for many years, is a simple No.
The National Mediation Board made its policy on the issue clear as early as 1934, its first year of operations:
“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.” First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board (1935) pp. 23-24, cited with approval by the court in AFA v. USAir 24 F3d 1432, 143 (DC Cir., 1994). In 1994, the AFA v. USAir court further characterized as still “well established” the principle that “a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreement,” Id. And the ABA/BNA Treatise “The Railway Labor Act” (3d edition, 2012), generally considered an authority in the field, stated, unequivocally, this year: “If a new representative is selected to replace an incumbent, an existing collective bargaining agreement with the carrier remains in effect in accordance with its duration clause, and the new representative becomes responsible for administering that contract,”.pp. 13-14
There is no reported decision or otherwise authoritative opinion that supports the position that a “mere” change of representative–such as would take place at AA should the IBT or AMFA or any other union replace TWU as the bargaining representative of a class or craft as a result of an NMB election can alter the provisions of a CBA already in effect, including its duration provision. The situation where the change of representative takes place in the context of, and as a result of a merger situation, involves far more complicated factors (including the disappearance of both originally contracting parties, and the disappearance of the original carrier class or craft into the class or craft at the new “single carrier&rdquo
than does a “mere” change of representative. To the extent that anyone—like IBT, in literature now being distributed–relies on the law in a merger situation to apply to a “mere” change of representative, its reliance is entirely misplaced, and leads to wrong conclusions.The analysis and conclusion applicable to a “mere” change in representative continue to be exactly as stated by the NMB in its First Annual Report, and, most recently, by the 2012 Railway Labor Act Treatise: the existing CBA, including its duration provision, remains in effect to be administered by the new representative. To put it simply, a union which decertifies an incumbent union has no greater bargaining rights under the RLA than the union it replaces.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks,
Allan Ball
IT/Communications
Transport Workers Union of America Local 514
11945 East Pine Street
Tulsa, Ok 74116
V 918.437.4300
F 918.437.0310
C 918.269.0504
http://TWU514.org
**
The heights by great men reached and kept
Were not attained by sudden flight,
But they, while their companions slept,
Were toiling upward in the night.
Henry W. Longfellow, "The Ladders of St. Augustine"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TWU514 Daily News" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/twumail.org/group/news/?hl=en.
Do you actually read what you are writing?
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
A very good read... twice. Seriously though, thanks for the post.
I will disagree based on experience having changed unions twice. For now, however, that is purely a non legal opinion of mine and I will not try to create my own an argument. I'll search the net when I have time and maybe I will come up with a compelling counter or explanation.
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
With all the PRO amfa footnotes on posts like the ones on twu informer, it seems to me they are fair game.
4A Mechanic
Member
- Jul 17, 2012
- 91
- 62
Anomaly, I'm not sure you'll have a counter to that letter. It came from our TWu local, remember the teamsters bed buddies? Lie all you want, but we already know the truth. Dont try and paint a different picture of your version, its a lost cause for you! GO AMFA!
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
The same TWU Local you are trying to replace? Suddenly NOW you will believe what they put out in writing?
