TWU-IAM Finally Getting Ready for JCBA Negotiations

[WeAAsles]

Yes very hard to file and exactly what I been saying all along but you consistently dispute by saying if the NMB doesn't follow their blah blah blah "file a lawsuit, file a lawsuit"

That's not me Brother. I'm just waiting to see how long it takes all these others to figure some S out?

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Here is an interesting one. Maybe this is why the Association is asking for a vote.
 
Court Throws Out Union’s Railway Labor Act Challenge to Employer’s Withdrawal of Voluntary Recognition and Rejection of CBA
 
On February 18, 2014, in Herrera v. Command Security Corp. d/b/a Aviation Safeguards, 2:12-cv-10968-SVW-RZx, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that an employer’s withdrawal of voluntary recognition of a union and rejection of its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) could not be challenged in court as a violation of the “status quo” provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
 
In Herrera, the court considered the following basic facts: the employer, Aviation Safeguards, voluntarily recognized the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) based on authorization cards obtained by SEIU from a majority of Aviation Safeguards employees. Aviation Safeguards then entered into a CBA with SEIU, but, before the end of the CBA (or “amendable date” in RLA-speak), Aviation Safeguards and some of its employees decided that SEIU no longer enjoyed support from a majority of Aviation Safeguards employees. Aviation Safeguards made its case to its employees and eventually received a union removal petition signed by a majority of its employees. At that point, Aviation Safeguards withdrew recognition and terminated the CBA.
 
SEIU and individual Aviation Safeguards employees challenged Aviation Safeguards’ actions in court, claiming Aviation Safeguards violated the RLA’s prohibition on changing terms to a CBA (the “status quo” obligation) without first going through the process outlined in the RLA (e.g., filing notices, bargaining, mediation). The court rejected this argument, determining the case presented a question about the union representation (or lack thereof) of Aviation Safeguards employees rather than about Aviation Safeguards’ breach of the status quo obligation. Under the RLA, questions about which union (if any) represents a group of employees are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (NMB). The court thus concluded it had no authority to grant relief under the RLA.
 
In so deciding, the court addressed the union’s argument that because of the voluntary recognition and the existing CBA, the employees who did not want the union were required to go to the NMB to remove the union before Aviation Safeguards could reject the CBA. The court disagreed and observed that because the union was voluntarily recognized and did not have a representation certification from the NMB, once representation was questioned the onus was on the pro-union employees to apply to the NMB to confirm representation rather than the other way around. The court also noted that the NMB did not have independent authority to initiate the process for determining representation.
 
The union and employees also claimed that Aviation Safeguards violated the RLA’s prohibition on employer interference with its employees’ choice of a labor representative. The court did not rule on the merits of the RLA interference claims because it determined the union and employees filed suit after expiration of the six-month statute of limitation applicable to RLA interference claims.
 
This case raises some interesting considerations for voluntary recognition under the RLA. As the court points out, voluntary recognition is permitted under the RLA, and the NMB will treat voluntarily recognized unions much the same as certified unions most of the time. But the Herrera decision suggests a court’s options are limited if the employer or its employees decide they no longer want union representation. Thus, the decision highlights some of the risks for unions—and potential flexibility for employers—when a union seeks voluntary recognition rather than following a more traditional route to an NMB certification

 

[CMH_GSE]

Yep except in this case the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction. 
 
When challenged the courts have consistently ruled, just as the NMB has consistently stated,  the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes of representation.
 
Yes very hard to file and exactly what I been saying all along but you consistently dispute by saying if the NMB doesn't follow their blah blah blah "file a lawsuit, file a lawsuit"

You are likely correct about being able to litigate the NMB decision.
It will be bible.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

That's not me Brother. I'm just waiting to see how long it takes all these others to figure some S out?

Sorry my bad that must be the Hero

 

[TWU informer]

Yep except in this case the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction. 
 
When challenged the courts have consistently ruled, just as the NMB has consistently stated,  the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes of representation.
 
Yes very hard to file and exactly what I been saying all along but you consistently dispute by saying if the NMB doesn't follow their blah blah blah "file a lawsuit, file a lawsuit"

 
Yep, its all about political influence.
And the union uses money from our paycheck to insure our collective voice is never heard. How ironic and anti-american is that?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Sorry my bad that must be the Hero

 
If you're attempting to throw aspersions in my direction at least try and get my position right.
 
I have freely admitted previously in this thread that the NMB is rarely overturned, I just acknowledge that it has in fact happened and could happen again.
 
With the IAM and TWU clearly not seeing eye-to-eye coupled with the TWUs internal local struggles with outspoken presidents making their obvious displeasure known, and the general mechanic memberships dislike of the alliance arrangement, I believe you'll see a legal challenge if the NMB certifies the alliance without a vote of the membership. Will it succeed? Maybe not, we'll see what happens when the NMB finally rules on the matter.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
Yep, its all about political influence.
And the union uses money from our paycheck to insure our collective voice is never heard. How ironic and anti-american is that?

Yeah yeah everything is a conspiracy but if AMFA could get in after 50 years trying. All would be sugar coated umm umm good
 
My Opinion LOL

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
If you're attempting to throw aspersions in my direction at least try and get my position right.
 
I have freely admitted previously in this thread that the NMB is rarely overturned, I just acknowledge that it has in fact happened and could happen again.
 
With the IAM and TWU clearly not seeing eye-to-eye coupled with the TWUs internal local struggles with outspoken presidents making their obvious displeasure known, and the general mechanic memberships dislike of the alliance arrangement, I believe you'll see a legal challenge if the NMB certifies the alliance without a vote of the membership. Will it succeed? Maybe not, we'll see what happens when the NMB finally rules on the matter.

I think I was quoting your "NMB published procedure" rhetoric  My bad was that someone else preaching that and about lawsuits if not followed?

 

[Bogey]

They will spin and spin. They won't seek truth regarding the PAFCA/TWU filing. Specifically.
 
1. A joint contract between PAFCA and the TWU and United was ratified.
 
2. That the contract required the PAFCA and TWU to file for single carrier jointly.
 
3. That PAFCA and TWU never formed an association to jointly represent the dispatchers..
 
4. That PAFCA wanted to represent the dispatchers
 
5. That the TWU wanted to represent the dispatchers.
 
6. The PAFCA had the numbers and the TWU did not show the required 50% showing of interest yet the NMB authorized an election.
 
Now this is where it gets funny and spinning. The guys here screaming and preaching that the NMB can't violate their own published rules are holding that this NMB authorization of election is an example of their "See this is how it is supposed to work, we win we win"

1-6 is correct, but just to add a little color. Local 542 which represented the dispatchers from Cal wanted to take on PAFCA. They had every intention of trying to win the PaFCA UAL over. The president of 542 had to email TWU leadership 5 times to get them to file for single carrier because they were in breach of contract because they were to file for single carrier within 10 days of ratification. They didn't. It took 2 months. After the cal dispatchers saw the way the international handled the 542 leadership, and the single carrier filing,they no longer wanted anything to do with TWU. 23 votes speaks volumes. The TWU screwed the pooch overall on this one.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
Whose twisting and turning? Whoever said the NMB wasn't doing their due diligence?  I merely stated my belief that if they deviate from their published procedures there will be a legal challenge.
 
BTW - Single Carrier Status and Single Transportation System are not interchangeable in this context - You won't find SCS anywhere in the NMB representational manual

Maybe  this is where I got it. Sorry didn't read that you switched your stance. My bad

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

1-6 is correct, but just to add a little color. Local 542 which represented the dispatchers from Cal wanted to take on PAFCA. They had every intention of trying to win the PaFCA UAL over. The president of 542 had to email TWU leadership 5 times to get them to file for single carrier because they were in breach of contract because they were to file for single carrier within 10 days of ratification. They didn't. It took 2 months. After the cal dispatchers saw the way the international handled the 542 leadership, and the single carrier filing,they no longer wanted anything to do with TWU. 23 votes speaks volumes. The TWU screwed the pooch overall on this one.

Yes of course TWU wanted it. Otherwise they would have stated so in the application or response to application if there would have been one

 

[Bogey]

Talking to 542 leaders, they would have run a card drive, if that's aloowed, to get the show of interest above 50 percent. International did nothing.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
Whose twisting and turning? Whoever said the NMB wasn't doing their due diligence?  I merely stated my belief that if they deviate from their published procedures there will be a legal challenge.
 
BTW - Single Carrier Status and Single Transportation System are not interchangeable in this context - You won't find SCS anywhere in the NMB representational manual

BTW - since some are to lazy to look it up here are two quick links to the NMB using Single Carrier and Single Transportation interchangeably.
 
https://storage.googleapis.com/dakota-dev-content/41-NMB-No.-23-Findings-Upon-Investigation-AA-US-Airways-CWA-IBT-Association-ACSEA-IBT-CWA.pdf
 
https://storage.googleapis.com/dakota-dev-content/CORRECTED-VERSION-41-NMB-No.-38-NMB-Case-No.-R-7401-CR-7126-Findings-Upon-Investigation-AA-US-Airways-APFA-AFA-CWA.pdf

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I think I was quoting your "NMB published procedure" rhetoric  My bad was that someone else preaching that and about lawsuits if not followed?

 
Funny, I see no quote of mine in your previous response, just more of your rhetorical nonsense.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

 
Funny, I see no quote of mine in your previous response, just more of your rhetorical nonsense.
 
ThirdSeatHero, on 11 Feb 2015 - 7:09 PM, said:

 
Whose twisting and turning? Whoever said the NMB wasn't doing their due diligence?  I merely stated my belief that if they deviate from their published procedures there will be a legal challenge.
 
BTW - Single Carrier Status and Single Transportation System are not interchangeable in this context - You won't find SCS anywhere in the NMB representational manual

You win man. Just like AMFA did.  Are you the one that also threatened me to come done to the floor too?