TWU states the Teamsters can't open contract....

[Chuck Schalk]

TWU

FACTS ON REPRESENTATION



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.

 

[swamt]

TWU

FACTS ON REPRESENTATION



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.

I have said this from the get go. NO union can force ANY company to re-nego or open a contract after a new union represenative has been voted in over another union represenative. However, with that said, the newly voted in union could very well ask the company to open or start new nego's after becoming the new represenative union, but, "the company must agree to open or nego new contract", it is not garrenteed that the contract will be re-opened as the teamsters have been saying they would do. Just look at the UAL guys who were promiced by the teamsters that they would re-open the contract. This has not happened, nor, will it ever happen until the amendable date comes up, UNLESS, the company agrees to it. Plain and simple as that folks. Don't let the teamsters fool you. They will promice you the world, but never come thru once they have been voted in, just ask the UAL boys.

 

[Bob Owens]

If a Union cant force a company to come to terms even when a contract is amendable why would anyone think they could do it when it isn't?

Nowadays Airline Unions are repeatedly denied the right to self help even long after terms became amendable and the company refused to negotiate, sure they go through the motions but agreeing to meet isn't really agreeing to negotiate.

The IBT knows better, when they asked to be released over at UPS they were denied, I would say the same thing happened with the TWU at AA but telling the mediator that you are saying that you want to be released, but really don't, doesn't count.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

If a Union cant force a company to come to terms even when a contract is amendable why would anyone think they could do it when it isn't?

Nowadays Airline Unions are repeatedly denied the right to self help even long after terms became amendable and the company refused to negotiate, sure they go through the motions but agreeing to meet isn't really agreeing to negotiate.

As any large carrier here in the US knows that going thru the process that is the RLA and the length of time the company can drag things along, being released is a JOKE.
Since AA would effect the US economy we here would never get released. If by chance that it did happen the PEB would force any union ( AMFA-TWU-IAM-IBT) back to work. The reason they would go back would be the fines levied against the union would cause financial harm to the union and its membership. No union leader would bk the union.

The railway labor act needs to be looked at and changed, it has now become unfair to labor. NWA was allowed to strike because no domestic route structure which would effect US economy. The TWU would not even request to be released since they have been in bed with AA and all the deals made over the yrs. The IBT says we can do it, but as Chris Moore (IBT Intl. Rep) and Robert Fischer said when we talked that they have the $$$ to doit, the amount of legal briefs that would be sent back and forth would drag it on so long that the normal contract openers time frame would happen long before the case would actually get to court. It's all just TALK with the IBT.

I hope at this time the mechanics here at AA realize this and will soon see it is all part of the IBT's SCAM.

So tell the Title II mechanics at your stations that it will NOT happen, as well tell your fellow AMT's at T-Town, its time to RID AA of the TWU which they say they want.


Sign an AMFA Card and lets remove the SCAMMERS from the TWU.....

 

[Bob Owens]

As any large carrier here in the US knows that going thru the process that is the RLA and the length of time the company can drag things along, being released is a JOKE.

When the head of the NMB is Larry Gibbons, former head of AIRCON, an organizations thats stated goal is to lower airline workers wages, labor should have known that traditional approaches would get us nowhere. the TWU actually praised Gibbons depsite his known history.

Legally the size of the carrier should not matter, AA should be treated the same as AirTran. If the government allows these airlines to get too big then the government should take them over.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Legally the size of the carrier should not matter, AA should be treated the same as AirTran..

Bob

My point was that any carrier that would effect US economy no matter of it's size, would not be released to strike.

And to open a contract at a carrier that told the union that they would not open early would be in litagation
for yrs before any talks would be held.

I also hope that you think long and hard about what you will do as far as this sham of a Local 591.

It's time that everyone puts in an effort not to change the TWU but send them Packing.

Not what AA is paying you but what the TWU fought for. NOTHING

AMFA NOW !!!!!!!!

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Source of TWU facts on representation
http://www.twu.org/b...86/default.aspx


They would not print it unless it was true

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob

My point was that any carrier that would effect US economy no matter of it's size, would not be released to strike.

Released doesn't mean strike, release starts the 30 day clock and is the next step in the process. that process could eventuate into a strike, a settlement, or a PEB. The NMB is overstepping their role when they drag things on for years, its not their decision to say that we are too big to strike, the President makes that call. If the President determines we are too big to strike he sends us to a PEB, where they make a recommendation based upon historical rates-not whether or not the company is feigning being broke. If we still cant settle Congress has the right to impose new terms but thats rare and unlikely when you have a Congress that is always touting less government.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Released doesn't mean strike, release starts the 30 day clock and is the next step in the process. that process could eventuate into a strike, a settlement, or a PEB. The NMB is overstepping their role when they drag things on for years, its not their decision to say that we are too big to strike, the President makes that call. If the President determines we are too big to strike he sends us to a PEB, where they make a recommendation based upon historical rates-not whether or not the company is feigning being broke. If we still cant settle Congress has the right to impose new terms but thats rare and unlikely when you have a Congress that is always touting less government.

Bob

Again you did not get what I said if the carrier effect US economy they will not get released.

So that you and I don't have to keep going back and forth I have been there.
I walked a picket line and have been through the process.

You being here at AA, 25+ yrs, I can assume have NOT. I did it at Eastern when there was such a thing as sticking together and a union was its members.

NOT like you guys have had here at AA with the TWU who always has rolled over.
looking out for the best interest of the company. just like a bunch of cheerleaders.

Its time for you to decide which team your on TWU or NOT..

 

[bigjets]

Source of TWU facts on representation
http://www.twu.org/b...86/default.aspx


They would not print it unless it was true

It's like the TWU is bragging that we are going to be stuck with this contract for 6 plus years. It's time for the TWU to stop being a lap dog union, it hasn't been working for us, the APA, and APFA STILL have contracts that are better then their peers at other airlines, while the TWU has had the worse contract for the past 9 years, and will continue to be the worst for the next 6 years, most likely 10 years.

 

[1AA]

Just add one more thing. The pilots have a company contribution to their 401k of 14%. We have 5.5%. Besides the big difference in the contribution percentages we have to contribute into the plan to get the match. The pilots do NOT! How's that for fighting like hell?

 

[Bob Owens]

It's like the TWU is bragging that we are going to be stuck with this contract for 6 plus years. It's time for the TWU to stop being a lap dog union, it hasn't been working for us, the APA, and APFA STILL have contracts that are better then their peers at other airlines, while the TWU has had the worse contract for the past 9 years, and will continue to be the worst for the next 6 years, most likely 10 years.

Only the mechanics have the worst in the industry. Obviously the people running the ATD hate mechanics, especially Line mechanics, even though some of them , like Overspeed, came from the line.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Just add one more thing. The pilots have a company contribution to their 401k of 14%. We have 5.5%. Besides the big difference in the contribution percentages we have to contribute into the plan to get the match. The pilots do NOT! How's that for fighting like hell?

I made the same statement on another thread and World Traveler informed me that the pilots not only make way more money than we do, they deserve a way better retirement than we do. He did not mention the fact that if both pilots and mechanics got a 14% contribution by AA without having to match, the pilots would still have way more money than we do because their 14% is much more than our 14%. But then again we are just mechanics and can't figure stuff out like that. We depend on eolesen and WT to tell us what to think and how everything works.

 

[TWU informer]

I made the same statement on another thread and World Traveler informed me that the pilots not only make way more money than we do, they deserve a way better retirement than we do. He did not mention the fact that if both pilots and mechanics got a 14% contribution by AA without having to match, the pilots would still have way more money than we do because their 14% is much more than our 14%. But then again we are just mechanics and can't figure stuff out like that. We depend on eolesen and WT to tell us what to think and how everything works.

And nobody knows that in zero visibility weather and the autopilot engaged that it is the systems and avionics AMT that is landing the aircraft loaded with people while the Pilot sits on his ass and waits for needed intervention, which rarely is needed. And apparently some don't really care either. While technology has lead to AMT's being more and more important to flight and safety, the Pilot wears his uniform, smiles, and gets all the credit. Life is not fair.