AMFA Organizing Drive to Replace Association

[BeechDriver]

What world do you live in nobody wants the IAM in Tulsa

Would the IAM risk the possibility of loosing to AMFA on a write in?

If that could happen I'd be very interested.
The sooner the better.

 

[99Ram]

What world do you live in nobody wants the IAM in Tulsa

I would take them over the TWU

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Would the IAM risk the possibility of losing to AMFA on a write in?

If that could happen I'd be very interested.
The sooner the better.

BeechDriver;

It's Not a question of if the IAM would take the risk or NOT isn't it the same risk for the TWU as Well? What would happen if the Members of M&R actually got a VOTE. Since there would be Association, IAM or TWU depending on which started the card drive, and NO union, and a write in. At this point since you all have seen the numbers there was enough cards turned in BY AMFA Organizers to get a Vote. So if the Title 2 guys who asked after the fact to sign cards now if they along with ALL those who signed AMFA cards in the past wrote in then the (2) industrial unions would be out.

But the MOST important thing in ALL of it would be that the Members of M&R got a VOTE.

The result of that VOTE would then be the choice of the M&R members and No further discussion will be required.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

I would take them over the TWU

99RAM;

Maybe in the past the IAM would of been a better choice. but they failed at UAL, CAL TWA, Eastern, USAir, Alaska, NWA all were represented by the IAM. Most filed BK and lost pensions and thousands of M&R employees. The TWU has been the one union that has set the BAR in a downward direction in the airline industry for the Last 40 yrs. AMFA may not be the save all but per the many haters here,, NWA is the carrier in which most say was the BIG failure of AMFA. So it is NOW up to you and the rest of the M&R members to ask yourself which Union representation is going to be the BEST for You going forward.

 

[JimmyBop]

I find that very hard to believe. Why in the world would the Mechanic and Related group go with one of the two already representing them? Especially when the IAM is the controlling entity of this combined asso. that just doesn't make sense. The majority DOES NOT want anything to do with these industrial unions any more, bring on the card drive please...

Yeah ok ...whatever you say.

 

[WeAAsles]

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
48 NMB No. 19
September 29, 2021

NMB Case No. R-7557
American Airlines/TWU/IAM Association and AMFA

For the reasons set forth below, AMFA’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

AMFA’S CONTENTIONS

AMFA requests the Board to reconsider its decision in dismissing its application
and contends that: (1) the Board erred in calculating AMFA’s showing of interest
because it alleges that it submitted a total number of 7,228 valid authorization cards;
(2) the Board erred in its determination that Donnie Gulledge and Larry Swimmer were
eligible to vote because AMFA alleges that both employees died before the cut-off date of
November 6, 2020; (3) the Board erred in its determination that the Flight Simulator
Engineers belong to the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees; (4) the
Board erred in its determination that Fleet Service Employees engaged in deicing work
were eligible to vote; and, (5) the Board erred in counting what AMFA alleges to be
duplicate entries for one employee, Jean Pierre Toussaint.

Showing of Interest
AMFA contends that it met its showing of interest and submitted a confidential list
containing the names of 7,228 employees whom AMFA alleges submitted cards as part
of its application. It contends that the NMB made errors in calculating its showing of
interest and requests that the NMB provide AMFA with the authorization cards that were
“removed by the Investigator” as well as the corresponding signature samples from
American Airlines. It requests further that it be “provided with copies of any specific
signature samples . . . for any authorization cards that may have been removed as
invalid” so that AMFA can “independently confirm any alleged invalidity.” As a remedy,
AMFA requests that the NMB authorize an election as required by its rules.
The Board’s rules at 29 C.F.R. §1208.4 (b) provides, in part, that “the NMB will treat
as confidential evidence submitted in connection with the showing of interest in a
representation dispute, including authorization cards and signature samples, and other
personally identifying information received during an investigation.” Section 3.0 of the
Manual also requires “the NMB keep all authorizations confidential. This includes the
names of individuals who have signed authorizations and the number of authorizations
submitted. The carrier The carrier or opposing party or parties should not be privy to the number
of percentage of authorizations furnished.”

Deceased Individuals
AMFA contends that Board erred in its determination that Donnie Gulledge and
Larry Swimmer were eligible to vote. It asserts that the Memoriam publication dated
September 2020 that it submitted to the Investigator is uncontested evidence that
Donnie Gulledge and Larry Swimmer died before the November 6, 2020 cut-off date.
AMFA asserts that the Memorial publication is more recent and should take priority over
what American Airlines submitted to the Investigator through the declaration of James
B. Weel, Managing Director, Labor Relations dated April 1, 2021. As a remedy, AMFA
requests that the names of both individuals be removed from the List of potential eligible
voters (List).
A review of the record show that AMFA’s contention in its Motion for Reconsideration
is a mere reassertion of arguments previously presented to the Board as it relates to
these two individuals. Accordingly, AMFA’s arguments regarding Donnie Gulledge and
Larry Swimmer are insufficient to warrant reconsideration and relief.1

Flight Simulator Engineers
AMFA contends that the Board erred when it did not consider the substantive
evidence AMFA provided in its Appeal demonstrating what it alleges to be a change in
circumstances that warrants a departure from the Board’s 2015 determination regarding
the Flight Simulator Engineers. That evidence consisted of a “copy of the 3rd Shift
Equipment Assignments for the Flight Simulator Engineers, dated March 1, 2021, which
indicates that Group 3, Repair and Test, perform the repairing and testing of the flight
simulators” and listed as exhibit Q2. AMFA asserts that Exhibit Q2 shows that only five
(5) Flight Simulator Engineers possess the skills to make repairs and perform hardware
maintenance. AMFA asserts further that the other “125 Flight Simulator Engineers do
not perform such hardware maintenance and do not possess the skills to perform such
hardware maintenance.” Thus, AMFA requests that the Board remove all Flight
Simulator Engineers from the List with the exception of Mike Attaway, Christopher
Vaugh, Robert Shull, and James Palmer.
The Board considered all evidence submitted by all participants and determined
that the Flight Simulator Engineers will remain in the craft of class of Mechanics and
Related Employees. AMFA’s arguments that Flight SimulatorEngineers do not perform
hardware maintenance and do not possess the skills to perform hardware maintenance
are mere reassertions of the arguments previously presented to the Board. AMFA’s
reassertions are insufficient to warrant reconsideration and obtain the relief requested.

Fleet Service Employees Engaged in Deicing
AMFA contends that the Board erred in its determination that the Fleet Service
Employees engaged in deicing were eligible to vote. AMFA reasserts the same arguments
previously presented to the Board and insist that “it is error to ignore the patently
obvious, namely that notwithstanding that a Fleet Service Employee has successfully
bid to perform deicing work, if the weather doesn’t create ice on the planes and no deicing
is required, deicing is not performed.”
In its determination, the Board considered the evidence and arguments submitted
by the participants and found that the Fleet Service Employees, who bid for and were
awarded the deicing positions in the locations where deicing is performed exclusively for
the time period that includes the cutoff date, were eligible to vote. The Board relied on
the following undisputed facts in its determination: the declarations made by the
employees who performed deicing work exclusively pursuant to the TWU/IAM Fleet
Association agreement; the declarations of Lynn Vaughn, Managing Director, Labor
Relations, who confirmed the locations where deicing functions are to be performed by
Fleet Service employees who bid for and are awarded positions devoted exclusively to
deicing; the confirmation by Lynn Vaughn of the names of the employees who bid for
and were awarded the deicing assignments for a specific period that includes the cut-off
date of November 6, 2020; and AMFA’s concession that deicing is in fact work that
belongs to the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. The lack of deicing
work, which AMFA argues is the error in this case, does not obliterate the contractual
rights of those employees who bid for and were awarded those deicing positions. AMFA
may disagree with the Board’s assessment of the evidence, however, AMFA’s reassertions
are insufficient to obtain the relief requested.

Duplicate Entries for Jean-Pierre Toussaint
AMFA contends that the employee on page 17 of the Investigator’s ruling engaged in
aircraft movement at the Carrier’s Boston station from September 28, 2020 through
November 8, 2020 and the employee on page 10 of the Investigator’s ruling engaged in
lavatory services at the Carrier’s Dallas Forth-Worth station from October 5, 2020
through November 22, 2020 is the same person. AMFA requests that at least one
duplicate entry for the employee be removed from the eligibility list for the purpose of
calculating the showing of interest.
A review of the evidence presented to the Investigator reveals that the Investigator
made a typographical error in her ruling, however, the error did not result in counting
the employee twice when determining the number of potential eligible voters as alleged
by AMFA. The Carrier’s evidence through the second declaration of Lynn Vaughn
confirmed that there are in fact two employees covered by the Investigator’s ruling.
Jeanne Pierre Picado 1292 L3 was engaged in lavatory services and Jean Pierre
Toussaint 1297 L3 was engaged in aircraft movement. Thus, the Investigator was
correct in counting both employees and the Investigator’s typographical error did not
impact the number of potential eligible voters as determined by the Investigator and
affirmed by the Board. Accordingly, AMFA has failed to demonstrate a material error of
fact made by the Board in its determination and AMFA’s request for reconsideration is
denied.

CONCLUSION
AMFA has failed to demonstrate a material error of law or fact or circumstances
on which the Board’s exercise of its discretion to modify the decision is important to the
public interest. Furthermore, the Board finds that AMFA has failed to show the prior
decision is fundamentally inconsistent with the proper execution of the Board’s
responsibilities under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §151, et seq. Accordingly, any
relief upon reconsideration is denied.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

 

[WeAAsles]

I find that very hard to believe. Why in the world would the Mechanic and Related group go with one of the two already representing them? Especially when the IAM is the controlling entity of this combined asso. that just doesn't make sense. The majority DOES NOT want anything to do with these industrial unions any more, bring on the card drive please...

AMFA appeal DENIED!!!!!

 

[JimmyBop]

NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
48 NMB No. 19
September 29, 2021

NMB Case No. R-7557
American Airlines/TWU/IAM Association and AMFA

For the reasons set forth below, AMFA’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

AMFA’S CONTENTIONS

AMFA requests the Board to reconsider its decision in dismissing its application
and contends that: (1) the Board erred in calculating AMFA’s showing of interest
because it alleges that it submitted a total number of 7,228 valid authorization cards;
(2) the Board erred in its determination that Donnie Gulledge and Larry Swimmer were
eligible to vote because AMFA alleges that both employees died before the cut-off date of
November 6, 2020; (3) the Board erred in its determination that the Flight Simulator
Engineers belong to the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees; (4) the
Board erred in its determination that Fleet Service Employees engaged in deicing work
were eligible to vote; and, (5) the Board erred in counting what AMFA alleges to be
duplicate entries for one employee, Jean Pierre Toussaint.

Showing of Interest
AMFA contends that it met its showing of interest and submitted a confidential list
containing the names of 7,228 employees whom AMFA alleges submitted cards as part
of its application. It contends that the NMB made errors in calculating its showing of
interest and requests that the NMB provide AMFA with the authorization cards that were
“removed by the Investigator” as well as the corresponding signature samples from
American Airlines. It requests further that it be “provided with copies of any specific
signature samples . . . for any authorization cards that may have been removed as
invalid” so that AMFA can “independently confirm any alleged invalidity.” As a remedy,
AMFA requests that the NMB authorize an election as required by its rules.
The Board’s rules at 29 C.F.R. §1208.4 (b) provides, in part, that “the NMB will treat
as confidential evidence submitted in connection with the showing of interest in a
representation dispute, including authorization cards and signature samples, and other
personally identifying information received during an investigation.” Section 3.0 of the
Manual also requires “the NMB keep all authorizations confidential. This includes the
names of individuals who have signed authorizations and the number of authorizations
submitted. The carrier The carrier or opposing party or parties should not be privy to the number
of percentage of authorizations furnished.”

Deceased Individuals
AMFA contends that Board erred in its determination that Donnie Gulledge and
Larry Swimmer were eligible to vote. It asserts that the Memoriam publication dated
September 2020 that it submitted to the Investigator is uncontested evidence that
Donnie Gulledge and Larry Swimmer died before the November 6, 2020 cut-off date.
AMFA asserts that the Memorial publication is more recent and should take priority over
what American Airlines submitted to the Investigator through the declaration of James
B. Weel, Managing Director, Labor Relations dated April 1, 2021. As a remedy, AMFA
requests that the names of both individuals be removed from the List of potential eligible
voters (List).
A review of the record show that AMFA’s contention in its Motion for Reconsideration
is a mere reassertion of arguments previously presented to the Board as it relates to
these two individuals. Accordingly, AMFA’s arguments regarding Donnie Gulledge and
Larry Swimmer are insufficient to warrant reconsideration and relief.1

Flight Simulator Engineers
AMFA contends that the Board erred when it did not consider the substantive
evidence AMFA provided in its Appeal demonstrating what it alleges to be a change in
circumstances that warrants a departure from the Board’s 2015 determination regarding
the Flight Simulator Engineers. That evidence consisted of a “copy of the 3rd Shift
Equipment Assignments for the Flight Simulator Engineers, dated March 1, 2021, which
indicates that Group 3, Repair and Test, perform the repairing and testing of the flight
simulators” and listed as exhibit Q2. AMFA asserts that Exhibit Q2 shows that only five
(5) Flight Simulator Engineers possess the skills to make repairs and perform hardware
maintenance. AMFA asserts further that the other “125 Flight Simulator Engineers do
not perform such hardware maintenance and do not possess the skills to perform such
hardware maintenance.” Thus, AMFA requests that the Board remove all Flight
Simulator Engineers from the List with the exception of Mike Attaway, Christopher
Vaugh, Robert Shull, and James Palmer.
The Board considered all evidence submitted by all participants and determined
that the Flight Simulator Engineers will remain in the craft of class of Mechanics and
Related Employees. AMFA’s arguments that Flight SimulatorEngineers do not perform
hardware maintenance and do not possess the skills to perform hardware maintenance
are mere reassertions of the arguments previously presented to the Board. AMFA’s
reassertions are insufficient to warrant reconsideration and obtain the relief requested.

Fleet Service Employees Engaged in Deicing
AMFA contends that the Board erred in its determination that the Fleet Service
Employees engaged in deicing were eligible to vote. AMFA reasserts the same arguments
previously presented to the Board and insist that “it is error to ignore the patently
obvious, namely that notwithstanding that a Fleet Service Employee has successfully
bid to perform deicing work, if the weather doesn’t create ice on the planes and no deicing
is required, deicing is not performed.”
In its determination, the Board considered the evidence and arguments submitted
by the participants and found that the Fleet Service Employees, who bid for and were
awarded the deicing positions in the locations where deicing is performed exclusively for
the time period that includes the cutoff date, were eligible to vote. The Board relied on
the following undisputed facts in its determination: the declarations made by the
employees who performed deicing work exclusively pursuant to the TWU/IAM Fleet
Association agreement; the declarations of Lynn Vaughn, Managing Director, Labor
Relations, who confirmed the locations where deicing functions are to be performed by
Fleet Service employees who bid for and are awarded positions devoted exclusively to
deicing; the confirmation by Lynn Vaughn of the names of the employees who bid for
and were awarded the deicing assignments for a specific period that includes the cut-off
date of November 6, 2020; and AMFA’s concession that deicing is in fact work that
belongs to the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. The lack of deicing
work, which AMFA argues is the error in this case, does not obliterate the contractual
rights of those employees who bid for and were awarded those deicing positions. AMFA
may disagree with the Board’s assessment of the evidence, however, AMFA’s reassertions
are insufficient to obtain the relief requested.

Duplicate Entries for Jean-Pierre Toussaint
AMFA contends that the employee on page 17 of the Investigator’s ruling engaged in
aircraft movement at the Carrier’s Boston station from September 28, 2020 through
November 8, 2020 and the employee on page 10 of the Investigator’s ruling engaged in
lavatory services at the Carrier’s Dallas Forth-Worth station from October 5, 2020
through November 22, 2020 is the same person. AMFA requests that at least one
duplicate entry for the employee be removed from the eligibility list for the purpose of
calculating the showing of interest.
A review of the evidence presented to the Investigator reveals that the Investigator
made a typographical error in her ruling, however, the error did not result in counting
the employee twice when determining the number of potential eligible voters as alleged
by AMFA. The Carrier’s evidence through the second declaration of Lynn Vaughn
confirmed that there are in fact two employees covered by the Investigator’s ruling.
Jeanne Pierre Picado 1292 L3 was engaged in lavatory services and Jean Pierre
Toussaint 1297 L3 was engaged in aircraft movement. Thus, the Investigator was
correct in counting both employees and the Investigator’s typographical error did not
impact the number of potential eligible voters as determined by the Investigator and
affirmed by the Board. Accordingly, AMFA has failed to demonstrate a material error of
fact made by the Board in its determination and AMFA’s request for reconsideration is
denied.

CONCLUSION
AMFA has failed to demonstrate a material error of law or fact or circumstances
on which the Board’s exercise of its discretion to modify the decision is important to the
public interest. Furthermore, the Board finds that AMFA has failed to show the prior
decision is fundamentally inconsistent with the proper execution of the Board’s
responsibilities under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §151, et seq. Accordingly, any
relief upon reconsideration is denied.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

BAM! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it .

 

[1AA]

Does anyone really think that the IAM, TWU or the AFL-CIO will allow this to happen?

 

[usjacket]

Give it a rest already!

 

[WeAAsles]

Yeah ok ...whatever you say.

swamp guy still running off to the Mods like a little sissy I see. Wah, Wah, Wah. Man TWU should have raided their pansy asses years ago.

 

[scorpion 2]

swamp guy still running off to the Mods like a little sissy I see. Wah, Wah, Wah. Man TWU should have raided their pansy asses years ago.

Ahh, but in the end your still a flunky throwing bags for pocket change oh wise one

 

[WeAAsles]

Ahh, but in the end your still a flunky throwing bags for pocket change oh wise one

Go lift a dumbbell there Izzy.

 

[Birdman]

Those of us that left AA for WN 8+ years ago certainly feel for those of you that stayed to continue the fight. I can honestly say we are ALL much happier than we were at AA having to work under the 2003 TWU concession contract . We will be hiring 120+ mechanics soon so if you can get your foot in the door I assure you it will be worth it. Still a 5 year top out, profit sharing when this COVID debacle subsides, and absolutely no threat of the TWU/Association EVER becoming our representatives. Good luck to all!

 

[scorpion 2]